Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Kurd

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

Kurd

This request is for the sysophood of Kurd (talk • contribs • logs • block log).
Created by ~ Kurd 13:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC).

Status

Failed 11:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate statement

A little about myself for the people who don't know me. I began contributing to GuildWiki in 2007. Shortly after, ArenaNet started this wiki. I was active for a very long while. I considered starting my RfA shortly after Corr started his but knowing that real life was going to keep me busy for a while I decided not to. The "storm" came, went and I survived so I think now is a good time as I won't be going anywhere soon.

Going over my contributions will show you that I'm committed to the community. All in all in think I've proven my self to be trusted with the tools of a sysop. ~ Kurd 13:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Eh, why not. Backsword 13:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
2. ^ --Cursed Angel 14:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
3. I see no problemms. |Cyan LightLive!| 15:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. I feel that Kurd would do a good job with the sysop tools. He's been a solid contributor here for a long time. -- Wyn 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Kurd has been around a long time. Though I don't know him much, I trust him and his dedication to the wiki proves it. -- Wandering Traveler 00:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Your contributions speak well of you, and you are level headed. You have been here a while and I can trust you with the tools at hand. --Antioch 18:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support ^ Dominator Matrix 07:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Support He has been here a while as i can see and he has contributed -- Yo Jm 08:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. All I can remember about this user off the top of my head was a disagreement about how much religious BS someone should be able to put on their page, and then welcome template spam. I haven't really seen anything out of the ordinary since then to throw off that rather sour image. Good user? Maybe. Good sysop? Doubt it. -Auron 09:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
2. ...

Neutral

1. Neutral. I vaguely remember your signature around a bit, but you say that you have been inactive for a while. Prove that you are more active now and then we shall see what happens. -- §Lacky§ Talk 07:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral. While I'm aware that you are an excellent contributor, I'm just not convinced that sysop tools would be put to full use in your hands. -- ab.er.rant 00:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I see you are very active and you contribute alot to this wiki, but I dunno why you'd need sysop-ness for. But, eh, it never hurts to have too many sysops. :P -- Halogod35 06:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I think Aberrant summed it up nicely. calor (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral. While being on the wiki 24/7 is not a requirement for sysophood, I haven't seen you around much in the discussions I have been participating in. I do also remember reading the things Auron was referring to, so I'm not sure. I suppose there is some truth in what Aberrant said, but then again no normal user can claim they "need" sysop tools. Of your recent contributions, the one I noticed were all positive, so again, I don't know. Neutral, but leaning towards support. — Why 14:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Leaning towards oppose. I'm not convinced the sysop tools would be in good hands. Which is both based on your recent inactivity and your past contributions. You are a good user, but I have seen nothing to say you would be a good sysop. - anja 14:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral. I too remember the events Auron is referring to, however I also see that you are a solid contributor to the wiki, thus I'm neutral at the moment. -- -- Salome 13:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)