GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/RoseOfKali (2)

=== RoseOfKali (talk &bull; contribs &bull; edit count &bull; RFA page) ===

For a long time now, RoseOfKali has been one of the most active remaining editors on GuildWiki. Although Rose has occasionally gotten into altercations with other editors in the past, they arise not out of personal feelings but out of an earnest desire for the improvement of the wiki. I am confident that Rose will be able to responsibly use the sysop tools on a regular basis.
 * As an aside, image work and such might help her spend some of her time in Ukrainian captivity. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 20:24, September 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * I accept, and I finally have regular access to the internet again. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 11:02, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

''Please summarize the candidate's qualifications below. Add your summary as a brief bullet-point and leave your signature. Then go to the talkpage and explain your points in more detail.''

''If you agree with a user's point, please also add your signature beneath their bullet. To add a rebuttal to another's point, indent and add another brief bullet. Then discuss on the talkpage. Other users that also disgaree should sign below the rebuttal.''

''The "General" bullets are intended for users who wish to express their opinions but do not have a particular quality to explain - simply add your brief summary bullet and signature below them. Nevertheless, elaboration of your stance on the talkpage is still appreciated.''

Discussions, more elaboration on a point, lengthy counter-arguments, etc. should be directed to the talkpage.

Supporting factors

 * Constantly working on improving the wiki
 * An unheralded dedication to GuildWiki in general
 * Lots of free time
 * An ability to move beyond conflicts and not hold grudges
 * Upholds and constitues proper GuildWiki procedure.

Opposing factors

 * General oppose
 * (list specific opposing factors here)

Neutral/Double-edged factors

 * Occasional reactionary opposition to new methods
 * Very tenacious in content debates