Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Aiiane

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Info-Logo.png Note: This RFA has been resolved. Please do not add further support/oppose opinions.


This request is for the reconfirmation of User:Aiiane talkcontribslogs.
Created by: User:Horrible 16:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


Successful 23:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Candidate response[edit]

This is not an unreasonable question of whether to remove sysop status for a number of inactive sysops. However, you might consider whether the full reconfirmation process is, frankly, overkill/inefficient - consider perhaps instead reaching a general consensus on how to handle highly inactive sysops overall and then asking the bureaucrats to implement it in bulk.

As for the particular case of myself, I have no objection to no longer retaining sysop status. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair comment, however my thoughts were it wouldn't be overly fair to retire all sysops at once without a review of each sysop's last activity. (I imagine you had the old RFA page watchlisted and that triggered when I moved it? ^^) -Chieftain Alex 18:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yep. With regards to removals - sysop status isn't a medal/award that it's unfair to take away; it's a tool. If it's not being used, taking it away doesn't hurt anyone, and if it's needed again, it can always be given back. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
2020-10-28 Addition[edit]

Per Tanetris' question, I'd be happy to remain on as a standby admin. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


  1. Support. I didn't realize that Aiiane has been reachable over IRC this whole time. That plus recent activity and ongoing discussion about this clean-up has lead me to swap my decision. horrible | contribs 00:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  2. 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. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 16:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support. I have not interacted much with Aiiane, and I consider that my loss. But I see that Aiiane's currently around, and I doubt one's general wisdom dulls much over these few years. Full disclosure, Aiiane gave me my sysop powers, and I figure I should return the favour somehow. Greener (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


  1. 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. horrible | contribs 16:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Not my choice of a sysop. Steve1 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC) She's fine with the powers to be removed and I think that's the appropriate thing to do. Steve1 (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I endorse removal of sysop rights for this user. Even on a wiki for a game on maintenance mode, 5 edits in 7 years isn't sufficient to justify retention. Sysop rights last used in 2013 to combat spam and modify abusefilters. -Chieftain Alex 17:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Due to administrator's inactivity for more than 5 years. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Inactivity, these should not be permanent positions and I have felt that way for a long time. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 06:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


  1. 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. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Traveler (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. 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. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 03:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)