The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Vector (talk • changes • e-mail • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • right changes)

End date: Th 5 February 18.20 UTC

I would like to help with the CU flag because Creol had leave this (as well as the other) flags. If he won't, I am here. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vector (talk • contribs)

# Support - The nomination is a little weird, but still support Kennedy ^(talk) 18:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support - Don't see why not, good candidate. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 18:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Support - Can't find anything wrong with the candidate, other than his inactivity, which he has already promised to become more active. Razorflame 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support – as long as he becomes a bit more active, I fully trust him for the tool. TheAE talk 19:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - will support.-- Chris†ianMan16 ^{t _c r} 19:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   #Weak Support A little too inactive for my liking, but I trust this user. WP:AGF. Shapiros10 21:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Yeah sure. Bit inactive though, and Vector, I've "copyedited" your nom to make it a bit clearer. Feel free to revert. MC8 (talk) (who is mighty) 21:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. I was a little afraid to support you at first because of your inactivity. I took a look at your contributions, and I realized that even though you haven't been active lately, you are still an experienced editor who will know how to use the tools wisely. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) (review) 23:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose - Inconsistent activity;) <--Take note of the wink. Good luck! --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 11:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - User has said he will become more active and I certainly trust him to have CheckUser. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Weak Oppose We already have one inactive checkuser. I would like to see more activity before we give him this. Nothing against him personally as he is a great editor. But as Majorly mentioned below, I would like to see a bit more dedication first. -Djsasso (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose I believe a checkuser should be fully active, and by fully I mean more than 14 edits in a month. Checkusers will sometimes be needed urgently, so inactivity is a big problem for me. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   for a fast answer we can contact me with a mail, is enable :-) --vector ^_^ (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Not as active as I'd like a CU to be. I'm thinking about Creol's replacement only. It has nothing to do with trust. Synergy 20:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Same as those above, I'd prefer to see a more active candidate apply for CU. Sorry. EVula // talk // 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. non e abbastanza online :P --Gwib ^-(talk)- 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Same as above - concern about activity, and I am not familiar with his work.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per inconsistent levels of activity. Juliancolton (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose Inactivity Kennedy ^(talk) 13:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. I don't want inactive checkusers, especially. — RyanCross (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Weak Oppose I've thought about this, and CheckUser is the user right where you are most needed to be active. Sorry :( Shapiros10 17:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose Sorry, but I think you are too inactive. FR^{Sign Here} 18:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose Too inactive for the post. Razorflame 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose Per my comment below. Frankly, I think this request is odd considering there are two others (including me) standing, who are much, much more active than Vector is. Please get more active as a bcrat, a user group we really do need more of, then perhaps consider running. Otherwise, this request looks like requesting flags just for the sake of it, with no thought put behind it. Majorly ^talk 19:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose - need to be more active, sorry. MathCool10 06:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would appreciate it if Vector showed a little bit more dedication to this wiki before requesting extra flags. He's only made 14 edits this year. Majorly ^talk 19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a reminder to everyone here, 25 named editor votes are required with at least 70% (right?) support for in order to gain the tools. Razorflame 19:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - CU requests need 25 votes; this one has 22. Sorry, Vector. --Eptalon (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.