gww>Tanetris at 14:16, 14 June 2020

2020-06-14T14:16:55Z

New page

{{notice|This RFA has been resolved. Please do not add further support/oppose opinions.}}

===[[Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Calor|Calor]]===
This request is for the reconfirmation of [[User:Calor]] [[User talk:Calor|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Calor|contribs]] • [[Special:Logs/Requests for adminship/Calor|logs]]. 
Created by: [[User talk:Horrible|User:Horrible]] 16:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

====Result====
Presumed retired 14:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

==== Candidate response ====


====Support====


====Oppose====
# '''Oppose.''' While this user has been a fine sysop in the past, 5+ years of inactivity shows a lack of continued interest in the role. I thank them for their previous work. [[User_talk:Horrible|horrible]] | [[Special:Contributions/Horrible|contribs]] 16:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
# '''Oppose.''' Inactive for too long. [[User:Steve1|Steve1]] ([[User talk:Steve1|talk]]) 16:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
# '''Oppose.''' I endorse removal of sysop rights for this user. Calor was last significantly active in their admin capacity in early 2010 and hasn't used their admin tools for almost a decade. -[[User talk:Chieftain Alex|'''Chieftain '''Alex]] 18:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
# '''Oppose.''' Due to administrator's inactivity for more than 5 years. [[User:Dmitri Fatkin|Dmitri Fatkin]] ([[User talk:Dmitri Fatkin|talk]]) 13:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
# '''Oppose.''' 5+ years inactivity is a long time for an admin. [[User:Sime|Sime]] ([[User talk:Sime|talk]]) 00:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


====Neutral====

# '''Neutral.''' I've been keeping track of the wiki (despite my dead edit history) and I can agree with the spirit of the discussions. Not many people are left here from the old crew, and after almost a decade, I can see the merit of cleaning up redundancies. Perhaps it is more useful to new users who don't want to sift through a sea of sysops that may or may not answer questions or react in a timely manner to a situation. It might also reduce the chance of an old account being compromised and causing havok with blanket bans and deletes. However, no matter how old a wiki is or how little work there is to do, I don't like the precedent of removing community-earned privileges solely on the basis of inactivity or a lack of work.
::Ultimately, my question is this: What does this solve? If we add a new core group of active administrators, what will they do that our current group cannot? Additionally, what does removing our list of inactive administrators do for the long-term health of the wiki? Active edits aren't necessary for us to be here in case something happens. Ultimately, I'm not sure I see what the end-goal here is beyond making the list look nicer. The activity-categories are there for a reason, and I'm not sure I like the idea of removing tools from a member solely because it's been a while.
::That being said, I still do see the merits of cleaning up and making things easier for anyone trying to contact an active sysop. I just don't see enough positives to give full support to the idea. --[[File:User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png|19px]] [[User:w.t.|Traveler]] ''([[User talk:w.t.|talk]])'' 21:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
<noinclude>
[[Category:Resolved reconfirmations|Calor]]
</noinclude>

Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Calor - Revision history

gww>Tanetris at 14:16, 14 June 2020