Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Lacky

Note: This RFA has been resolved. Please do not add further support/oppose opinions.

Lacky

This request is for the sysophood of Lacky (talk • contribs • logs • block log).
Created by -- §Lacky§ Talk 06:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

Status

Failed. 20:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate statement

I would like to self-nominate myself as Admin/Sysop since I have never done this before and I would like to help better the Guild Wars Wiki Community! This will hopefully be a great experience for me and I hope that I am elected!

Support

1. ...

Oppose

1. You've evidently been around for a year, but I wouldn't have known that without looking at your contribs page. I've never seen you in policy discussion and I don't remember you even commenting on anything remotely related to sysop duties. I can't trust you with sysop tools until that stuff starts happening. -Auron >8< 08:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Sysophood (?) isn't something you "try," it's something the wiki community entrusts you with. Same sentiments as Auron. ~Shard 09:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
2. This seems more done on a whim on the basis of the current site-notice than an actual desire to contribute as a sysop/bcrat. Contributions list is short and largely user/guildspace. Misery 09:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Never seen you before - per Auron --SilentStorm 10:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Sig reminds me of Eloc. Your intentions may be good, but I don't know who you are...how could I trust you with the sysop tools? Vili >8< 11:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
5. As per the above votes, Don't really see much of him. he says ~PheNaxKian Talk 12:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
6. You currently have 289 contributions, 128 of which are in the normal user space. I was going to vote neutral, but I think you should get a bit more acquainted with policy discussion and general wiki-knowhow before running again. :) -- Wandering Traveler 13:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Don't know you too well, and from the evidence provided above, I cannot trust you with the tools at stake here. I have the same kind of mindset as Auron and Shard, actually. This isn't something you try for fun. --Antioch 14:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I like bold letters. I agree with every other person in this section. Mini Me 23:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose. As per Auron. --★KOKUOU★ 20:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Your simple lack of response to my question, and those of the community in general, both on the talk page here, as well as your own talk page does not inspire any confidence in how you would interact with other users as an admin. You have rushed to archive pretty much every single comment that has been made to you on your talk page rather than engaging in any form of discussion. You have not demonstrated to me that you fully understand the roles of sysop or bureaucrat on this wiki. -- Wyn 20:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose. If you would like to better the wiki community, going for an admin role is not way to do it. Contributing content, participating in discussions, and helping out other users are more effective. -- ab.er.rant 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose. As per Auron, WT, and Wyn. I would prefer to see you actually involved in policy discussions as well as seeing more of how having access to sysop tools would help you on this wiki. Also as per Ab.er there are other better/more effective ways you can help the wiki community that don't require the sysop tools. Finally as a result of your lack of responses to questions put forth to you both on this RFAs talk page and that of your RFB I am not sure you are aware of what a sysop or bureaucrat; collectively the admin role; actually does and therefore can't support this RFA. --Kakarot 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Per above comments. -- Indochine talk 16:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
14. ...

Neutral

1. I'm sorry, but I don't know you. Backsword 10:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Sorry, dont know you either. --Burning Freebies 12:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Don't know you at all, soz. -- |Cyan LightLive!| 14:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I don't know you, and you probably don't know me. D: — Why 12:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
5. I'm also uncertain about you for the same aforementioned reasons. —ZerphaThe Improver 12:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)