GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/Gem


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the nomination of a user for adminship. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.


 * User:Gem was made into a sysop on February 01, 2007.

Gem (talk &bull; contribs)
Gem's a great help around the wiki. He's been around the site more times than I can count, always editing what needs to be edited. There's little things and there's big things, and Gem does them all. It's about time he became an admin, and I can't think of anyone I'd rather nominate or have nominated. --Armond Warblade (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Although I asked in the past Xasxas not to nominate me, the situation has changed a lot during the last weeks and so has my stance on the nomination. I'm honoured that someone else thinks just like Xasxas and even nominated me before him. Currently I'm as active in the wiki as I was earlier when I had no life and I feel I could take the responsibility which comes with adminship. I am sure that I could use the admin tools for the best of this wiki, thou I am not sure if the current admins need any more help with their tasks. -- (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2006 (CST)

As an added note: I will take care of my wiki taks and responsibilities if I am made an admin, but I will ofcourse _never_ let the wiki go before Kalomeli as she is by far the most important thing in my life. <3 -- (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2006 (CST)

Support

 * 1) Gem is one of the GuildWiki's best editors, he's been involved in almost every facet of the site. He's very active on talk pages, helping both new and experianced users alike as well as being one of the best documentors we have. Finally he's a great guy and could do a lot with admin rights and I firmly believe he'd do an excellent job as a Sysop. Good luck mate! --Xasxas256 22:44, 5 December 2006 (CST)
 * 2) I vote for support. Gem is an extraordinarily good editor although he has his quirks just like all of us. ^^ I think he would make a good admin mostly because of his zeal for editing and overall positive attitude towards everyone at the wiki. I am trying to take notes so I can become a nicer person. =) We need more GEM! =D — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg|25px]] 07:53, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * 3) Conditional support as long as he doesn't neglect Kalomeli ;) &mdash; Skuld 12:36, 7 December 2006 (CST)
 * 4) You have my vote, even if only for your pretty sig image and friendliness. And what Skuld said, don't neglect Kalomeli! [[Image:Light of Deliverance.jpg|20px]] Finrod 16:37, 7 December 2006 (CST)
 * 5) I've seen him/her make lots of edits so I guess I support.--~Edo Dodo~ 11:08, 8 December 2006 (CST)
 * 6) Gem is great, he does some clever stuff with the wiki and is really helpful to new users. --Lemming64  13:52, 12 December 2006 (CST)
 * 7) I'm too selfish, if I oppose (and anyway, wiki is not my worst opponent). I'm sure wiki will get a lot more help from Gem, when he is admin. He will be a great admin. Kalomeli 16:39, 12 December 2006 (CST)
 * 8) One from me too. Immense amount of coding knowledge. Also knows the ins and outs of GuildWiki. Helped me fix my page :) d^.^b two thumbs up. -jonny5v[[Image:Assassin's Promise.jpg|19px]] 16:52, 12 December 2006 (CST)
 * I don't really have too much coding experience. I can code with java and I know html and wiki code well. I haven't really done much with php, xml, javascript or anything else, but I'm good with copy pasting and using google. ;) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2006 (CST)
 * That can be more useful than a lot of people realise. =) Oh, and btw... Read below (like 2 votes down)--Midnight08 08:32, 26 December 2006 (CST)
 * 1) Strong Support I haven't been on guild wiki for too long, but Gem seems like a very good user, and I have seen nothing bad from him yet.  &mdash; Blastedt(Talk) 20:02, 22 December 2006 (CST)
 * 2) What Blastedt said. And I like Finns. 24.6.147.36 18:19, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * 3) Immense ammount of wiki knowledge... well maybe not... but copy paste seems more effective in his hands than any i've seen before. In all seriousness This user is extremely helpful and has shown a distinct ability to use the tools at hand to make this place alot more interesting. And seens to really want to do whats needed to make the wiki better for everyone. --Midnight08 08:32, 26 December 2006 (CST)
 * 4) Wow, ok the one i had under "No" was suppost to go here, um Gem is rlly helping me for he last few days gettig started and its been rlly rlly nice to have him help out [[image:opera.gif]]Death By An Arrow[[image:opera.gif]] 09:41, 26 December 2006 (CST)
 * 5) You've been a great help to the Wiki, and you could only get more helpful as you find more tools to benefit the Wiki. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 07:44, 27 December 2006 (CST)
 * 6) Looks like I get to be the hobbit number on this adventure.  For the longest time I thought Gem was an Admin already.  Very helpful, experienced with wiki, at the very least - the extra tools adminship will offer should make Gem even more valuable than before (if that's even possible).  I realize Gem has a personal life (as do many of us) and even if Gem's activity is reduced I still don't see it being a bad thing.  Two thumbs up from me for all my vote may count for.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  11:21, 27 December 2006 (CST)
