Halopedia talk:Requests for Adminship/Devout Atheist

Comments
Wow CT, you sure were quick in opening this RfA! It was a good choice though.

Poor choice of words + bad answer for one question and everyone goes against him... *sigh* Though I do see some people's points, DA usually just fights vandals/spammers, renames section headings and corrects grammar and spelling. However, we as a community should give him a chance. — Lt.   Commander   Kouger  15:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for answering the questions so poorly, I was on a time limit when I first saw them. By the time I went back to edit my answers, the page had been locked.Commander Devout Atheist 15:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Editing your answer after some users oppose/criticize you for it? GASP!! It's not my place to say anything but... I have to admit that it is a better answer. — Lt.   Commander   Kouger  15:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I mean to edit them a long time ago, but the page was closed almost immediately as I answered the questions, so I couldn't really do anything about until now. And I admit, some my first answers weren't that good, people have every right to criticize them.Commander Devout Atheist 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Poor choice of words + bad answer for one question and everyone goes against him" Did you seriously say that? I wouldn't call no more than 7 or so people "everyone." And he has the right to change his answers, all of them completely if he so chooses, that doesn't necessarily change opinions.

Many people here say we've got too many Admins if Devout gets that title, but I honestly think that Simon rjh has been quite inactive for some time, at least compared to other Admins. Maybe one more might work as guarantee..


 * I agree, the "too many admins" argument is relatively weak in my opinion.


 * Ghost sangheili, I didn't mean it literally! Maybe I'm the one that used a bad choice of words... And as per you and Spirit of Fire, the "too many admins" argument is weak. — Lt.   Commander   Kouger  16:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then next time please articulate your point in a clearer fashion so that it may be properly addressed.


 * Honestly, you think we have too many admins? I agree that too many admins is not an excuse. I've known wikis that have had so many, that there was at least 1 online any time you visited. But, too many admins... I mean, put it this way: More admins = less vandals. I think that Devout is good with anti-vandalism. If he spots it, he can just revert and ban. I do a lot of anti-vandalism, but I always have to report, as do all many rollbakers. Also, Simon has been kinda inactive lately. Exactly what is the harm of having a big bunch of admins? It would give a 24-hour protection of the site, wouldn't it?


 * You say he had a poor choice of words and indeed he could have said more but MY main concern is too many Admins. Yes some others may have more but I think 7 was pushing it and now you want 10? You say our argument is weak,I believe we already have CT who does DAs job. We dont need DA as an Admin, maybe just a rollback. Happyhobo-117
 * Um, how about you stop kissing the feet of CT for a second. I'm sick of everyone looking at CT like he's some sort of god. He's human, he sleeps, he's not constantly patrolling the site. Of course he does DA's job. I do CT's job, Manticore does mine, Dragonclaws does his, and so on. The difference is, admins do their jobs at different times. Admins also have social lifes outside of Halopedia, meaning they can't always be here. Just because CT does DA's job doesn't mean DA can't be an admin, he can do things when CT isn't here. Seriously, stop acting like CT is going to come down from heaven riding a white horse down golden sunrays and clean up everyones crap all the time, because the sad truth for most of you is, he can't. That's why we have more administrators. The wiki is growing, therefore the administration is growing too. Deal with it for once and stop whining about pathetic crap.  Ti ger rr rr 21:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, are you kidding me? Even CT can't work 24-hours round the clock on here. Too many admins is n o reason whatsoever. What exactly is the harm of having too many admins, if we did? To put it simpler: More admins=less vadals. I myself seem to be using rollback more than I used to. I revert more and more every week. We are gaining vandals, and many admins are becoming inactive. Sometimes when I report a vandal, I need to wait for a bout half an hour before an admin comes to my help. And that's when I board blast all the admins. That's why we need more, and DA is a perfect example of an admin. In addition, CT can't always concentrate on anti-vandalism, as he's doing about 10 admin jobs at once. If there is more admins on the site, they can share work and so have more time for users and help when we need it. In addition, DA is an extreme vandal fighter, I mean, he fights more vandals at a time than I do, so if he's an admin, he can ban them at once.

