Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of an unsuccessful Requests for bureaucratship

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (1/1/0/1/0/2/2/1/3/1 x JFK/Argh!/i/WP:WOTTA/π/That's Numberwang!, Ackermann(4,4)); closed as unsuccessful by Antonio Lopez at 00:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I nominate Wikipedia:Requests for adminship for bureaucratship. This would be a major improvement to the RFA process by avoiding the need for individual, fragile, opinionated users making decisions on who gets the sysop bit and other massively important decisions. When an RFA is closed, RFA would decide whether or not to +sysop the user, and all would be right in the world. tleSif (atlk) 08:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Sure. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. Yes, I see every damn RFA, so I know what happens.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. Hold a vote.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. Because I've been around longer than you.

Optional questions that are compulsory

4. Are you broken? --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Z. Absolutely not. RFA is the worst process we could use to select sysops, except for all those other processes. Feel free to request an alternative process if you prefer.

5. How old are you? --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Z. 5 and a bit.

6. Do you know what "prima facia" means and can you spell it? (I can't) --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Z. It means "Latin's a dead language, as dead as dead can be. It killed off all the Romans, and now it's killing me.

7. Are there enough RfAs? Or should that be RfBs? --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Z. Who cares?

8. Won't Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship be mad at you? --Antonio Lopez ^(desu) 13:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Y. Sure.

General comments

---

Please keep discussion constructive and avoid allegations.

Discussion

• • For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter

--Antonio Lopez ^(desu) 13:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • For the sockpuppet (thanks WilyD for telling us):
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter

Antonio Lopez ^(desu) 14:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support  rdunnPLIB  11:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - This promotion is long overdue. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. You don't exist, gtfo http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia Antonio Lopez ^(desu) 13:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2. I'm pretty sure this is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Requests for adminship. WilyD 13:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Moral Oppose. I approve of non-human editors such as AIs so would normally support, but from the size of the talk archives candidate is excessively Myspacey. ϢereSpielChequers 14:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   You hating on androids, you are an andriodist! Equal rights for bots! Android(anonymous too!) Liberation front! Antonio Lopez ^(desu) 19:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose - You've only written 12 FAs, and you only have 150,000 edits. Also, you told somebody to "go away" six years ago. I suggest withdrawing this nomination. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose iMatthew :  Chat  20:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Strongest Possible Oppose Incivil to other users.  Marlith (Talk)  19:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete

1. Delete. This is just an attempt by the process to take over and devour the entire bureaucracy inside out! It will assimilate every single RfA until the process closes on itself resulting in an absolute collapse of space-time, deranging the universe forever more! Let's all delete it while we can!!!111two -- Mentifisto 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's Numberwang!

1. Shinty-six Oh bad luck, I'm afraid shinty-six is a real number. As in, this RFB only has shinty-six days left to live. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2. needs moar pie GlassCobra 17:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy International Airport

1. I'm going there tomorrow. tleSif (atlk) 08:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support because I can. Kennedy ^(talk) 08:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
3. I also completely JFK this nomination! darkweasel94 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

SKYNET

1. The machines are taking over!!! SoWhy 10:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2. LoL The Pink Phink :  Text me!  11:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

1. Yup, this is april fools, but this April Fools gag just made me O_o. Steve Crossin :  Chat  10:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Recuse

Someone'll have close this thing. --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll take a vote of all stewards and devs. flSiet (aklt) 11:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For a moment I read this as "recurse". Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I recursed myself; I accidentally deleted this page! --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I recursed myself;

Perhaps I recursed myself;

Perhaps I recursed myself;

Perhaps I recursed myself;

Perhaps I recursed myself;

Perhaps I recursed myself;

Desu

1. Desu Needs MOAR desu Antonio Lopez ^(desu) 13:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

ழுக்காக

ㄇㄈㄉㄊㄋㄌㄍՁՂՃՄՅՆՇՈ -- אבי 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I like pie

fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.