gww>Tanetris at 15:49, 29 October 2020

2020-10-29T15:49:08Z

New page

{{notice|This RFA has been resolved. Please do not add further support/oppose opinions.}}
===[[Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Xeeron|Xeeron]]===
This request is for the reconfirmation of [[User:Xeeron]] [[User talk:Xeeron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Xeeron|contribs]] • [[Special:Logs/Requests for adminship/Xeeron|logs]]. 
Created by: [[User talk:Horrible|User:Horrible]] 16:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

====Status====
Candidate withdrew 15:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

==== Candidate response ====

Remove my sysops rights please.

Having seen this entire farce unfold for several months now, I doubt any progress will be made. We have reached the stage of pointless obstructionism and trolling sockpuppets. This whole non-issue could have been solved by dropping a friendly question on inactive sysops' talk pages to ask whether they still monitor their page and whether they want to keep sysop rights. Instead, there are a ton of discussions leading nowhere, an active sysop who left and nothing to show for it except a smaller box on the admin noticeboard. Was that really worth it?

I'd have made this edit earlier, if not for my belief that the sysop clean-up is wrong in principle and based on a wrong notion of sysop status being a reward for active users (which it never should become). --[[User:Xeeron|Xeeron]] ([[User talk:Xeeron|talk]]) 19:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

====Support====
# '''Support.''' As per my numerous comments on this debate and in light of the emerging role of standby sysops; I feel any sysop interested in retaining their sysop rights, should be allowed to do so. -- [[User:Salome|Salome]] [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 16:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
# '''Support.''' Xeeron's shown continued interest in the wiki after all these years. The wiki doesn't demand much these days, but it says a lot to me that someone is willing to come back and help out as needed. [[User:Greener|Greener]] ([[User talk:Greener|talk]]) 19:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

====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)
# <s>'''Oppose.''' Inactive for too long. [[User:Steve1|Steve1]] ([[User talk:Steve1|talk]]) 17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)</s>
# '''Oppose.''' I endorse removal of sysop rights for this user. They left for GW2W with no intentions of coming back and they admirably stuck to that. -[[User talk:Chieftain Alex|'''Chieftain '''Alex]] 18:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
# '''Oppose.''' Due to administrator's inactivity for more than 7 years. [[User:Dmitri Fatkin|Dmitri Fatkin]] ([[User talk:Dmitri Fatkin|talk]]) 14:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
# '''Oppose.''' Almost 8 years inactivity is a long time for an admin. [[User:Sime|Sime]] ([[User talk:Sime|talk]]) 00:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

# <s>'''Oppose.''' Inactivity again. This is not supposed to be a permanent position. [[Image:User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png]] [[User:DrogoBoffin|Drogo Boffin]] 06:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)</s>

====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]])'' 21:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
# '''Neutral.''' I don't really have a strong opinion. If they accept the "standby" status, that would be fine by me and my vote can be counted as mild support. [[User:Steve1|Steve1]] ([[User talk:Steve1|talk]]) 14:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
# '''Neutral''' I still feel that admin/sysop status should not be a lifetime position however that being said I've taken time to think more on it and "inactivity" isn't a valid reason to oppose. [[Image:User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png]] [[User:DrogoBoffin|Drogo Boffin]] 03:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
<noinclude>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Xeeron}}
[[Category:Resolved reconfirmations]]
</noinclude>

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

gww>Tanetris at 15:49, 29 October 2020