Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Tdxiang

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Tdxiang (bureaucrat)

Ends 27 June 2007 I would like to nominate myself for the position of bureaucrat. I have been an administrator for 7 months and I would like to help out in giving bot flags and renaming of vandal accounts, as well as other users' accounts. Thank you.-- Tdxiang 09:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support I see no problem. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} ^Adminship 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support Tdxiang has been doing great work as an administrator. I don't see any reason not to support his request. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support can't think he'll be doing much work, but I trust him. Majorly (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support. It's not clear to me that we need another, and I'm not convinced that vandal accounts need to be renamed. However, based on the person, I don't think those things are enough to oppose. Also, if someone knows offhand, could they direct me to the discussion on renaming vandal accounts. Thanks, -  BrownE34  talk  contribs 
  • The discussion is here. Archer7 - talk 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support What's the harm in having another, even if he'll be bored?--Werdan7^{T @} 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• support, Why not?? He never abuse of sysop tools. --vector ^_^ (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Hell yes. --'Choos'nink ^TALK 19:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't this RfB over now? --Isis§^(talk) 01:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose (reluctantly). Sorry, you show the skills necessary to do it, but I'm not sure we need any more. We have 3 active bureaucrats and not that much to do. One bureaucrat could probably handle it, two bureaucrats can get it done quicker and deal with immediate problems, three bureaucrats covers virtually everything. Is a fourth really necessary? With administrators, it's just extra tabs to help with 'normal tasks' really, but having four bureaucrats all going after the same work seems a little pointless. However, I'm quite happy for people to throw me off and replace me with Tdxiang if people think it's a good idea, I know I don't have a massive amount of time any more. Archer7 - talk 11:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Week oppose I'm sure he has got the requirements, but as Archer7 noted, I don't see any need for a new bureaucrat on this small wiki. On the other hand, the little amount of time Tdxiang would put on bureaucract tasks if he is chosen to be one, he will put on tasks which require normal or sysop access, if he is not chosen; this means, his remaining a sysop will help him spend more time on the tasks which really need being done. With regards - Huji ^reply 21:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sorry, but it's an oppose from me on the basis that we need no more bureaucrats. That said, I'm sure you'll make a very good one if we need one in the future. Billz (Talk) 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sadly, I oppose. I have a large amount of respect for Tdxiang, but I am falling into the "we really don't need any more bureaucrats" mentality. I am sure that Tdxiang would take his job seriously, but any more than 3 bureaucrats would assure that the 'crats are tripping over each other trying to close RfAs, which is the only substantial bureaucrat job here. Sean William 23:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

4 oppose, 6 support; giving a 66% approval, the question however remains if there is enough work for 4 bureaucreats...--Eptalon 12:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is a difficult one, but I've given it a few days, and many people are now agreeing on the talk page that the percentage for RfBs should be 75%. I'm now closing this as unsuccessful. Archer7 - talk 19:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.