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

(0/5/0); Scheduled to end 22:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Closed per WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza (talk · contribs) – This is my third attempt, but I have had more experience since then. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 22:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I attend to block vandals after they have had final warnings and keep vandaliszing, and to delete pages that need to be deleted.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contributions are my edits to Total Drama Action, Total Drama Island, and List of characters from Total Drama Island.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes. I once had a sandbox problem where I was cussing, back in october.

4. Where are your other RfAs? You say this is your third attempt, yet I was only able to find a single RfA for one of your old usernames. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: Here.

• Links for Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza: Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza before commenting.

• My rollback issue was because I mistankely rollbacked edits I thought was vandalism. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING 11? Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 22:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a contentious topic, but generally, behavioral issues that have already come up, and communication problems. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) There's nothing wrong with being 11. There is, however, something wrong with behaving like an 11 year old. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose per very recent issues with rollback and behavior. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose - Wishy washy non-answers, bad grammar, and rollback issues. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose 11 years old?! Keepscases (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Your point? Simon^KSK 22:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I feel that is far too young to be an administrator. This candidate is not going to pass, so there is no point getting into the whole debate. Keepscases (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose - per Julian. Simon^KSK 22:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Good gracious no; behaves in a way which suggests that stating he is an 11 may be an overstatement. Daniel (talk) 22:28, 18 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.