Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Lemming64

Regading the neutral comments
Not that number of contributions should have anything to do with picking sysops but I have... quite a few, the main issue should be am I doing anything wrong? because if not in your eyes then I am a help to the sysop team with blocks and cleanup, and as there is no limit on the number of sysops, contributions to discussions or anywhere should have nothing to do with it really. -- Lemming 20:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * this might be the wrong place to ask this, but just wondering, whats the point in a neutral vote? Not trying to be dim or annoying here just dont get the need to say "I have no comment", when no comment is required in the first place. *puzzled* I'm probably missing something thats obvious to everyone else. -- Salome 17:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose votes
Could Cursed Angel and Eloc perhaps give reasons as to why they oppose? -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * not saying that this IS the reason, but just to refresh my memory; Lemming64 opposed eloc's last request for adminship didnt he? -- Salome 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And failing, let's not forget the always useful reason " X fails at Y" XD.--Fighterdoken 00:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the reason. The simple fact is that I feel that he's not that good of a Sysop and should spend some time as a normal member for a while. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  05:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the reason? It kinda fits nicely into Fighterdoken's formula.... X = Lemming64, Y = sysophood :P j/k But on a more serious note, users are not required to explain their vote, although it would be nice if they did so as to let the candidate at least know what is going on. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 05:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

making up violations?
Can someone post examples of where he's been making up violations? There are too many logs and contributions to sift through. -Smurf 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was an issue about 6 months ago to do with NPA, anyhow I believe I have learnt my lessons from that time and have become more experienced. I can't find the orignal contribs though as they are way back. -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I said it before and i'll say it again. you're a great sysop and this request reconfirmation has only happened due to the policy of decreasing demand for reconfirmation over time, from demands dating back at least 4 months. This is a farce, can we not quickly just drop this, reconfirm him again and move on as this is ludicrous and honestly just hassling an extremly good sysop. -- Salome 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's essentially a suggestion that we ignore due process, forget about the reconfirmation part in the policy, and ignore the opinions of those who requested reconfirmation... if anything, this is a good way to see a show of support. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 03:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If enough users feel he is a good sysop, he will be reconfirmed and this issue is over in 7 days. --Xeeron 10:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Much as it pains me to say this but CoRrRan, below, made the point i was trying to make much better than I did. I dont want to ignore due policy and all that goes with it, as its a terrible precedent to set, but I feel that it should be taken into account that the requests were from about 4/5 months ago and Lemming has developed alot as a sysop in that time. Is their not some way we could adapt the policy, at some point in the future, to instate some kind of time bar, like after 3 months with no new reconfirmation requests, all old ones are discarded and the person is given a fresh and clean slate to start with. As it stands, it seems to be able to hassle people months after the issues were already dealt with and the person in question has developed. -- Salome 13:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree it is a bit odd how it works at the moment, you will find a few more of these coming in the next few month too I think. I noticed you haven't voted yet Salome ;) (going completely blind!) -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 13:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I got what you mean. I think it's worthwhile to bring it up for discussion at GWW:ADMIN but I think it's probably better to wait until DE's request for change gets resolved first. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 14:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeh i agree with you abberrant. and LOL @ lemming I would be the person after the number 1 on support. lol I really do need a wee icon to go with my name to make me stand out more, but never been able to quite get my head around how to do it or for that matter what icon i would ven want. maybe one day... *wishful look* -- Salome 16:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding an icon is relatively simple. You hit "my preferences" at the top of the page, then altar the code in the nickname field. You then need to make sure that the tick box that says "Raw Signatures" is ticked. So for example you could put in the code (uploading any image you like):

Salome
 * And thanks for the support :) -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 17:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Help:Signatures is also useful ;) --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|15px| ]] Brains12 \ Talk 17:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the use?
Sure, reconfirmations are nice to have once in a while so that everyone can put more written words on the wiki totally not related to the game, we certainly need more of them... But I don't grasp the logic behind putting this reconfirmation here when the request for the reconfirmation has been made almost 5 months ago... why now? Sure, it's written somewhere that it should be done, but at least use a proper time frame for these things... -- (CoRrRan / talk) 12:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, time frame depends on support of the original request. If someone is clearly doing something wrong then a lot of people will support the rfc and it would lead to a much quicker vote. However all requests eventually trigger one. -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 12:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reconfirmations are for general unhappiness with a sysop, rather than a specific instance. So I guess the intent was to measure accumuilated opinions. Still, wouldn't be oposed to a change, as a spike in requests followed by nothing give this sort of result. Backsword 17:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion here would be to work towards amending the adminship policy so that, while retaining the decreasing-requests-to-reconfirm pattern, also add in a clause stating that if the most recent request for reconfirmation is over X months old, a reconfirmation should only be started if both a) the requests requirement given time passed is met, and b) at least one of the original requesters still wishes to request the reconfirmation. Such would be verified by asking on the talk page(s) of the original requesters. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed with above. My request was made ages ago, about an issue that came up ages ago. The issue was not deemed important enough then to reconfirm -- it certainly isn't important enough now. &mdash;Tanaric 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a multitude of clauses of events that trigger a Reconfirmation? Or a set time period (say, three or four months) if there isn't one already in policy.  Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)