Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/JonTheMon

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

JonTheMon

This request is for the reconfirmation of User:JonTheMon talk • contribs.
Created by: User:Horrible 16:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Result

Presumed retired 14:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. While this user has been a fine bcrat 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 16:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Inactive for far too long. And I've read somewhere that bcats are supposed to choose their successor before becoming wholly inactive. Looks like that didn't really work. Steve1 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Due to that super administrator's inactivity for more than 5 years. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose. 9 years inactivity is a long time for a bcrat. Sime (talk) 00:47, 1 June 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) 21:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)