GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/Bishop

Bishop (talk &bull; contribs)
Incredibly level-headed chap who's remained calm and in control during many of the dramatic periods of our history&mdash;even when I deleted an article out from under him while he was editing it. He's made constructive edits nearly every day since February. (Note that, as always, my support for this user as an administrator does not necessarily mean I currently think we need more administrators.) &mdash;Tanaric 21:00, 5 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'm honored to be considered a candidate for admin of GuildWiki. This is a great community and I'd be happy to help keep it that way. Please consider before supporting me, however, that I have been known to go on hiatus from time to time (although the last one didn't last as long as I thought it would), so I might not always be as active as I have been lately. But in short, I accept the nomination. -- Bishop [ rap|con ] 21:17, 5 August 2006 (CDT)

I have denounced my candidacy, as I no longer feel I can be an admin of GuildWiki. Please see User_talk:Gravewit.

Support

 * 1) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]]  (talk) More active and good contributors should be nominated as admins. Bishop has clearly shown us he could be a really good admin.
 * 2) --Vortexsam 02:43, 7 August 2006 (CDT) consistently active, contributes very much (1500+ good solid edits), clearly states when he'll be gone
 * 3) --Xasxas256 10:12, 7 August 2006 (CDT) He's is a good contirbutor who's very easy to get along with and interacts well with the community.

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. Self-admitted unreliability. We don't need any more absconding sysops. No offense intended. 64.78.164.226 00:23, 7 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) (your vote here)