Community Central:RfA/Tedjuh10

RfA Blurb
He has been reverting vandalism, proposing images for deletion, and he has made useful suggestions to Wikia concerning Dutch translations. A list of his contributions can be found here, his edit count is here. He has proven to be helpful and invaluable so here, and having administrative rights will greatly improve his work. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 16:48, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * I, Tedjuh10, accept this RfA. It will certainly help cleaning up vandalism. Mark (Talk) • (Contribs) 16:53, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As nominator. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 16:48, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I agree with the helpfulness of the nominee, especially in translation work, however there isn't a need for more admins who can deal only with vandalism and delete irrelevant material. I would concur that another admin could be needed for other reasons, but we seem to have plenty of people who fill the role of the reasons stated in the blurb. -- 01:53, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) -- 16:48, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Charitwo gulp  Madclaw  (Talk) 17:04, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I think locally wise that Central doesn't need anymore users capable of deleting spam or vandalism (the above links by Charitwo show this) nor does Central need anymore blocks. Everything local on Central seems to be taken care of and I don't see the need for an another admin for deletions or local anti-vandalism work (although global wise is another story I can attest to firsthand) and he certainly doesn't need to be a sysop to translate Dutch pages. Great guy, but he doesn't need the tools. ~Joey~   ^Talk^  21:06, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Darth Tom, please give a good reason to oppose. Mark (Talk) • (Contribs) 16:50, October 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * You're being helpful around Wikia. Tom doesn't like people like that. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 16:59, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I agree with Charitwo. There's nothing more for me to say. -- 17:01, October 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * If it seems that you always give these reasons; you're oppose will be removed (at least, I think). But I certainly won't remove it. Mark (Talk) • (Contribs) 17:03, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be removed. I made a perfectly legitimate vote agreeing with Charitwo. If you want to strike mine, then Charitwo's must be wrong too, which it isn't. -- 17:06, October 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Charitwo. There are other people more qualified for this position who don't have sysop rights. Furthermore telling someone to give a good reason to oppose is a big no-no to me, everyone has a right to their opinion. the fact that you think the vote will be removed gives me the impression that you clearly do not know what being a central admin is abbout, especially on central sysops is a maintenance tool and in no way a form of authority.  Madclaw  (Talk) 17:11, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly know what it's about; also, I said it might; referring to Brandon's comment. Mark (Talk) • (Contribs) 17:15, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Brandon's comment is only working inflammatory in this situation, sometimes it's best to ignore him.  Madclaw  (Talk) 17:37, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Allright. Let's just see what comes out. Mark (Talk) • (Contribs) 17:39, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to inflame anything. I said that based on something that was said to me via IRC in an open channel. The lack of an actual opposition reason from Tom had also gone towards making it look like that was the case. If it's wrong, then OK, then I was wrong. But you can't blame me for why I came to that conclusion. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 17:41, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * So your reaction was based on pure speculation.  Madclaw  (Talk) 17:47, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Very loose speculation, considering the actual comment. =) - Brandon Rhea (talk) 17:48, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not do this discussion here... Mark (Talk) • (Contribs) 17:48, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Brandon, Rfa's are serious business, comments based on loose speculation have no place on a page where only well founded comments have merit, not only does this make tom look bad it makes you look bad too.  Madclaw  (Talk) 17:54, October 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I said if I was wrong, then I was wrong and I apologize if I am. If it was based on speculation despite me thinking that it was backed up by a real comment in an open channel, I apologize. There was no attempt to inflame anything. =) I also apologize if any of my comments contributed to bringing this topic off track. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 17:56, October 11, 2009 (UTC)