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

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

Gem

This request is for the sysophood of User:Gem (talk • contribs).
Created by -- (gem / talk) 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

Status

Failed --19:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC) (candidate withdrew: See statement).

Candidate statement

Starting my own reconfirmation as a grandfather sysop who hasn't yet gone through the nomination process.

I think I don't need to say much here. I currently use most of my time on the wiki deleting stuff, banning vandals and taking part in policy discussions, but I also make main name space contributions now and then. -- (gem / talk) 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning behind the votes from Auron, Dirigible, Tanaric, LordBiro and Karlos. I know that I'm not the perfect guy for resolving issues between users, but it seems that I've failed in keeping away from any conflict situations even when actively trying to do so. My administrative actions have received good support though, so I'm not unhappy with my time as a sysop of this wiki. I think that the problem situations would have been almost the same even if I hadn't been a sysop, but I realise why people think that sysops should act 100% correctly all the time as most users still look up to them, most likely due to the leadership like position that sysops have on GuildWiki.

I withdraw from the sysop position. -- (gem / talk) 12:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. The most visible sysop, to me at least. I trust Gem to keep up the good work. - anja 19:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Support I feel that Gem would do well in this position. -- Indochine talk 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. I feel that Gem does well in this position ;) --Lemming64 19:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. Top man for taking names and kicking ass. --Snograt 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. I almost feel bad in saying this, but Gem is as close as we are ever going to get to having an AdminBot ;-) --Xeeron 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
6. DeleteBoT! RUN!!! ~ Kurd 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. Quite. In fact, he's better than an AdminBot - 90% less chance of aiding in the robot uprising! MisterPepe talk 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Support. Incredible admin! poke | talk 22:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. AdminBot:Gem ftw. - Tanetris 22:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Since when do bots get sysop stuff? 50k OK? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 23:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Support. What a turn around from the most supported admin of all time on the other wiki. Gem's heart is always in the right place and he's not the only sysop to wear it on his sleeve. --Xasxas256 14:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Gem is too easily goaded into arguments. Further, he takes things too personally, and has a skewed sense of right or wrong. I won't use anything I've seen on GWiki against Gem here, but I've seen enough here to make me oppose Gem's sysopship. -Auron 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. See this conversation. First of all, apparently since an article can be undeleted, laxer standards are permitted when deleting them (you heard that, sysops, now you need to check everything that was deleted to make sure one of your fellow sysops didn't click one time too many during one deletion spree). Secondly, apparently just because an article has had the delete tag on it for three days it should be deleted, regardless of the actual content in them. Third, completely missing the point of having a confirmation page before deleting something and using a script to bypass that. Then there's this example, specifically his second comment; in the previous section he was perfectly fine with moving that article to the mainspace, discussing possible names to move it to; yet when Barek noted that it was probably too soon, the response was "I didn't do the move and tried to calm these guys down". While others see that whole "AdminBot" aspect as a good thing, I personally don't. There's a reason why we don't just have an actual bot to periodically wipe the Candidates for deletion category; they lack the ability to exercise good judgment. Nor can I support someone who's so defensive about admitting even the possibility of having rushed a tiny bit too much, in either of the two examples. He's most certainly one of the nicest guys around, but that's not the only quality an admin needs.--Dirigible 02:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Worthless admin. — Skuld 07:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Weakly oppose. I'll speak plainly -- I regret appointing him on the GuildWiki, and in that sense, if I had been thinking, he wouldn't have been grandfathered here in the first place. That said, I think Gem does far more good than harm. However, since our pool of sysops is expanding rather rapidly, I think we can afford to lose one at this point. More importantly, Gem is driven by peoples' expectations of him. I think it'd do him good to lose his sysop status for a few months -- I strongly believe that he'd be ready for the status again after some time to reflect and grow. If I thought Gem would reflect and grow in a similar manner whilst retaining his sysop status, I would give him my support instead. —Tanaric 09:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
5. See Barek.--§ Eloc § 09:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I like Gem a lot, and I made a big deal of Tanaric's initial decision not to promote Gem to sysop. Events since then have seen me regret my actions. I agree with most of the people above (apart from Eloc). Gem is a great wiki-gnome, and without him there would be a lot more grunt work that would need to be carried out by the other sysops, e.g. image deletion. But there are certain instances where Gem has made me feel uncomfortable. I would have posted neutral if not for Dirigible highlighting another such instance. I think while Gem is sysop here he will not learn from his mistakes (indeed, as Dirigible pointed out, Gem is very defensive of his own actions), and I agree with Tanaric that Gem could do with some time to reflect. I regret that I have to take this stance, because I like Gem so much. LordBiro 10:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Gem is the ultimate wiki-gnome. He looks after all tasks that need doing and he goes about doing them. On the flip side, however, Gem has not showed me since his promotion by Tanaric on the old wiki that the one concern that I had he has the skills to handle, which is his wisdom. He gets taunted into certain actions. I feel he has more maturity and growth to do. I do not believe adminship should be a reward for being active. I thikn admins need to show a certain amount of leadership and I have yet to see Gem convince me of that. --Karlos 23:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)