Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/CyborgTosser

Moved from voting page

Explanation demanded
Why was this person promoted in the face of considerable dissent and numerous valid objections? Shorne 13:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

24/29 = 83% the objections were that too few edits were made - sorry but the number of edits required are subjective and enough people clearly think that he  does have enough. Netholic objected that he didn't accept the nomination and answer the questions - that was explained. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 13:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The objections pertained to far more than the number of edits, as anyone with two eyes can see. I consider this action a mockery of consensus. Shorne 14:10, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You seem very very upset by this. He's only been made an admin, it's supposed to be no big deal. Sorry the vote didn't go your way, but that's the nature of voting. Why don't you keep an eye on his edits and bring any abuse of admin power to the attention of the community? Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 14:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm upset that serious objections were ignored. As for abuses of power, there are others that I have already brought to the attention of the community. The administration seems content to disregard them as well. Shorne 14:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If there were other reasons to show CyborgTosser should not have been made an admin, they should have been made here, at RfA. The community is awfully big... -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This was an easy promotion. More than 80% and no objections presented that the editor would use admin powers wrongly or prejudicially. If Shorne knows of other more substantive reasons this person should not have been promoted, they should have been made during the week's time so as to be more persuasive. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I concur. The only thing dubious about this vote was the apparent ulterior-motive on the part of User:Ruy Lopez. Using this vote to make some kind of "point", (and failing to be upfront about the actual "point"), was inappropriate and unfair to the nominee. If you want to do something about what you perceive as "systematic bias", then find the appropriate venue in which to do so, (like Xed eventually did). func(talk) 15:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)