{{Delete|RfA has been derailed by recent events. No longer applicable.}}
Hello all,
Due to a minor spat, I've lost my temp-op privileges under Dr.F. Now, let me be clear. I was not fired because of anything explicitly bad or otherwise un-admin-ish behavior. I was fired because I was no longer serving the purpose that I was hired for, making Dr.F's job easier. Minions don't think freely, and I had begun to proceed down that road. I'd think Dr. F would agree.
That being said, I would like to apply for a legitimate sysop position. Gaining these privileges would still very much bound me to wikia policy, but I simply wouldn't have to answer directly to Dr.F. Of course, it is the community's decision as to whether I attain this position or not.
If the community should grant me this request, I would be eternally grateful and would do my best to serve the wiki as I always have for a bit over a year now.
Thank you all for your time,
02:55, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Yay
Nay
Discussion
Support
Dispute
You were clearly editing a talk page entry protected by Dr.F. I would have to answer to that. Why wouldn't you? 
05:33, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
I did answer for it. Hence why I am but a lowly rollbacker now. 11:54, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
I don't believe in become admin over an argument. happypal (talk • contribs)
I have mixed feeling about this. On one hand, I believe You (NOhara) could make a good Admin provided you stayed impartial. You are dedicted the the Wiki and its integrity. For these reasons, i respect you as an editor and wiki community member. On the Other hand You have, on occasion, done things that i would consider quite un- Admin like. I have brought these things to your attention in the past when i felt the need and will not harp on them here. I will support you should you get the position, but would hope you contemplate your decisions more in that capacity. 
19:04, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
Free Discussion
Both (slightly) in the wrong, move along
- I think NOhara24 was in the wrong to pursue editing the page after Dr.F made his stance explicit.
- I think Dr.F has made abusive use of his Bureaucrat powers. One does not un-sysop on a whim, or on a spat (even if temp). And most of all, one does not un-sysop just because of a disagreement.
- Overal, I think both parties were in the wrong in edit waring and having a pissing contest, instead of having a constructive discussion. I saw good points from both parties:
- I understand why Dr.F is against the editing of the pages.
- Mainspace is mainspace, and NOHara is correct to wish to maintain a level of standard.
Now, can we just please move on. borderlands wiki does not need a feud like this. Dr.F is by far the best bureaucrat I have ever seen on wikia. NOhara24 is a great (temp) sysop who has done great work for the wiki. I want to see NOhara24 have his temp-sysop status back (Not against full sysop, but that is another discussion, IMO). Seriously, it is just a single disagreement on a single page...
From there, can we have a constructive discussion about what we should do about these pages, and discuss what the policy is (I don't remember seeing one, apart from Dr.F's tags), and move away from these "he said, he did" crap. happypal (talk • contribs) 08:36, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Atleast give his temp-op status back. It has been what.. almost a year now? There's only been a few spats over stupid little things. We all make mistakes, but other than this hitting the fan, it has been quite nice around here. ♥ ☮✰Razldazlchick ♥ ☮✰ 14:39, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
"(as a sysop)...I simply wouldn't have to answer directly to Dr.F." Staff and Janitors > Bureaucrat > Administrator > minions. there remains a flaw in the equation that i would like to see resolved. historically an rfa contains a list of accomplishments and goals to the furtherance of the wikia for vetting by the community vice a desire to countermand established hierarchy. also i tend to agree with douglas adams in that those who desire power the most are the ones that deserve it the least. i remain in favor of being "shanghaied" in lieu of submitting my own RFA.
22:11, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
Blank Pages
Speculation pages do not belong on mainspace. We cannot organize a bunch of speculation. Speculation, at best, is a footnote on a main page. These pages are free space for speculation on a game that is unreleased. If a UC creates a page that we will need, it helps us. To try and clean-up speculation is an editing nightmare. Dr. F clearly has this area "covered" and will have to deal with UC's that will not follow wiki rules and will insert stuff in the middle of paragraphs and such while trying to keep all new content. Speculation is, at heart, just talk.
I have no problem if Dr.F wants to reinstate a Temp-Op status, but I do have a problem with granting full Sys-ops in order to "not answer" to Dr.F 09:36, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a problem having to answer to doc. I respect him both as a person and a bureaucrat. The only difference would be that this scenario here would have been avoided if I were a full-on sysop. 12:06, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
There was an argument that followed... It has been moved here. -iatbr
I'm in much the same camp as happypal. My position is this: Main namespace articles exist to provide an authoritive information source. We should not be endorsing a "speculation is allowed" stance for a particular set of pages, we should be publishing current and accurate release data, as we can reference it. All speculative content is perfectly welcome in the associated talk pages.
As for the dispute, the extra reverts were a bad idea. Arguing over it didn't help, so a bit of chill-out time is probably justified. The flip-side of that coin is the demotion is an over-the-top reaction as well. I think the better solution at this point would be to publicise a time limit on the poll and make the result binding.
WarBlade 09:50, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
- just to be clear: this will not be decided by a radio button poll. as with every administrator on this (and other) wiki, endorsements must be stated and signed by editors. and yes, UCs count unless proven to be falsified. the strength of these testimonials will be weighed against each other after two weeks (this being a standard set by LobStoR and i see no reason to break from it. the poll(s) on previous RfAs were poking fun @ the anonymity and valuelessness of such a mechanism. Dr. F
09:59, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Button-poll removed. 11:59, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
- wait, what's going on here (i don't know because i've had a 4 day weekend :). so... what happened to get this all started. F ₳ ┬ M @ И 2539 ► talk◄ 22:41, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
Too Much Bad Blood in This Post, Needs Another Poll
--Talk to prinny! 
Riceygringo 18:20, February 11, 2012 (UTC)