Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Gares Redstorm

Gares Redstorm
This request is for the reconfirmation of based on user requests.

Created by Tanetris 22:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Result
Successful. 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate statement
TBA

Support

 * 1) Support. Gares was entrusted with admin tools for good reason, and has not done a single thing to break nor even stretch that trust. That's really all that should need to be said, and judging by the other two reconfirmations, is all that needs to be said. I probably should've just started this last week with the others, so they'd all be resolved together, but I wanted to give Gares a chance to pop in if he wanted to say anything. I have little doubt it'll be successful anyway. - Tanetris 22:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per Tane --User Ezekial Riddle bigsig.png Rid dle 22:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ...
 * 3) Support. There is no evidence that  is no longer competent.  'Nuff said.  Also, precedent and whatnot.  [[Image:User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|19x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  22:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Gares banned me on the original wiki and subsequently taught me a lot about how wikis work. He is one of the most competent and unbiased sysops I've seen in all my years on these wikis - and as he hasn't shown anything to the contrary, I support him keeping sysop tools. - Auron 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 23:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Per Tane and Auron. Even though I was hardly a presence on either of the wikis a few years ago, everything I saw Gares do made him a model for any and all future sysops, and he has done nothing since then to make me lose that faith in him.  calor   (talk)  23:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Per all of the above. --[[Image:User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png|19px]] Wandering  Traveler  00:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. As per above. &mdash;  Jon  [[Image:User_Jon_Lupen_Sig_Image.png|18px]]  Lupen  03:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I checked through Rainith's recent contributions and could not find any actions that I consider questionable as a sysop. As such I can see no reason for him not to retain the sysop tools. Misery   06:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Per Tanetris and Auron, and per what I said on the other reconfirmations about this situation.. poke | talk 07:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Per above. | Cyan Light [[Image:User Cyan Light User-Cyan Light sig.jpg|19px]] Live! |  13:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I doubt that time has lessened Gares' ability to responsibly use the Admin tools.  --Rainith 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Per Tanetris, again. –  Emmett  17:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Similar to the argumentation at Rainith and LordBiro's reconfirmation. --Xeeron 20:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Per Tanetris as on the other two. -- Kakarot  [[Image:User Kakarot Sig.gif|Talk]] 21:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Are you aware of this policy and its older sibling? Yeah. Gares was instrumental in bringing those into being (more on GuildWiki, but whatever), and in fact on GuildWiki it was informally known as GW:GARES. He was known as a mediator that brooked favoritism and foolishness with no man - he had the fairness and courage to stick it to anyone, even his closest friends and coworkers, if they crossed the line of civility when dealing with others. Even other admins! :p One could always rely on Gares to make fair, impartial, unbiased bans, and he was a safe person to turn to for "disinterested third party" review. I've seen nothing to indicate that any of this has changed, regardless of his current "inactivity". Vili &#x70B9; [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. As per all above and the other 2 reconfirmations, even though I managed to miss them. -- ab.er. rant  [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 04:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Support.  Mini Me  [[Image:User Mini Me sig.png|19px|talk]] 13:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. Not even here to give a statement or accept the RfR. [[Image:User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png]] DrogoBoffin 22:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Per RfA discussion. --Freedom Bound 23:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. What Drogo said. - J.P. [[Image:User Jope12 sigicon.png|18px|Contributions]] Talk   23:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Fully agree with mr. zeroes (though why he voted neutral is beyond me), I see no reason for anyone to keep sysop status solely for old times sake and he could always start a new rfa to be reinstated as a sysop when/if he ever comes back.  Nate User Nate Alluran MyTalkPage.png 13:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. As per RfR.--Fighterdoken 00:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. Blahblahblahblah.  Mini Me  [[Image:User Mini Me sig.png|19px|talk]] 23:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I can't support or oppose :S - J.P. [[Image:User Jope12 sigicon.png|18px|Contributions]] Talk   23:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Though the larger voices in community involved in these kinds of things are supportive of keeping inactive sysops I'd rather those individuals actually measure up for themselves if it's necessary that they, as inactive sysops, still require their status.  From my point of view none of the inactive sysops need their status, and as a lot of the supportive votes suggest, it's more of lip-service for previous actions only, not current.  The past is nice but we can't just live in it either.   You've done good things in the past, and I'm supportive of that, but you're not doing anything now to warranty you maintaining your status, so I have to vote neutral.  000.00.00.00  01:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)