Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Emmett/Archive 1

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

Emmett

This request is for the sysophood of Emmett (talk • contribs • logs • block log).
Nominated by User:Pling, created by – Emmett 23:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Status

Successful 14:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Candidate statement

Hello.

As you know, I am Shadowcrest (also Shadowcrest but I rarely used that account). I've been a sysop for 1.5 years on GuildWiki. I understand that people don't like to give out adminship based on work elsewhere, but I don't see this as an issue worth opposing over. I did not magically forget how to be a good sysop when I entered wiki.guildwars.com into my address bar, and the contributions that I have made here so far have proven that I am indeed still capable of contributing with a high standard of quality and that I understand what is asked of me as a sysop. I understand the argument about people changing when they change to a different wiki, but I believe that my contributions show that is not the case here and that I am able to perform just as well here as I did on GWiki.

...in addition, I've made a number of reverts/tags and I check my watchlist and RC numerous times a day, and could easily assist with mundane deletions and bannings as well.

Thanks for the nomination... always willing to help :) – Emmett 23:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I think Emmett would be a good addition to the current sysop team. I'm not going to hide the fact that I've spoken to him in (semi-)privacy a fair amount of times, but what I've seen of his ability to make judgements, form and express arguments, and to reason and justify do impress me; I think those attributes are lacking in parts within the active sysop group. In other words, he's fairly logical and objective. However, he's also friendly and not an asshat about it, and is what I would call a "pretty cool guy". Those are good things for a sysop; diplomacy+logicks=good. He's relatively active, so there's no cause for the inactive-sysop-is-bad camp to think this would be a waste of a sysopping due to inactivity.
   He's definitely got the experience, too - on GuildWiki, he's had sysop tools since March 28, 2008, which is a considerable amount of time to adapt and refine his ability to use wiki sysop tools at a core level (delete, block, protect) - I don't think tool-misuse is an issue. He's been on this wiki for a while as well, so I don't expect him to asplode the wiki or even cause minor harm if he gets sysopped here. I don't see this as being similar to Vili's RfA, as Emmett's style of contribution isn't so different across the wikis that he's effectively two different users. Note that this isn't my sole (or even major) motivation for this support - I'm going by what he's done in regards to GWW and The Wiki Concepts in general, the Gwiki stuff is just a bonus that complements this RfA.
   I guess the main thing I nominated Emmett for was what he could contribute to the discretionary side of sysopping in particular - the blocking, the conflict resolving, the discussion. -- pling 15:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. I'm going to take pling's word on this. — Jon Lupen 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Lilondra *poke* 12:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Weak Support. While it's true that making Emmett an administrator probably wouldn't do very much in the way of janitorial upkeep, and he probably wouldn't have the biggest impact ever, but I trust his judgment and I think he could be a valuable addition to the team, particularly when dealing with issues that require administrative discretion. And besides, I think the current administrative team would benefit far more from additional sysops capable of using discretion wisely than from additional janitors. For the record, I should probably note that I too have had a good deal of contact with Emmett off-wiki. With that said, the same qualities and personality traits that make him a good administrator elsewhere would serve him (and GWW) equally well here; trust me when I say that it's really not difficult to adapt to slightly different administrative systems if you've got even an iota of common sense. I understand the reluctance to promote someone who lacks strong contributions here--indeed, my own support for Emmett would be more enthusiastic if not for that factor--but I still believe that Emmett is a strong candidate and one who shouldn't be dismissed lightly. See also Pling's vote above and Emmett's comment on the talk page. — Defiant Elements +talk 19:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. ^ --Cursed Angel 10:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Because the number of votes matters more than vote content. -Auron 10:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Proper understanding of discretion is something that I think is lacking within the current sysop staff. While Emmett isn't an A+ contributor, he understands how wikis work. Misery 22:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. I made up my mind. Emmett hasn't been around here long, but he has impressed me by showing exceptional consideration and common sense in all his important edits. — Why 00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. I would like to give him a chance. I quite liked what I have seen before and I believe that it is a good choice to let him continue as a sysop. poke | talk 07:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. Same as everyone above me said, plus from personal experience that I've seen him help around a lot. Titani Ertan 13:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. I think that Salad is a pretty cool guy. eh uses dissection and doesn't afraid of anything. Vili 点 22:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Cress Arvein 00:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose.. Guildwiki and this wiki don't really opperate under similar terms, so being a sysop there doesn't automagically grants the knowledge for operating as such here. I would actually like to see him more involved in GWW: (where frankly, he doesn't participate at all) and on user's behavior correction before he runs for the position here.--Fighterdoken 23:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose. I like Emmett. But they're from PvX, aren't they? *cringe* elix Omni 02:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
3. I think Emmett may well have the right personality, but I haven't seen him involved in the maintenance of the wiki, and have no reason to belive he understands how our system works. I'll probably be happy to support at a future time. Backsword 06:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Not really seen this user about on this wiki and being active on another wiki doesn't help me come to a decision for this one. thus at this time leaning towards weak oppose. -- Salome 23:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I don't see anything in either contribution record that leads me to believe you need sysop tools. -- Wyn talk 10:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Seeing your name in the RFA doesn't make me immediately fall out of my chair laughing like some of the recent ones, but also, I don't really see anything that makes me think you should be a sysop, so... -- FreedomBound 23:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
2. I've seen some quality contributing done by you and your former account in the main and main talk namespace, and usually plings judgement is good. Also I know you are a respected sysop on GuildWiki. However, as far as I know, policy-wise the two wikis are rather different, and as you haven't participated much in policy discussion here yet [1], I cannot support you based on the sole fact that I've heard some good things about your actions in a different situation. Sorry, and good luck. Slightly leaning towards support, but Neutral for now. — Why 00:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Per above. - J.P.Talk 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Nothing against you, but... who are you?-- anguard 02:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral. There's nothing remarkable about your contributions, in fact, you're barely active on talk pages at all. A vast majority of your mainspace contribs (which make up almost 70% of your total edits) are minor edits. I have no idea who you are or why you need sysop tools. ~Shard 03:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. While I've seen you around and see that you have good contributions, I don't really see where the sysop tools will benefit you. You're a great user, but I'm missing that connection, thus the neutral vote. -- Wandering Traveler 04:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral. While I do believe that past work in GW counts for something, I just don't see the need - as per Shard and Why. -- NUKLEAR IIV 11:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral Most of us revert or do minor edits. But I haven't seen page creations done by you that would stand out, or a redone of a page to fit more what is needed. Nor hardly any talks on pages that would affect things, such as talks about what to be placed on mainpage or a conscious on a current problem, etc. I do believe you could have potential, but not now, not enough from you that I would say could qualify and I don't think GWiki should really have much of any 'effect' of 'election'. ♥ Ariyen ♀ 15:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral Pretty much never seen you, with only 650 contributions, I don't see why you need sysop tools, but haven't seen any reason as to why you would misuse them C4K3 Talk 10:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral Dont know -- |Cyan LightLive!| 18:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral. I have seen you around before, and I know that you can keep a levelled head, however as C4K3 said, I don't see why you need sysop tools, however I haven't seen any reason as to why you would misuse them. -- Chris Malone 06:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Neutral i never see you on the wiki but that's not to say you shouldn't be a sysop.- Zesbeer 07:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
13. Neutral Its even on this one so I'll leave it at neutral. --Dominator Matrix 02:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)