 * 7) Seems to be a level headed person from his posts, edits are good, and has handled himself in the manner an admin should for quite some time (respectful of others, knowledgeable about the wiki, consistent behavior, etc.). If the wiki needs more admins, he'd likely make a good one. --Zampani 18:28, 27 December 2006 (CST)
 * 8) I really dont think i have anything to say that hasnt been said already.--Coloneh RIP[[Image:Coloneh.png]]  23:30, 27 December 2006 (CST)
 * 9) Although we might have gotten off the wrong foot, I still believe he'll make a good administrator. NightAngel 11:24, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * I really appreciate your levelheadedness. (or what ever the word is :) ) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * 1)  I've seen Gem do more admin-ish work than I've noticed anyone else's.  Maybe it's just that Gem has such a recognizable sig, so you know when Gem has commented.  Gets a vote from me, because it only seems to make sense. Craw   21:33, 1 January 2007 (CST)
 * 2) two thumbs up. I basically agree with everyone here. --Lania Elderfire 23:58, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * 3) There's skuld, and then there's Gem. Two most active (and useful!) wiki users. surprised he's not one already. --Thom Bangalter 04:32, 7 January 2007 (CST)
 * 4) One of the most reliable users with a huge amount of knowledge, and professionalism. There are 4 names: Skuld, Rapta, Barek & GEM!!! I'm for it! &mdash; Luobailong  [[image:Luobailong_sig.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 16:40, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * 5) Gem is not an admin already? Wow. --Dirigible 16:41, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * 6) Gem really should be admin. He's one of the most devoted and fair users, and will be a great addition! Melandrus Spirit 17:10, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * 7) Gem has great insight on the PvE part of the game and he's a pro at editing. Gem as an admin is a must.Laureen atalante 17:36, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * Wow, thanks guys! An RR invasion. Now just create nice user pages and start contributing. ;) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * 1) When i saw that Gem was a RFA, my first thought was, "thats strange, i thought that gem was already an admin.." in my view there is no better candidate. vote gem now! --Tark[[Image:Gwen-chan-head.jpg|25px]] 02:08, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * 2) I thought he was an admin too but then I just saw that he got nominated. --Hellbringer 21:06, 15 January 2007
 * 3) Support! For being really helpful and objective about things. I can't believe I didn't notice this earlier. -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 11:18, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * 4) I support Gem. --De Marek 04:04, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * 5) Gem help the wiki good so you have my vote ~ Kurd 10:43, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * 6) Support.  Active, helpful and knowledgable contributor.  Just curious, what's delaying consumation of the process?  -- Ali   11:15, 21 January 2007 (CST)
 * There is no official system which forces anyone to make a nominated person an admin. It's completely up to Fyren and LordBiro when (if) they decide to make someone an admin. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2007 (CST)
 * 1) Helpful, friendly (...no, I don't say that because someone is aiming me with shotgun...) and decisively would be one of the best admins on (any) site. My vote for Gem. - Abedeus 07:14, 24 January 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Heavy Supporter! Alway helpfull towards the GuildWiki and the community! --Phoenix [[Image:Phoenix_Benu.png]] 09:31, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * 3) Absolutely support. &mdash; Azaya 04:59, 26 January 2007 (CST)
 * 4) Gets into the nitty gritty of things with templates and whatnot as well as making thoughtful comments, no reason to think he wouldn't make a great admin. --NieA7 07:40, 26 January 2007 (CST)
 * 5) I don't believe I can add any more to what's already been said. --Ryard 19:14, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * 6) Long time dedicated contributor, quality edits, reasonable guy. If anything could be said against him it's his affection for overly large and florid user pages, but I think we can handle that. ;) --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 16:29, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * It aint large anymore, but yeah, my user page affection is my weak point. ;) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * 1) I also support Gem's nomination for adminship. I believe he is professional, fair, helpful, and knowledgeable. -- BrianG 16:37, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Oh shiz, apparantly I didn't vote. Wtf!? &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 16:39, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Oppose

