User talk:Chiafriend12

RfA "nominations"
I'm bringing this issue straight to you, as I don't think a discussion on the RfA talk page will get very far. This concerns a recent trend of users nominating other users for adminship.

The RfA page does not state that users can nominate anyone but themselves, and even if they are allowed to do so, I feel that it is against the spirit of the wiki to put people up for higher positions without their knowledge or consent. It feels that many users are treating admin positions as rewards or recognition for contribution rather than the issues admins are expected to handle, as seen by the numerous "he deserves it" line of thought.

Several recent nominations of other users have resulted in rejections by the nominated user and discussions don't seem to be looking positive. My hunch is that the nominees may feel that the discussion is occurring "behind their back". I'm sure you can agree that users are more than willing to nominate themselves if they feel like they're up for the job.

Being the senior bureaucrat, could you officially clarify expectations on the RfA page? --Scottie theNerd 16:15, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. As BigM once said on one of my past RFAs, "Adminship is not deserved, it is simply extra tools". Someone nominating someone else usually does not mention why giving the user administrative/bureaucratic rights would benefit the wiki, they normally just flatter them and tell everyone else how good they are. 17:25, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, when I nominated both Griever and EightOhEight it was with their permission in cases where I asked them, they did not ask me. So users don't always ask for nominations.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 05:08, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Same went for when I nominated for Juan as admin. 09:56, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

RFBs
Hello Chiafriend. As you probably know there are 2 bureaucrat nominations going on. Will you be willing to make 2 new bureaucrats or just 1? (I do realize that my vote might still fail, so don't worry I'm not jumping ahead of myself here). I would like to know because if you will only accept one then I'll do something regarding my RfB. 19:47, April 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * So you ignore me... :/ 11:28, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm... 10:45, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

hate to break it to ya
But you are no longer a 'Crat. Enjoy being an admin for the rest of your life! >:D Darkman 4 05:15, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * lol, I was quite confused until I saw Slowrider's comment in that RFA. Good stuff. Imrlybord7 05:43, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've accepted that Pokertape has replaced you. Darkman 4 06:24, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

You have not won. You have only managed to archive me.
Well, I'm back. And I'd like to remind you that regardless of how many battles you may have won, the one you just won was Pyrrhic, at best, so I am still winning. >:) Icepac K s 00:25, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha yeah. I've seen that video. It has my full support :P. If necessary I'll download the video and censor it myself :P. (you're now losing) Icepac K s 11:07, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Icepac K s 01:58, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Turn your friggin' mic off. (What kind of sandwich?) <_< Icepac K s 14:20, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

We Need to halt the Roleplay
We need to see which users should be removed from Roleplay (because they haven't been doing anything like posting chapters) and ask some people to change their characters and not make them be hollywood actors who can fire 2 M1 Garands with both hands and reload in 0.2 seconds. So can we halt? Toilet Bowl Soldier 08:11, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the heads up :D Toilet Bowl Soldier 02:49, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

End Tage Der Albatrume
I think the roleplay should end now, Chia. I'm not in it but I've seen the rapid growth of the roleplay. As Toilet Bowl Soldier said above, first remove any users then work on a way to finish the story. 09:56, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Call of Duty 8
Why can't I edit call of Duty 8? FIKUS96 17:33, April 11, 2010 (UTC)