I'm not going to try to make people change their votes, but I would like for those who opposed to re-evaluate the situation. The questions below are by no means what govern whether you are accepted or not. They do reflect how a user can take to administration, yes, but there isn't exactly any right or wrong answers. I see many users opposing due to a poor response to question 7? I don't see much wrong with it. Maybe a poor choice of words or a confusing explanation, but I see what he means. I can apply his answer to the wiki, and I can see that his answer reflects a good portion of the wiki at times. To me, his answer to question 7 has only pointed out the majority of editor's views towards the administration and who they should listen to. I can understand maybe a cause for concern or confusion due to the answer, but I don't understand why it is enough to make someone oppose? Let's not forget my own RfA. Many users started opposing me due to a "playful nature" that was picked up from one of my answers. Yet this answer hasn't made me a bad admin.

So in short, I would like to state that these answers, to me, don't reflect the user's admin abilities. If anything, it reflects the experience they've had at the wiki. Their experience to date is what causes these answers. After reading his answers more closely, I have seen potential in DA, not a cause for concern, and it's given me more reason to support his RfA.  Ti ger rr rr 20:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you HaloDude. That is more or less what I'm trying to point out. Just because he answered his question 7 a bit poorly, means that we have to oppose him? Give me a break... Also, the too many admins reason is also ridiculous. I mean, what's wrong with having just one more admin for god's sake? It wouldn't do any harm, only offer the site more protection. Correct me if I'm wrong.


 * My comment has nothing to do with the "too many admins" scenario. I'm simply saying that a poor answer isn't a reason to instantly oppose. Had he answered that question better, he'd likely have less oppostion. So it bugs me that one poor answer is enough for people to instantly make up their minds.  Ti ger rr rr 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I started the to many Admins thing on Simons vote, I still supported him. Or was the guy at the same time as him?User:GEARS OF WAR 2

HaloDude, I know that the too many admins thingy isn't what you're sying. However, I do agree with your point.


 * What's wrong with 10 Admins? We don't need 10 people to help us think thats what's wrong! I know they help us and protect us but we don't need to go to them for every problem we have. We do have brains! Happyhobo-117
 * Nice one Dandarro! But, although you say it, I guess you do the opposite... that's what I always do. Saying that I don't need them and on the first sight of trouble I run to them. It's the title that makes you feel safe at them. Admins, the ones who know everything and promise to help you... -  Μητσάρας   κι όποιος   αντέξει  [[Image:1229655910-Th_master.jpg|20px]] 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the last time, if we had 45 admins, it would be better than 10, wouldn't it? The more admins, the more users watching over Halopedia, monitoring for vandalism and point-whoring, and more creative people to think of new ideas to improve Halopedia! It doesn't matter if normal Halopedians have brains; we can't exactly block users when we are fighting vandalism and there are no admins online at the time! Cease your persistent insistence that we do not need another admin. (If that's even the real reason why you don't want him as an admin; I'm starting to suspect darker designs) — Lt.   Commander   Kouger  20:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins aren't here to help you think. Admins are trusted users who can delete articles and spam, ban vandals and point whores, monitor the site and overall, help anyone who needs it. Having another admin doesn't mean that we think for you. If you have problems with any admins, by all means speak out, but don't turn down a candidate simply because you think there's too many and because you don't want us "thinking for you". Of course you have brains. Everyone here does. How you use them is different. For instance, you could be using your brain to evaluate this candidate, but instead, you're criticising the adminstration as a whole for extremely poor reasons, and taking it out on a potential future administrator. The difference is, even if you use your brain, you can't block users, you can't delete unwanted pages. Administrators can. How about using your brain properly, and stop accusing the administrators of treating you like mindless zombies who can't look after themselves. It's pathetic.  Ti ger rr rr 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Nicmavr, why have you been removing votes from the RfA?  Ti ger rr rr 21:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What??! Removing votes?? I haven't removed any votes, all I did was add my vote back, 'cause someone removed it!


