Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Lemming64/Archive 2

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

Lemming64

This request is for the reconfirmation of User:Lemming64 (talk • contribs).

The old RFA and the requests leading to this reconfirmation can be found at Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Lemming64/archive1.

Created by —Xeeron 11:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate statement

By now most of you know who I am and what I am about, this reconfirmation has arrived due to a couple of disagreements with other users in the past about interpretation of policy. I am not going to try and persuade anyone that I should stay as admin, I believe everybody who knows who I am already has made a decision to that effect, and will post here as they see fit. I would however very much like to stay on as an admin and will continue to do the hard work of combating vandals and making the wiki a better place to be should you support my reconfirmation, Thanks! --Lemming 13:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Status

Successful. 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I've always found lemming64 to work in the best interests of the wiki as a whole and thus has my support and faith. -- Salome 13:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Tanaric et al will have to point some major event that I've managed to miss if I'm going to not support. I can't remember anything L64 have done that stands out from the general group of sysops. Backsword 14:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. While number of contributions may mean nothing, the log is always a good way to see how active a sysop is. Even if the last days have gone slow, i think there is enough activity as to support the reconfirmation.--Fighterdoken 22:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. huh? poke | talk 22:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. He's always been a good sysop. No need to end a good thing. Eyes 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. Balance out stupidity -FireFox 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Unless someone can post something where he's made some extremely poor decisions of late, then I see no reason to end his adminship. Kokuou 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support I have not seen any issue where a reconfirmation is warranted. Even in the requests for it that were noted, no specific examples were provided. -- Wynthyst 00:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support good sysop-Insane Maestro 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support I haven't seen any issues that would cause me to oppose his reconfirmation. He does a good job as sysop and should continue in the role. --Kakarot 02:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support As Kakarot said, I haven't seen anything that would cause him not to be reconfirmed. Give some examples and I'm sure we'll analyze them --People of Antioch talk 03:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. No reason to change my original support. --Snograt 10:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. I see no reason to oppose as I trust Lemming with handling the admin tools. — Galil 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support I've never seen him do anything wrong. --Sum Mesmer Guy 21:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. Seems like he'll be useful and not a problem. --Rezyk 07:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Support. I have no reason to not trust Lemming. - anja 14:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. Lemming64 is a great help to the wiki community. I see no problems with him, he deserves to be an admin. He has been no trouble to anyone, why take away his adminship? --Burning Freebies 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. hell no --Cursed Angel 14:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
2. I don't trust his ability to use discretion. He's basically just another carebear sysop - we've got about fifty of those already, but most of the other ones can at least make decisions on the fly. -Auron 05:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Been here for a few months and I still haven't seen that much contribution by Lemming. A comment here and there but nothing solid. If I can get some proof of deeds I might reconsider, if possible.- Vanguard 14:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral Following Vanguard's lead, but I've seen Lemming contribute, but not so much so in discussions. Calor 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral I think I am not active enough to have a solid opinion. But I want to say hi to everyone, =P -- Coran Ironclaw 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral. While I find myself agreeing with Tanaric and the others, after reconsidering my vote, I don't think I know Lemming well enough to oppose his reconfirmation. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral eeeek Im not sure --Shadowphoenix 05:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I'm leaning more on the neutral side now. — ク Eloc 貢 17:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral. I have no feelings one way or another about this sysop, but I'm glad this reconfirmation pointed out a ridiculous part of our adminship policy. —Tanaric 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Reconfirmation

1. ...