Even though I don't have very many edits, I've been here a while, picking up wikicode and how to act along the way. I'm adding myself here in hopes to add another good administrator to GuildWiki Thoughtful 19:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I nominated myself, so I accept. Thoughtful 19:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Nomination failed: lack of serious support, inactivity, personal mixed feelings about experience with disagreements. Closed 5-16-08.
Sure, whatever. If he turns out to be a power-hungry maniac, Entropy can just demote him.Entrea Sumatae[Talk] 03:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not? this is just a pathetic website about a game, (and im addicted to both) were not deciding the President. Lost-Blue 05:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't really know the guy, but what I have seen of him promises much, vote yes I must. --Wammo--talkpageFighterbitsj 15:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
May seem a bit hypocritical come from me, but he seems too wanting of the adminship powers. Usually, people don't go to the sysops talkpage and say "Okay u admin me nao?".. —Warw/Wick 09:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh...I honestly don't mind, and I do appreciate seeing an eager candidate. (But not too eager!) My current reason for not making a decision yet is that I haven't seen anything still which should tip me decisively one way or another. You still contribute fairly actively, but I still want a bit more proof that you'll use the admin tools well; you haven't been involved in much of the recent wikidrama, which is good, but also I want to see how you fare under that sort of pressure; etc. I still just don't know enough to make an informed decision yet. (T/C) 11:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I suck at debating so.. =p Thoughtful 18:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Relatively inactive as of late. --Shadowcrest 22:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Although you've been here considerably longer than I have, you don't have very many edits- and nearly two thirds of those are in userspace. However, that doesn't disqualify you from administration in my eyes. You do seem to be fairly skilled with wiki code, and to my knowledge you've never broken a policy or gotten into a fight. Then again- and I say this not because of the fact itself, but because of what it implies- you're very, very young. While you are very mature for your age, and I commend you for that, you may have a restrictive schedule or obligations to fulfill that would prevent you from being on the wiki as often as an administrator should. If that's not the case, so much the better. All in all, I don't have enough reasons to vote support or oppose; I may change this vote if I discover something redeeming- or condemning- in other users' posts. For now, however, I must remain neutral. 22:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see you here enough, with the exception of you tagging some images. Cress Arvein(Talk) 00:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have no reason to oppose. So I'm going neutral. —♥May♥Wick♥(T)/(C) 11:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that you have a good character and are certainly knowledgeable enough, but I would wish for a bit more experience (both as time and edits). A lot of the ones you have are in the Talk, which is not inherently bad of course, but I want to see a little bit more before I make a decision. (T/C) 01:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Basically, pull a few lines out of Felix's, Entropy's, and Cress' posts. You're a good person and you seem knowledgable enough, but you're really not on as much as a lot of others. --Shadowcrest 01:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm on a lot actually, but I normally just skulk around in RC waiting to insta-revert a vandal. Thoughtful 02:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, but since that sort of thing can't be measured or shown to other users, it is always difficult to judge its worth. I believe you, though. (T/C) 03:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :) Thoughtful 03:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Baaa baa baa. Baa baa BAA ba baaaa. Baa baa ba baabaa? (What they said.) --Phydeaux 02:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. And btw, supporting guys: "Why not? We can fix it later" is a very offensive vote for both the candidate and the community.reanor 17:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer to call it "stating the truth" (that is literally what we could do), but yes, it goes against the spirit of RfA's. (T/C) 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.