Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Chieftain Alex

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

Chieftain Alex

This request is for the sysophood of Chieftain Alex (talk • contribs • logs • block log).
Created by Auron 09:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

Status

Accepted 18:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Candidate statement

I've been around the GWW block for a while, accumulated quite a few edits, and I'm pretty familiar with most aspects of our wiki + our remaining frequent users. If I succeed, I would use the sysop toolbox to counter vandal sprees and reduce the workload of our small current team of active admins. I often check RC during UK evening times (+18:00 UTC) and in the morning while having breakfast (~08:00 UTC) - which also happens to frequently be the time when our predominantly US admin team is asleep/at work - so I feel I could be a useful addition.

Also, I don't like how Guild Wars Wiki:List of administrators is almost entirely red and orange, we could do with a few more blue ones... Chieftain Alex 11:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Alex keeps tagging vandalised pages for deletion with the GWWTs all the time to the point you get to think: -He could be deleting them by himself-. Yoshida Keiji (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Alex is a strong editor and knows how the wiki works (code & policy). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. No objections here either. Since i'm pretty bad with these things i'll leave it at that. Da Mystic Reaper 19:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Support.Alex has the abilities and knowledge of the wiki (and of GW itself) to become a sysop in my opinion. He shouldn't be kept waiting and tagging pages for Auron to be deleted, but instead delete them himself.SuperRobertWa 20:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. No objections for the above mentioned reasons. --Falconeye 22:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. As per the points that have been brought up. --Silver Edge 06:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. ...

Neutral

1. I don't check this wiki very often anymore, so I'm not going to weigh in too much, hence the neutral. But I don't like, for example, User talk:Chieftain Alex/Archive 5#Edit summaries and, more recently, on the admin noticeboard (note the text in the edit summary link as well as the comment). However, it could be that GWW's overall activity is low enough that page deletion and vandal-blocking are really the only tasks to carry out, in which case it may be ok to lower what we expect of potential admins. (I've tried lots of times to rephrase that without sounding like an arsehole but I couldn't.) I'm not making a judgement here though, I just wanted to give the more active users things to consider. pling 18:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Neutral to mildly supportive. Agreed with Pling, part of being an admin is communicating effectively in a 'professional' tone when acting officially. That said, as long as it's something he keeps in mind, I'm willing to leave it at a cautionary note rather than making it something to oppose over. Seems pretty reasonable otherwise. - Tanetris 19:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Neutral to mild oppose. I agree with Yoshida's or TEF's assessment. But the (very recent) stuff pling showed weigh against him. 2 years ago this should've been a clear oppose imo, but today it's enough for a neutral stance and a raised eyebrow I guess. Steve1 22:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)