 * I was upset and I am sorry when I said that. However I don't belive my argument is pathetic or worthless, I would except the RFA if it is succsesful though I won't like it. Also if we get too many Admins we may see people getting crazy ideas and believing the would be helping if they were to do the Admin job too much. For all we know is that if things get out of hand we could have a power struggle. I wasn't here for the User Rebellion but from what I see it wasn't fun. How would like another one? I also don't care if the Admins can do more than me I respect their authority but I wouldn't like another one as of my statement above and when I said about them thinking for me, I will admit, I did somewhat believe that but others think that entirely, and fear them. Another one could just mean more and more fear, but we should respect them out of their ranking and abilities not out of fear! All in all because of previous reasons and the one I just stated ids the reason of my opposition.  Happyhobo-117


 * "User Rebellion"? I've never heard of such event in Halopedia. Are you referring to the Vandals/Spammer Season we had during the summer? 5 ub<font color="#FF4F00">7 ank (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 12:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ya I thinks so. I saw it on a blog and on Ghost Sanghellies profile sorry. And to go a little farther into my argeument when I say Admins think for us I mean you seem to think everyone thinks like you. You make it sound like I have no heart when I don't want another Admin or dont agree with you. Thats what I mean. Also what do you mean "darker designs"? Happyhobo-117


 * ....No. That stuff happened in summer of 2007. Ju  st  in  e  21:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

'''Actually, just to let everyone know and especially HaloDude, Nicmavr was not the one who has been removing votes. It was Devout Atheist himself. This must have been a mistake... Take a look here'''.  Μητσάρας   κι όποιος   αντέξει  13:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Nicmavr DID remove votes. See here, where his edit removes a vote from the support, neutral and against sections. He removed the votes of Andrew-996, EwCDnaudee419 and ONI recon 111. Before you tell me i'm wrong next time, check the history all the way.  Ti <font color="Orange">ger <font color="Black">rr <font color="Orange">rr 20:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've concluded the problem. Either my browser was messed up and highlighted random stuff, or the history thing was glitched up. Same must have happened to DA. My apologies to the problems caused.


 * Yes, my vote was mysteriously half-removed (I fixed it). And I agree with HaloDude (he technically just repeated what I said in better words). And Dandarro nahan, your reason for opposing DA is still shrouded in mystery (because I don't believe that you honestly think that we would have too many admins with DA on the team). — Lt.   Commander   Kouger  16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Shrouded by mystery? What is that supposed to mean? And I sure as hell am not kissing CTs feet or treating him like a god. We don't really get along and the ony reason I said that is because we dont need another and you seem to be whinning about people not aggreeing with you and vandals more than anyone else. Happyhobo-117


 * Just to clear things up, I only removed two votes. One was a double vote by Gears Of War2 and the other was by someone who I thought had less than fifty edits. Commander DA
 * Sorry for being offensive, Devout, but it was actually 5 votes. Again, take a look here. The link clearly states that you removed 5 votes. But now that the voters re-voted, the only thing that remains is to explain in public the reason you deleted them. -  Μητσάρας   κι όποιος   αντέξει  [[Image:1229655910-Th_master.jpg|20px]] 20:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If he confirms he didn't do it, probably someone else hacked his IP address and then the History page shows DA username. There's gotta be some investigation, but I believe none would do something as silly as removing votes supporting himself, least of all a serious user like DA. 21:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I checked the link, and the only one I did on purpose was to tell GEARS OF WAR2 not to vote twice, I definitely did not remove a bunch of support votes for no reason, but stranger things have happened here. I crossed out Sith Venator's vote because when I checked his userpage, it showed he had no edits. This was obviously a mistake, some sort of glitch in Halopedia. I've been temporarily blocked several times, but luckily those cleared up fast. Possibly this is another sort of glitch? I see no point in removing votes unnecessarily, as that would only hurt my RfA. Commander DA 20:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do all RfAs, HoTMs etc, all end up with pathetic arguing and immaturity?. I checked the history and found a few votes being removed. I ask about it. That doesn't warrant an argument into who did what, who hacked who, who's being confrontational etc. It only warrants you to check the history of the page. You guys arguing over every little thing that's mentioned on this RfA is annoying, it isn't fair on DA, so stop. The arguing is pathetic. Does it matter if someone's vote is mysterious?! NO! Does it matter that someone has opposed? No! This patheticness is ruining the RfA. Please, stop.  Ti <font color="Orange">ger <font color="Black">rr <font color="Orange">rr 20:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you do have to realise that it's a bunch of teenagers running and controlling this and there's no official ban on saying certain things or anything like that. From reading through some of this tho, I'm sure certain people opposed out of jealousy too but that's just me. o_O Ju  st  in  e  21:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing has become very complicated after HaloDude's post. And his last comment makes some sense.  Μητσάρας   κι όποιος   αντέξει  20:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well to be honest, the jealousy on this RfA is what's complicating everything. Those people who are complaining about too many admins; if we offered them adminship right now, they'd accept without question. The idea of too many admins wouldn't cross their minds.  Ti <font color="Orange">ger <font color="Black">rr <font color="Orange">rr 21:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again you dont understand. If you offered me Adminship Id decline, Im not saying Im everyone but I am sure others would aggre. I am only active on weekends as are many others so Adminship would be hard. Also I would still consider the fact of too may Admins because I dont belive in that and I dont want to be a hypocrite. Happyhobo-117

