Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Kronix xxx

Note: The candidate has withdrawn. Please do not add further support/oppose opinions.

Kronix xxx[edit]

This request is for the sysophood of Kronix xxx (talk • contribs • logs • block log).
Created by Kronix xxx 02:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC).

Status[edit]

Failed. 04:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate statement[edit]

Please read the discussion page before voting and please tell me a reason why you wanted me either as an admin or not.

Support[edit]

--Kronix xxx 02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
He seem like a cool guy -Cursed Angel 22:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

Oppose. Already voiced reasons on talk page. Aqua (T|C) 02:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. As semi-active as I may be, I've never heard of you or seen you editing. Secondly, going by your talk page, you are/recently were ineligible to vote in elections. The requirement for voting is paltry in comparison to what's expected of admins. tl;dr far too new. calor (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Generally a reputation for conflict resolution, sound judgment, and general wiki know-how will naturally lead to Adminship. I'm afraid in your case, you have not earned any of the above. -- Oiseau | 05:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Welcome to the wiki. elix Omni 05:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Though the zeal and readiness to help the wiki is a great thing to have, there are still plenty of things you can do to help the wiki as a standard user. There are policies to memorize, discretion to learn, and plenty of articles that are ready for new content and/or revision. Any of these would be a great start. The simple fact of the matter is that, based on 53 edits solely (many of which were simply voting in elections), I cannot determine that you are a user I can trust fully with tools that can make or break a wiki. -- Traveler (talk) 05:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. who r u? Welcome to Guild wars wiki the official wiki for guild wars. - Zesbeer 07:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The discussion on the talk page has reinforced my original decision. Shadow Runner 11:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. That's one way to start here i guess :S - J.P.Talk 12:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. I looked through each of your 53 contributions in good faith, and found that none of them have been conducive to the runnings of this wiki. Moreover, I fear you lack a basic understanding of wikicode, and you either haven't read our policies, or have no skill in reading comprehension at all. Please, heed our advice, and become an actual contributor before applying for sysophood. — Why 13:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. I am always neutral when someone has yet to demonstrate via their actions whether or not they have the temperament and abilities to make a good sysop. I applaud User:Kronix xxx's zeal, but I agree with the other contributors here: learn more about how this wiki works so that you can show us that you understand what we need from our sysops. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Fails my personal "I know that Username" requirement. --Xeeron 17:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Supporting oneself in the RfA is reason enough not to think of another reason to oppose. poke | talk 19:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
NOPE. ...I smell a sock --ilr 02:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)