Forum:Replacement of Admin Calua/Voting

This forum will be used to vote for the new admin. Before we begin, there are a few rules:


 * To be eligible to vote, you must have had an account for at least 3 months and have 300 edits. *New Rule: You must also have been active recently on the wiki.
 * "Active" is defined as having 10 edits in the past 30 days before this poll opened in any namespace.
 * You may also vote if you participated in the discussion or nominated someone in the previous section.
 * Each person may vote for only one candidate.
 * Candidates are not allowed to vote for themselves, but may still vote for others.
 * To vote, simply leave your signature under the name of the person you want.
 * Anyone who is ineligible to vote will have their vote removed.

In the past elections, there was a controversy regarding voter corruption, so I will make several clarifications about this now.


 * This is NOT a campaign.


 * Things you are NOT allowed to do:
 * Specifically ask any user to vote for any user.
 * Specifically ask any user to NOT vote for any user.
 * Specifically ask any user to remove their vote.
 * Make any kind of deal or exchange for a user's vote, change of vote, or removal of vote.
 * Create promotional material in favor of or against any candidate.
 * Advertise or promote a candidate on any page/article on the wiki outside this forum.
 * Use of the chat or any outside communication to violate any of these rules is also prohibited.
 * Do anything else that is in violation of the Poll Rules.


 * Things you ARE allowed to do:
 * Inform users of the election and ask them to vote without mentioning any candidates.
 * Make small declarations of "Vote for ___!" in chat, as long as they are addressed to large groups of people and not a small group (2-3) or a single voter.


 * These rules all apply to both candidates and voters.
 * Candidates who violate the rules will be disqualified from the election and have their votes removed. Users who voted for the candidate will be allowed to change their vote.
 * Voters who violate the rules will have their votes removed.


 * Any issues with these policies should be brought directly to the attention of the current Administrators.
 * These issues will be decided by only the current administrators.
 * There will be no discussion of these issues if the admins do not ask for it.
 * Once two admins agree to remove a voter/candidate, the vote will be removed. There will be no ties.

We're also trying the same thing we did last time: Allowing discussion in this forum about each candidate. This time, we're allowing posts about both positive and negative qualities. However, posts that are insulting or overly personal will not be allowed. Please keep posts fairly objective.

For something new this time, we're also allowing the candidates to write up a short statement to describe their experience and what they would do with the opportunity to be an admin. This is optional, of course.

As a formality, candidates will be listed in alphabetical order, not in order of nomination.

And remember, keep it nice! 01:24, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

The poll was open from October 15th 2015 at 00:00 UTC until October 22nd at 00:00 UTC.

REMINDER: ''In order to vote, you must have 10 edits in the past 30 days before the start date of this poll. Ineligible votes will be removed.''

User:AuroraOfDeath

 * 1) --Koromo (talk) 01:28, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * 01:35, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * 02:05, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  02:11, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  13:12, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) --Xilinoc (talk) 00:28, October 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  17:54, October 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) --Roranoa Drake II (talk) 14:40, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  18:59, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 7)  05:25, October 20, 2015 (UTC) Not as easy of a decision as I first thought it would be.
 * 1)  05:25, October 20, 2015 (UTC) Not as easy of a decision as I first thought it would be.

AuroraOfDeath's Statement
I believe most people here know me already, so there's not too much to say here. People have seen my work here as a rollback and my work here as a chatmod. What I personally work for is, however, the future for this wiki. No one wants to see this wiki back into desert-mode and completely barren, and neither do I. Most people probably know what I'm talking about. "Glad to be of help :)" is my motto :P. I'm flexible, I'm stern, and often neutral, but I assure you I will do my bloody best to maintain the greatness of this wiki, both in the community and content-wise, as I've already actively been doing as a rollback/chatmod here.

Veni, vidi, vici. 12:33, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion Regarding User:AuroraOfDeath
Posts in this section can be about both positive and negative qualities of User:AuroraOfDeath. However, posts that are insulting or overly personal will not be allowed. Please keep posts fairly objective. 01:41, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Works hard at undoing vandalism and speculation. Also is present during the wee hours of the morning when the other admins aren't usually on 01:35, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

The closest thing to an admin among the choices. Makes good relationships with other users especially among the vets and knows how to perfectly handle a load of wiki jobs, especially he is both a moderator and a rollback. My next batch of thoughts will be subjective.