Alright guys, the comments on here about one of the questions on here along with "having the Administrators we have now is enough"... to be Honest, some of you guys are quick to respond and sometimes dont think when doing so, I might "sound" mean, but here's the truth people, yeah, we are a site that are run by Teens, yes Teens, not Superpeople, but also, just drop it, he got nominated, posting comments is good, but about this.... wow, please, I hope we can improve this manner rather quickly.

Colonel   Comm|   Mission|   Papers|   Commendations|   H.Q.  05:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with HaloDude, all this arguing has ruined this RFA, which looks rather like a senate than a simple voting page. Also Spirit-of-HALO is right, I mean, people who say "enough Admins" probably don't know that vandalism is still striking hard, or that there are plenty of system exploiter. For the number of users Halopedia has, probably we should need a dozen of Admins. In my opinion, discussion ends now. 13:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was once one of those users who thought that Halopedia had enough Administrators. With SimonRJH inactive for quite sometime, I believe we need another Administrator to temporarily take his seat... though I'm somewhat unsure who would fit perfectly in his seat... <font color="#FF4F00">5 ub<font color="#FF4F00">7 ank (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 13:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do all RfAs, HoTMs etc, all end up with pathetic arguing and immaturity?

I'll tell you why. Because some people always give idiotic reasons on opposition, like: Poor response to question 7, etc. That get's everyone else started, and we end up arguing. That's why. }


 * You should have been more careful in how you worded that. If you want to call "Poor response to question 7" idiotic, keep that to yourself. To others, it's more significant. In saying that, you've basically insulted a few of the sites most influential, hardest worker, and longest standing users. Also, the reasons that are stated in one's vote aren't necessarily all of the reasons they oppose something. For example, while I stated my issue with the answer to one question, I could list about 5 questions who's answers I had issues with. In terms of all this drama that goes on is almost always the direct result of a single user's careless action or a simple misunderstanding that sets off a chain reaction. And I would really recommend you say something to take back that comment, becuase all you really did with it was add some fuel for the flames.


 * Insulting? I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just saying(and a few others agree) that it's a bit silly a reason fort that. I mean, there's no right or wrong in choosing your answers. Maybe he just choose poor words, but so what? That is an oppose reason? I maen, come on, it's harsh...


 * The initial comment is easily interpreted as offensive. Did you fully read my comment? I said that "...the reasons that are stated in one's vote aren't necessarily all of the reasons they oppose something." Who says that the answer to question 7 is the only reason I oppose this RfA? I have plenty of reasons, and I, like everyone else, have the right to keep them personal.
 * I agree with Ghost Sangheili, Nick. Plus, nobody mentioned this vote in the whole discussion. It can't be considered the reason of the argument. -  Μητσάρας   κι όποιος   αντέξει  [[Image:1229655910-Th_master.jpg|20px]] 15:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know, and I agree too. But all I'm saying is: I'm not offending anyone. I'm just saying that some of you that opposed didn't exactly give a very rerasonable and/or sensible reason. Just 'cause someone answers a question poorly, doesn't mean "ok, I oppose" and that. I understand that you have other reasons too, but may I ask the poor question thingy reason to be reconsidered? HaloDude said the same before me, that it's not the best reason in the world. Also, my apologies if I sounded a bit offensive.
 * Don't you know the reason? Manticore gave a right explanation for his vote, and everybody followed becaused they liked te reason. They kinda "don't have a will of their own". But if it was someone else, lower ranked guy, I guess that nobody wouldn't oppose for the same reason, if they would at all. -  Μητσάρας   κι όποιος   αντέξει  [[Image:1229655910-Th_master.jpg|20px]] 15:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just following HaloDude's explaination, because I agree with what he's saying.

