Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Eloc Jcg

Note: This RFA has been resolved. Please do not add further support/oppose opinions.

Eloc Jcg

This is an RFA for the sysophood of Eloc Jcg created by Sum Mesmer Guy on 17 February 2008 12:21pm (UTC)

Eloc has become a well-known and much liked user on GWW, and has helped the users and clean up articles in order to aid the wiki community. He has referred matters of concern to the sysops where sysop powers were required, and some of said concerns may not have been noticed for long time, thereby potentially preventing users getting incorrect information, or a breakout of vandalism that the sysops wouldn't be able to do anything about. If he were to become a sysop, I can give my garuantee that Eloc will not do anything to abuse his powers and I believe that he will be more of an asset than he already has been as a sysop. Eloc would also be able to take some of the pressure off the current sysops. Eloc has done a lot to prevent any breaches of GWW Policy and could do more as a sysop. As mentioned above, Eloc has reported any concern to a sysop, a measure which wouldn't be required if he were to become one. Also, he is a friendly user who has made himself known throughout the wiki, and many people I'm sure would be comfortable talking to him about any worries, concerns or breaches of wiki policy that may arise. If you disagree with anything here, shout at me, not Eloc.Also, check out Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Eloc Jcg/Archive to find out about what happened the last time he was nominated.--Sum Mesmer Guy 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomination acceptance

Status

Failed. 10:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. --Sum Mesmer Guy 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. -- 話す priestess donut 寄付14:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
3. - - 78.82.74.250 16:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
4. --Cursed Angel 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
5. -- 68.219.171.154 05:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
6. --Prophet Ascension 00:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
7. --195.93.21.74 09:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
8. --Vermillion Orion12:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
9. - Vanguard 17:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC) We need a roughneck. But 9 versus 28 doesn't seem like good odds. Sorry Eloc.

Oppose

1. --lussh 12:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Here we go again ~ Kurd / SCobra
3. I haven't seen anything to change my opinion from last time, my reasons for no last time are summed up by pretty well by this. --Lemming 12:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Nothing has changed since last time. --Snograt 12:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
5. While complete objectivity is humanly impossible, Eloc has shown far too much subjectivity and emotion to be, in my opinion, worthy of adminship. Kokuou 13:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose. As I said last time, Eloc has repeatedly shown outbursts of temper when provoked, which I can't imagine being a good combination with admin tools, and he's occasionally demonstrated a poor understanding of the policies he would be enforcing. I've seen nothing since then to change my mind on those points. Eloc is often far too quick to jump on someone for extremely minor violations of the letter of policy, and I feel putting sysop authority in his hands will do more to alienate potential contributors than it will to improve the wiki. - Tanetris 13:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Eloc, while he can be a friendly and well-meaning person most of the time, doesn't have the necessary objectivity or clear mindset a sysop requires. His occasional misunderstanding of situations or his mood swings aren't a good feature for someone in any administrative position. -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Eloc does more good for this wiki without admin tools. Lord of all tyria 14:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
9. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
10. I (still) agree with all other views. Unfortunately, Eloc is not yet ready to be a sysop. Add to this that it has only been just over two months since last time, and I can't support this RfA. Ale_Jrb (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
11. 72.78.172.125 15:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose for reasons above RT | Talk 15:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
13. If feel this user Eloc still doesn't get it. Maybe with time, but not yet.--Fighterdoken 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. For reasons stated above, including outbursts and policy misunderstandings. - anja 20:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Well meaning contributor, but he needs to start thinking before making rash decisions before we give him admin tools. Lord Belar 21:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Nothing changed since the last time.. And yeah, still not enough contributions. poke | talk 21:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Agreed with Anja. — Galil 22:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Lacks common sense. — Skadiddly[슴Mc슴]Diddles 22:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose I feel that Eloc, while being a very active contributor, is much too literal in his interpretation of policy, and places far too much emphasis on numbers (as demonstrated by his previous RfA statement). Until he can grasp the concept of 'the spirit of a policy', I don't feel he should be given the power to affect other users. -- Wynthyst 22:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
20. My vote remains the same. -- Armond Warblade 02:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Agree with Tanetris. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777 (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose - I have to agree with a lot of the reasons people have given above me in particular Brains, I just don't feel Eloc is ready to be given this level of power. Also as Wyn mentioned he seems to put way too much emphasis on number of contributions and pretty much none on their quality. --Kakarot 03:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Needs to approach things with the best interests of the wiki in mind. Also, see the last argument. MiraLantis 05:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Why this again? -- (gem / talk) 06:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Eloc does not possess the character for this position. —Tanaric 07:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
26. What Tanaric said. -- scourge 07:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Good contributor to the wiki, and aside from agreeing with some of the comments above, I cannot support someone who prefers a literal interpretation of policy. -- ab.er.rant 15:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Need I say more than what has already been posted ahead of me? -- The Great Tomato 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Well. Eloc may be ready for sysophood one day, but that day is not today. Backsword 15:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Per Brains's argument, except I feel that it's more neutral than oppose. Someday, Eloc. Someday. Calor 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
3. out of sympathy, i'd support, but again, idk whether that would be good. - Y0_ich_halt 19:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Agrees with Brains, but leaning on the neutral rather than opposing. Perhaps another time. --People of Antioch talk 20:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Don't get me wrong, Eloc is a good guy, i just don't think that he is ready for the responsiblity of sysophood yet. Maybe when time passes, he will be able to control the swings he has with things.Insane Maestro 21:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Eloc seems to be better then he used to be behavior wise. Would have to watch for awhile to see if he would be ready to become an Administrator-- Ninja Dragon
7. I dont think he is quite ready for adminship yet, however he would make a good member of the welcoming club XD as would I XD. However I think that u "certain" people who r talkign about outbursts and mood swings, we have to remeber that Eloc is human like the rest of us and even a sysop gets in arguments at times. --Shadowphoenix 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)