- 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.
Victoryisyours (talk • contribs)[]
- User:Victoryisyours declined the nomination.
Deserved it long ago, pretty much is an Admin. GuildofMoses 14:57, 21 December 2007 (EST)
- I decline the nomination. — Victoryisyours (talk/RfA) 19:29, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Support[]
- Bob fregman 20:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)
- He deserves it. Dark Morphon(contribs) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (EST)
- Yes, scandinavians are good at neutral, but i'd say support. Zyber 09:45, 23 December 2007 (EST)
I trust him, and catapulting him into a weighty position will certainly prove how so. Shen(contribs) 09:42, 30 December 2007 (EST)- He's the obvious choice. Lord Belar 11:21, 24 December 2007 (EST)
- LOL? thought he already was an admin, he behaves like one.--Frans 14:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Oppose[]
- —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 20:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)
- Absolutely unecessary, and "practically is an admin"? i'll be looking through contribs, may move to neutral.christmas doesnt warrant stupid sigs, people 09:52, 23 December 2007 (EST)
- --Shadowsin 11:59, 24 December 2007 (EST)
- ----InfestedHydralisk (Talk*Contributions) 15:14, 24 December 2007 (EST)
- Fishy Moooo 16:32, 29 December 2007 (EST)
- Ibreaktoilets 16:34, 29 December 2007 (EST)
- Plenty of opportunities to get involved in Real Vetting discussion, as evidenced by massive RC spam, hasn't taken up any. Shall support if he becomes more pro-active in this affair, and also if his considerable merits aren't wasted on more mundane tasks. Shen(contribs) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (EST)
- Swiftslash \\ (contributions *sandbox) 17:32, 8 January 2008 (EST)
- - Unexist 16:02, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Neutral[]
- Leaning towards support, but I'll look through contribs. — Skakid HoHoHo 15:01, 21 December 2007 (EST)
- Not needed atm... ~~ frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 15:34, 21 December 2007 (EST)
- Neutrality, something scandanavians are gud at. - Rawrawr 15:38, 21 December 2007 (EST)
More a socially-acute guy whose contributions fall into a category resembling those of Wizardboy (not to be directing anything towards our favorite RC clogger);I really hope not to antagonize ViY in saying he hasn't made contributions meritable of BM status.Shen has cookies 16:01, 21 December 2007 (EST)- Don't knwo why he needs it. I haven't seem him do much or hear talk about how great he is, or heard him say about how much he helps.--FireTock 00:10, 31 December 2007 (EST)
- Ide vote for him if we only had 2 or 3 admins, but we have to many, so Neutral it is. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (EST)
- See this, imo. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 21:17, 7 January 2008 (EST)
- Wow, I was just on that page and read it, then came directly here and saw u had linked to it. Anyways, I dont neccessarily agree with what Armond said there. I believe that the more admins you have, the more chance of electing somebody who will abuse power. Not saying anything about ViY, but I say keep the admin count low for the sake of preserving the community from something that will probably never happen. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2008 (EST)
- See this, imo. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 21:17, 7 January 2008 (EST)
- Leaning towards opposed at the moment, he's active and all, but, his contributions lack the "above and beyond" quality that we value in Sysops. There's nothing really to warrant a promotion. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:24, 8 January 2008 (EST)
- i dont really care about whos sysop and whos not ... the is fast ...lol obliterated my sig :( but thatsi guess the right thing to do... i "scandanavian" on this issue IIIIwan13 20:12, 9 January 2008 (EST)
- ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 19:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)
- 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.