I guess I won't say anymore about this now...

And here we go again..... >_>  Ti <font color="Orange">ger <font color="Black">rr <font color="Orange">rr
 * Shh dun say nething then i'll have to bug you about it when you get on and then you'll die Ju  st  in  e  05:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, everyone always does Manticore's will. Robots..... Also, the pathetic arguing which HaloDude seems so opposed to must end. — Lt.   Commander   Kouger  16:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed that the current number of active admins is currently 7? Relentless and Simon have been very inactive, and Devout may be able to replace them for a while, until at least one of them returns. By that time, more users will have come, he will have learnt what means being an Admin and he will be surely needed... I'm thinking about changing my vote, as the reason I voted neutral was the overwhelmation of the site with Admins. -  Μητσάρας   κι όποιος   αντέξει  16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, RR is quite active... in Halo Fanon Wiki.  <font color="#FF4F00">5 ub<font color="#FF4F00">7 ank (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 17:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, we're talking about Halopedia here. -  Μητσάρας   κι όποιος   αντέξει  [[Image:1229655910-Th_master.jpg|20px]] 18:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not the point, the point was that he was active in the first place, just not here. Can't say I blame him tho..  Ju st  in  e  01:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ... Somehow, I regretted to be in this conversation. Give him a message (Talk Page or Message Board) and he will answer. If not, ask him about his status in HaloFanon. You shouldn't make a solid statement without any investigation. <font color="#FF4F00">5 ub<font color="#FF4F00">7 ank (<font color="#FF4F00">7alk ) 18:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right Subs, he is active enough to reply at least. Let's not start arguing again...  Μητσάρας   κι όποιος   αντέξει  [[Image:1229655910-Th_master.jpg|20px]] 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If he's been active in Halo Fanon.... why hasn't he been active here? And what about Simon? 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The current list of admins (seeing as we're going that way):
 * Manticore - Active
 * Dragonclaws - Active
 * ED - Inactive
 * CommanderTony - Active
 * Simon RJH - Somewhat active at times
 * HaloDude - Active
 * Specops306 - Active
 * Subtank - Active
 * EwCDnaudee419 - Active
 * RelentlessRecusant - Inactive at Halopedia