Easily one of (if not the) highest-quality editors on the wiki right now, especially thanks to his work with the Reference Crew. Highly trustworthy and I expect no issues with his responsibilities towards other users. Like the other candidates, highly qualified and deserving of the position. 16:40, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

He's a great editor, and probably most deserving to be admin than any of us. Probably why he's getting so many votes. Heh. I ain't mad at all. You go be a cool admin, Aurora. 06:44, October 20, 2015 (UTC)

Besty17's Statement
Here, User:Besty17 can write a statement about himself if he so chooses.

Discussion Regarding User:Besty17
Posts in this section can be about both positive and negative qualities of User:Besty17. However, posts that are insulting or overly personal will not be allowed. Please keep posts fairly objective. 01:41, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Also a good editor who works at undoing vandalism and discussions. Has experience on a lot of wikis; would be my second choice. 12:22, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

A great, very skilled editor. His abilities and editing skill should not be overlooked. Like the other candidates, highly qualified and deserving of the position. 16:47, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

Besty, though a strong editor, removed stub templates without adding content to many pages, some even with empty sections. Otherwise, he is very active and a productive editor in stopping vandalism and participating in forums and talks. 17:53, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

User:Klobis

 * 01:58, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

Klobis's Statement
Here, User:Klobis can write a statement about himself if he so chooses.

Discussion Regarding User:Klobis
Posts in this section can be about both positive and negative qualities of User:Klobis. However, posts that are insulting or overly personal will not be allowed. Please keep posts fairly objective. 01:41, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Works hard to get the right translations for us, has been with us for a long time. 01:58, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

Klobis makes great edits, and his translations and references are invaluable. However, he is sometimes prone to edit warring and doesn't always discuss his reversions, which would make me hesitant to have him as admin. 12:22, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

A huge part of our wiki, we'd be lost without him. However, no matter how good of an editor he is, I'm not sure he would be a good choice for admin. Being admin means being present and responsive to the community, and trying to serve them in the best way possible. Being admin is not a reward for editing accomplishments. While still qualified for the position, I believe the 3 other candidates would serve the community better. 17:07, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

User:Uknownada

 * 05:05, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) MasterDeva (talk) 00:10, October 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * 07:37, October 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  16:35, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  12:39, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Uknownada's Statement
I've been editing this Wiki for around five years. I've had ups and downs with it, and I've made some smart and stupid decisions from time to time like we all have. But I believe my contributions here have been really helpful for the Wiki. I've made a lot of friends here, and it's a shame to see most of them gone, but there's nothing stopping new friends from joining us so they can contribute as well. I kind of hope we see many new faces here within the next few years or so. I've been admin a few times before, but mostly to fix images or vandalism and such. When I'm admin, I will vow to continue to do this a little more! I probably won't screw up.

I am Nada, and I want to be your new admin. 02:15, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion Regarding User:Uknownada
Posts in this section can be about both positive and negative qualities of User:Uknownada. However, posts that are insulting or overly personal will not be allowed. Please keep posts fairly objective. 01:41, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Works hard at improving the Wiki when he's on; the only issue for me is that he's not always actively editing. However, he'd hopefully rise up to the occasion of elected, so that wouldn't be an issue 12:22, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've always kind of had an on-and-off relationship with the Wiki. Sometimes I'll be editing it as hard as I can, other times I'll simply put it off and forget about it. I think if I were elected, I'd probably be motivated enough to edit more. This election alone might have motivated me actually. 12:47, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the single user I trust the most on this wiki with dealing with conflicts (with the possible exception of the other admins). Very experienced editor who has had his hand in most areas of the wiki. I definitely trust and expect him to "step up" and become more active and involved if elected. Like the other candidates, highly qualified and deserving of the position. 16:58, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

If I refused the nomination, my vote would have gone to Nada without a doubt. He's a great editor who has been here far longer than me and I would definitely call him admin-worthy. Best of lucks, Nada. 09:51, October 20, 2015 (UTC)