SmashWiki:Requests for bureaucratship/Randall00

Result of discussion: Not promoted.

Randall00
See here: SmashWiki:Requests_for_adminship/Randall00 (actually reading it would be appreciated, too) - the application is the same in my mind. -- RJM Talk 03:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you tell us how Randall the bureaucrat would be different from Randall the sysop? I know you're qualified, but using your RfA as your RfB is kind of a thumbs down for me.  I'm neutral as of right now.  Cheezperson (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fail, Fail, Double Fail. Sorry, but your appearences here have been quite sporatic lately. KP317 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral, and I'll tell you why. While I think that the majority of what you've done for the site is beneficial, it also seems like you sometimes lose your temper, and this has made you rather unpopular among certain users.  I think that discipline is acceptable within reason, but perma-bans don't really show people that you're cool-tempered.  These conflicting pieces of evidence land me right in the middle.  Unless you can show me and the rest of the site that your temper has improved, this position is unlikely to change. 5280s (talk · contributions) 19:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's of a continual surprise to me that everyone seems to have this image as someone who will fly off the handle and "lose his temper." Maybe you have to be involved with the conversations right from where they began, but the fact is, I've done nothing more than defend myself and to this day, I would argue that every ban I've ever made would've been beneficial to the SmashWiki project as a whole today if they had been left in place. This is the only social avenue in my entire life where I've been referred to as "hot-tempered"-I'm in fact quite peaceable and quiet; I just don't let people berate me personally and I don't believe anyone should just sit and take that unprovoked. But yes, because of all of this and because of the considerably larger and considerably louder people who don't seem to think I'm all that cool anymore, I'm not surprised that my show for support here has weakened tremendously from my response as a sysop. Frankly, I don't even know what real operational advantage a Bureaucrat has over a sysop in the Wikia universe because I'm fairly sure you still don't get access to the MediaWiki files on the server and thus, I can't even say what I could offer to the community in that position. All I can promise is that every tool I am granted will be put towards making SmashWiki the best source of Smash Bros.-related information on the internet. If you don't believe me, it's just a waste of my skill set, and a baseless and unnecessary distrust in what I'm here for in the first place. -- RJM Talk 23:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I do see where you're coming from. I'm not saying that I personally consider you to be hot-tempered. Rather, is seems that enough people see you that way that your bureaucratship would likely only make them unhappy with the administration again.  Unfortunately, many of this site's regular users see the situation this way.  I think this should be used as your opportunity to make amends.  (I'm Jewish, and let's say it's that time of year.) I only said neutral because I don't want the whole argument over why the admins are evil to start up again.  5280s  (talk · contributions) 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

*Neutral. From what I remember (I witnessed the incident from the beginning), You made 5 bans total of that incident, with two being reverted because the two had nothing to do with the incident. CH shortened them to a month, and that seemed to work quite well on them. Yesterday, Fyre banned two of the same accounts. One was unbanned because he was an established User (her reason to ban him in the first place was that he had the same IP address). Even Fyre (with all due respect to her), who everyone knows has one of the worst tempers here, felt that only a month would be sufficient. While I still believe it's a bit harsh, it's not as harsh as infinite bans. Therefore, I'd like to stay neutral.  Mario Galaxy  { talk } 19:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Im not quite sure what the difference between Randall the Sysop and Randall the bureaucrat is. JtM =^&#93; (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't trust you as a sysop; I don't trust you as a bureaucrat. --Shadowcrest 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Sorry, but I'm just not sure if you're qualified. Ignore the above, it doesn't relly matter.  Mario Galaxy  { talk } 02:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * None of that as anything to do with being qualified for a bureaucrat position, but I should expect nothing less, I suppose. -- RJM Talk 15:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral. sorry, but you aren't on here much lately. nothing personal, of course. Xtrme (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as my question hasn't been answered, and there has been nothing but neutral and oppose for 20 days, I'll move for this request to be closed.   Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 03:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think between CH, KK, and Dtm, things are pretty covered. That and I don't think the candidate is really ready for this. -- 04:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, everybody, my name's clearly been tarnished; so long as y'all know you're wrong. :^) -- RJM Talk 01:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)