If I missed any admins, apologies, i'm tired. Anyways, the point that many of you are trying to make is - We have many admins. Half of them are inactive. Some of them have other commitments outside of Halopedia. We need administrators to take their place to fill the gaps and because the wiki is rapidly growing with the release of Halo Wars and new Halo 3 maps in the near future as well as Halo 3:ODST later this year. Right?  Ti <font color="Orange">ger <font color="Black">rr <font color="Orange">rr 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that new administrators should be called only when a new project is incoming, but, as for the gaps, they should be refilled. That was my point, you're right. Also, ED is no longer on the Administrators list. -  Μητσάρας   κι όποιος   αντέξει  [[Image:1229655910-Th_master.jpg|20px]] 19:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We're not calling them just because have projects coming up. It's also to bridge the gaps. And because we get more and more idiots every day. So, yeah, I have to agree with HaloDude on this one. 12:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't agree with the "we have too many admins" argument. I have similar worries regarding DA as I had regarding RR prior to his adminization. Now, RR turned out just wonderfully, IMO, but I do have my doubts regarding a future DA adminship. The response to question seven strikes me as a bit rebellious and disrespectful. Rebellious attitudes/dislike of the current way things are run can have great positive effects, but I am worried about possible negative consequences that could result. I apologize for my frankness, but I feel it is important to speak of such things under these circumstances. I once more apologize. --<font color="#4D56B1">Dragon<font color="#F28500">c laws (<font color="#4D56B1">talk ) 06:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I, personally, don't see a rebellious side to the answer. However, I must agree that any rebellious activities can be worrying. But let's not forget that I was once a small part of the so called "User rebellions", and then helped JWR start up the Rebels of halopedia (usergroup). I've also had a few arguments with other administrators since my adminship. While I agree with you, I don't see DA as the negative rebellious type. Any rebellious emotion behind that, to be frank, was the honest truth. As an administration, we don't give enough thought to the community as we should do, and we really do control the community's rights. DA has only pointed it out from a regular user's point of view. But I do still agree with you to a point, Dragonclaws.  Ti <font color="Orange">ger <font color="Black">rr <font color="Orange">rr 22:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm a little lost. What exactly did I write that seemed rebellious or disrespectful? I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm just a little confused... Commander DA
 * Oh man I see what you guys were referring to. Lol I meant RR to stand for Rollback Rights, not the admin. I was merely referring to an admin's ability to grant certain privileges to contributors of Halopedia. I hope this clears it up. Commander DA
 * Well, that certainly would lighten the issue. --<font color="#4D56B1">Dragon<font color="#F28500">c laws (<font color="#4D56B1">talk ) 01:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How long do these RFAs take usually? BPL 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be any amount of time. Usually they last about a month or two.  Ti <font color="Orange">ger <font color="Black">rr <font color="Orange">rr 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * About a month, usually. Nic  ma undefined vr   [[Image:Energy sword.jpg|17px]] 20:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, some have lasted 3 monts, other 25 days, other 1 and a half months. There is not a standard lenght I think. The proper question would be "what is the criteria of closing a RfA?" -  Μητσάρας   κι όποιος   αντέξει  20:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be right if this RfA didn't pass; Devout Atheist deserves adminship, and most of the people who opposed him had poor reasons including "there are too many admins." — Lt.   Commander   Kouger  07:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. In my opinion, the too many admins reasons should be discounted. And anyways, there's no such thing as too many admins. Nic  ma undefined vr   [[Image:Energy sword.jpg|17px]] 14:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop attacking people's arguments. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. There are plenty of valid arguments against DA. If you want to go on a vendetta against people's arguments, then say so and start a new section.


 * I am not attacking peoples arguments! While some are valid, to many admins one is not. What excuse is that? Nic  ma undefined vr   [[Image:Energy sword.jpg|17px]] 13:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The more Admins, the more users hunting down and banning vandals, and we all know that vandalism will increase now that Halo Wars and Halo 3: ODST are coming out. I don't see how 10 admins is too many. D1134 20:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well realistically, he can have 300 people support him and still lose; it's all down to the choice of the admins (>_>) of if he'll get it or not.  Ju st  in  e  21:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, we only have 7 fully active admins. Not 10. The others are inactive.  Ti <font color="Orange">ger <font color="Black">rr <font color="Orange">rr 21:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ...Like I was saying, we only have 7. How is that too many? D1134 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

When you're supporting/opposing, could you sign, please? That is, include a link to your userpage so we can check. Thanks. Cheers. 14:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this going to end anytime soon?  J u  st  i  n  e  A |undefined C |undefined 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

When will this end? -  Μητσάρας   κι όποιος   αντέξει  15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Patience is virtue. Commander DA 21:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been over a month...and it's not even in the sitenotice anymore, and it seems like pretty much people aren't voting anymore. Bluntly I think they just forgot.   J  u  s  t  i  n  e I'm too cool to sparkle. That's what my  sonic screwdriver's  for. 22:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He has a point. The voting has stalled, and the only reason I still remember it is because I put it on my watch list. I think that it could stay up for another few weeks without any change in the votes. D1134 00:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the admins haven't forgotten. --<font color="#4D56B1">Dragon<font color="#F28500">c laws (<font color="#4D56B1">talk ) 00:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, what's the hurry? Some other RfAs took 2-3 months, mine has only been one and a half.Commander DA 01:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)