Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Indochine

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

Indochine

This request is for the reconfirmation of User:Indochine talk • contribs • logs.
Created by: User:Horrible 16:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Result

Successful 23:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Candidate response

Happy to resign as sysop given my inactivity. Many thanks to the community for the opportunity to serve. — Indochine talk 18:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I also take note of the discussion here regarding "Standby" status. If a consensus forms around that policy I would be glad to remain a sysop in that capacity to help out as and when needed, assuming people are happy for me to do so. — Indochine talk 21:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Further update following the adoption of the new policy regarding standby admins. As indicated above, I’m happy to continue as a Standby Admin if the community is happy for me to do so. — Indochine talk 17:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. 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 16:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Support. Anyone who's got the experience with the tools and the role who's willing to be on standby if needed has my support. Greener (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

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. Inactive for too long. Steve1 (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I endorse removal of sysop rights for this user. After setting themselves to semi-active in 2011, they haven't really edited since. Prior to that, their last period of significant activity was in 2009. -Chieftain Alex 17:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Due to administrator's inactivity for more than 5 years. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Sole factor being inactivity. These should not be permanent positions. Drogo Boffin 06:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

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. -- Traveler (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Neutral. I don't really have a strong opinion. If they accept the "standby" status, that would be fine by me and my vote can be counted as mild support. Steve1 (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
2. 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. Drogo Boffin 03:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)