 * 1) I oppose! :( I need him too! He's mine, not yours! Kalomeli 12:34, 7 December 2006 (CST)
 * 2) Gem has helped me alot since i started a few days ago and its been really great and he deserves promotion alot [[image:opera.gif]]User:Death by an arrow[[image:opera.gif]] 18:16, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * Am I missing something here? :p &mdash; Skuld 18:17, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * LOL! xD --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2006 (CST)
 * rofl.......  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 08:07, 26 December 2006 (CST)
 * He's opposing because you helped him...--[[Image:Star-small.png]] ~Edo Dodo~ [[Image:Star-small.png]] 04:26, 7 January 2007 (CST)
 * 1) I oppose Gem as an administrator. While he has produced a staggering number of quality edits, he is grossly unaware of how this wiki needs to be run in order for it to prosper. Were admins here merely in charge of deleting and protection, he would be a great candidate. As it is, for better or worse, we're in a position of significantly more power than other wikis, and I can in no way support Gem's appointment to such a position. &mdash;Tanaric 15:04, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * I have to say that I disagree with your opposition. Gem has proven (to me at least) that he is capable of handling himself in difficult situations. I believe that he is very aware of how the wiki needs to be run, and has more of a level head than many of the current admins. While I might not support his promotion as strongly as some, I would have no regrets promoting him.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:58, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Disagreement noted. I should clarify -- it's more a matter of culture than ability. His comments on User talk:Fyren earlier this month, about skill note clarification, is what pushed me over the edge. Of course, if another bureaucrat appointed him, I would be okay with that, as I don't think he'd be necessarily harmful, just awfully far from ideal. &mdash;Tanaric 18:24, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thank you for posting here. I am a bit surprised that you base your opposition on one small conversation (atleast that's what you seem to imply), although I realise why you didn't like my commments there. I should remind you that most admins of this wiki have had questionable conversations/arguments/comments/actions, so one or two conversations where I'm not in the best mood isn't really a reason to prevent me from doing my best for the wiki.
 * I'm sure you could find other examples of cases where my comments might not suit your ideals, but really, are they a reason to oppose adminship? Would making someone an admin harm the wiki if the user once or twice doesn't act as the model citizen? I haven't caused any serious or even minor problems in the past, which can't be said from all of the current admins. I know you are really conservative with new admins and you seem to have disliked me for a long time (I might be wrong and please correct me if it is so), but I feel that your comments at the moment are a bit unfair if more through explanations aren't given. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2007 (CST)
 * Because this isn't the place, I've asked Gem to take this up with me on his talk page. I do want to note, however, that I absolutely do like Gem personally -- it's just that RfAs aren't about whether I like him personally or not. &mdash;Tanaric 00:58, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * I think a lot of folks are wondering what you're thinking Tanaric. And the comments you left on Gem's page about ideals for editing make it even more confusing. It sounds like there might be a fundamental disconnect in how you view the wiki compared to many (most?) contributors and admins. As a (the?) wiki bureaucrat I'd say you need your vision to be clearly explained, especially in cases like this, and especially since you're still described as being inactive. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 06:18, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * 1) I oppose for Gem being an admin. The admins we have are just fine and somhow I find Gem is a bit pushy in all things for example: If you don't do that you can get banned/blocked/deleted. I think an admin shouldn't do that. Sorry to say, but I don't think you are a 'real' admin. -- S i  g  m  A  [[image:Aura_of_Faith.jpg|19px|||My Talk]] 13:16, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * I think you are refering to this comment. If you haven't noticed, I have never threatend with a ban or administrative action so I'm not quite sure what you mean. Admins of the wiki do threaten with bans sometimes, but I haven't done it. If you meant something else, could you please explain. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Warning someone of the possible repercussions of their actions is an administrator's duty. So, I'm not really sure where you're coming from with "an admin shouldn't do that." Do you mean they should just sit back and wait for you to really mess up so they can ban you without saying 1 word to you? Not really getting the logic here. — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg]] 14:50, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * For the record, most often our short-term bans are our warning for users; take a few days, think about what you did and what you intend to do, and come back with a more-or-less clean slate. &mdash;Tanaric 14:55, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Neutral
That said, anyone who is as supposedly as helpful and active as him should be accepted, if not on merit of his contributions, on teh merit that he will see more than your average user. I will go "Neutral". --Carnival King 08:04, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * 1) I am of no strong opinion, being rather new to this editing thing and all, but I have seen this "Gem" about, and have often copied some of his tables and such as guideines to help me in my own editings, since I am not all that knowledgable.
 * 1) Neutral. Impressive contributions. But voting for and promoting another candidate for adminship and vice versa? I am a bit sceptical about buddy networks. --Long 19:22, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Eh? The idea of the request for adminship thing is to gather knowledge of how other wiki users trust the nominated person. The idea is that active or even less active users may say what they think. A positive vote if the nominated person would be a good admin, a negative vote if the person would not be a good admin. Nothing to do with 'buddy networks'. Just active users who know each other saying what they think. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * 1) See long's comment. - -" Sigm@  [[image:Glimmer_of_Light.jpg|19px]]  (talk|contribs) 03:18, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * I would still like to understand what's bad in me voting for another nominated user. That's the whole point of this stuff. The nomiination voting is used to see if other contributors accept someone as an admin. It is better that I vote than to not vote. (Besides, my vote is negative for Auron, so you can't really blame us of buddy networking) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * I as well. If they had nominated each other I could see the problem, but I'm the one who nominated Gem, so... --Armond Warblade (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2007 (CST)
 * And I didn't nominate him. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2007 (CST)
 * If you had I would probably slap you with a fish. --Armond Warblade (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2007 (CST)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.