GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/Randomtime

The following discussion is an archived debate of the nomination of a user for adminship. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Randomtime (talk • contribs)

I never thought I'd do this but, someone's comment about too few admins realy hit home. I'm on the wiki every day, improving and reverting and policy abiding/understanding. If you belive I'm up to the job, i'm offering my time and the ability to use it more effectively RT | Talk 21:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

As I was the one who nominated myself, I accept! RT | Talk 21:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Randomtime was promoted to sysop on March 3, 2007.

[edit] Support

1. One supports. ~Incarnatos~ 20:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Very friendly, incredibly fast, and very helpful. Strong support. X Deity X 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks :) RT | Talk - RFA 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Behind you all the way, bro. X Deity X 21:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Cress Arvein 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Plenty of good contributions-- 21:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Ya.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 21:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Changed my mind, contributions list is pretty good. -- Mr Ex Vandal 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you all! RT | Talk - RFA 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

7. Go for it, RT--- -- (s)talkpage 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks viper RT | Talk - RFA 21:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

8. Well, I can definitely say he knows the policies. (T/C) 21:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   I lolled RT | Talk - RFA 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

9. Lots of contribution, prwns vandals, good attitude... and he has a derv named Omg Bananas with a Banana Scythe! How could he be bad with that?? ;) --Shadowcrest 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   The Banana Scythe does it --- -- (s)talkpage 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   It certanly does. I did Unwaking Waters not relising I was still weiding it. RT | Talk 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

10. Can't find any problems with this user that would warrant opposing. Certainly very active/vigilant, good knowledge of policy, knows his way around the wiki. Lord of all tyria 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
11. I keep seeing you around, and can't say a bad word of you even if I think really hard. As I see it you're always honest, you'd do a good job. -- -- talkpage 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Haven't seen to much of him, but that's because he has an unobtrusive signature. Besides, MP and Entropy can't both be wrong!Entrea Sumatae [Talk] 23:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

    See the talk page pls RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 09:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

13. I'm not doing this for the lulz.reanor 04:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
14. I was going to neutral him, but, when looking through his contribs, he seems to be good, and hes a nice guy. Support. -- Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 15:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    Coolness, thanks war. RT | Talk 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

15. -- 17:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
16. 20:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Made me feel welcome on the wiki when i first came here Clouddyl 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

     :) RT | Talk 09:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

18. Has less contribs then me (by like 3), but in a shorter time span, he has a good personality and I feel like he can be trusted in a position of power.--ìğá†ħŕášħTalk^Cont 09:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Changed from neutral after observing him for some time. :) -- (gem / talk) 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

    Yayness RT | Talk 08:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

20. Misfate 00:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
21. (your vote here)

[edit] Oppose

1. Not enough contributions by my standards. — ク Eloc 貢 20:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

1. Dunno. -- Mr Ex Vandal 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Helpful! RT | Talk - RFA 21:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Let me check your contribs, vote can change. -- Mr Ex Vandal 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Ok, if you vote for someone, you have to know what they do, or you can't say wheither you support or not. RT | Talk - RFA 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   That's not necessarily true. The whole neutral section is to show that there are users who don't know this person. My impression is that it is preferred to have admins whose contributions are significant enough that people can express support. Voting neutral seems to mean that you don't think they should be an admin but you don't really think that they shouldn't for a particular reason because you don't know them. Still, one has to consider how new the voters are and what their recent contributions and activity on wiki are. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   That is more than a good point! RT | Talk - RFA 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Hmm, <500 edits in main, talk, GW, and GW talk name spaces (that's <500 for each separately), but most of them from the last 2-3 months, so activity currently seems to be ok. No participation on policy pages and policy talk pages is what I'm concerned about. Seems like a decent guy from what I've seen on talk pages. -- (gem / talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   Ok, I'll try to start contibuting to policy pages RT | Talk 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Per Gem, and a couple of my own minor concerns about your attitude. However, you are very ambitious. — Nova — (contribs) 01:29, 29 December 2007 (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.