GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/Blastedt

Blastedt (talk &bull; contribs)
I am active on the wiki very much, and alot of the time I see a vandal and there's nobody to help. For example, the recent vandalism of th Great Temple of Balthazar page, where someone put insulting text, which was very unneutral. The text was reverted several times before he stopped. I don't know if he was banned. I feel that I would help fill in times without an admin to help handle the vandals and other important things. I know I have made mistakes before, and I freely admit that. I hope to make up for those by forwarding the wiki as it declines due to the official wiki. Maybe I can help slow that decline. &mdash;Blastedt 15:26, 28 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I accept. &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 15:26, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Support

 * 1) (your vote here)

Oppose

 * 1) Too immature (I mean, 13?!). &mdash; Shady Guy  [[Image:nike.gif|19px]] 16:00, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) For the same reasons I voted Opposed for User:FireFox's nomination (see talk); even though I know Blastedt, I don't see the need for another admin at this time and his stated goal (to reduce vandalism) does not seem to be enough justification...since by that rationale, I would be more qualified >.> (As to the above vote: um, how old do you think Skuld is??) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 16:04, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) For the record, users shouldn't worry about "need for another admin" when addressing this. That's Biro and I's job -- a successful RfA can sit without appointment if we don't feel we need the extra person. That said, I agree that Blastedt is far, far too immature for this position. He would be better suited (perhaps not amply suited, but better at least) for a position on the official wiki, as the role is significantly different there than it is here. &mdash;Tanaric 17:21, 30 June 2007 (CDT)