Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Jamesofur

• No disrespect to the candidate (who I believe is highly qualified for the job), but how many 'crats do we really need? If 30 users is used as a benchmark for the active community, then 1/3 of the community is a 'crat. Considering that 'crat isn't a tool needed in emergencies, it's a bit ridiculous. I understand that we want to put trusted candidates in jobs of trust, but IMO we should do it only if we need more people in those jobs. Just saying. Griffinofwales (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no issue with redundancy, and I think perhaps we should talk about the to many x on the CFA guideline talk page, because frankly, it has nothing to do with this candidate and is not fair to him. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 09:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We could just remove our inactive people from the positions. This would prohibit "Too many people already" comment. Just a thought. -Barras (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we include James, throw in Chenzw and Barras, that's all of the time zones covered. All 3 are active. Anyone up for mass resignations? Griffinofwales (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The tool is free and in unlimited supply. I do not for the life of me understand this "too many admins/crats/rollbacker/what have you" argument. It is illogical to say that we have too many of any kind of volunteer. So, what happens if an I don't have the chance to use my tools for three months? Am I trusted to have them or not? That is the question of an RFA, not if there are too many. This makes no sense to me. Jon@talk:~$ 09:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This discussion might be better placed at our main drama place. It's kinda unrelated to the candidate. -Barras (talk) 09:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't do it... too many editors. Jon@talk:~$ 10:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)