Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Jope12

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Info-Logo.png Note: This RFA has been resolved. Please do not add further support/oppose opinions.

Jope12[edit]

This request is for the sysophood of Jope12 (talk • contribs • logs • block log).
Created by J.P.User Jope12 sigicon.pngTalk 16:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC).


Status[edit]

Failed 16:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate statement[edit]

Why would I want to be a sysops?

The idea came during the process of the Category cleanup project I'm in. We're currently working on user images to categorize each image under username. There are over 15,500 user images! Having this many images there will be many images under incorrect name. I've moved many of these images under correct name. Each moved image leaves behind a redirect on previous direction. I've created almost all user image redirects during the whole project. Wyn, who started this cleanup project, has thought that during this project, there would be thousands of redirects to delete, of course after the links have been fixed after images has been moved. And since this would cause rather huge work for sysops to delete all these redirects, I thought I would save others from this if I would be a sysop myself.

But of course this isn't the only reason I would want to be a sysops: There will always be those who want to vandalize the wiki and on my opinion, though they're stopped on their tracks pretty fast, they are able to vandalize pretty many pages before they're stopped. I think that more resposible sysops we have, we can stop vandalism even faster. Not to mention a discuss about temporary promotions lately. These wouldn't be needed if we just would have enough active sysops. I've seen many times that it can take even an hour for a sysop to notice that wiki has been vandalized by someone. And of course, by having more sysops, we can maintain the wiki more effectively and help bureaucrats, other sysops and normal users, both new and old users more faster. I think this wiki has enough sysops, the problem is that too many of them are inactive, usually there are 1-3 sysops active at the same time, making the handling of multiple cases rather hard.

And why I don't want to be a bureaucrat when the next election is active? I think that's not my place, being a sysop is even more than I would wish.

Say what you think on the talk page. Speak freely (in terms of policy ^^). Thank you.

NOTE: I think there's nothing wrong with the sysops themselves we currently have, I think they do their job as they should. I think the amount of active ones are the problem.

Support[edit]

  1. Support. I feel that we could use some new admins and think Jope would support the wiki / use the tools properly. Freedom Bound 16:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. ...

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose. Who? -- User Vanguard VanguardLogo.pnganguard 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. [1] <- inability to accept when he is wrong and learn from mistakes. -Auron 06:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. User has displayed a general lack of understanding on how things work on wiki. His candidate statement focuses entirely on the technical side of being a sysop, and even what he talks about isn't great; the deletions he seems to be basing this nomination on could be handled by the current sysops, or possibly by a temporary promotion (which he mentions- it seems more fitting than a permanent promotion tbh), and the sysops have shown that they can handle mass vandalism attacks pretty recently- not much has changed since a few weeks ago in that regard, and this was also outlined in the 'temporary promotions' discussion Jope participated in. So there goes the whole technical reasoning the nomination; now onto the less textbook side of adminship. In addition to having barely touched anything related to policy, he also doesn't seem to understand how policy works (spirit not letter, for example). Slightly less than 75% of his contributions to the wiki have been in the image namespace... I am wary of what he may do of things outside these deletions, such as user conflicts, controversial bannings, etc.
    All in all, he would make what we call a "decent sysop" on GuildWiki, someone you trust only enough to handle deletions and banning vandals and all that easy stuff. If GWW was suffering from massive vandal attacks 24/7 and the sysops couldn't handle it, I'd say go ahead, promote him... but there's no reason to overpopulate the sysop group with people who aren't very well suited for the role, especially considering this wiki has a good number of people who are in the role already. Emmett 17:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I agree with Auron and Emmet the main point being if you cant even start the RfA correctly when there are directions then how can we expect you to perform sysop duties. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png DrogoBoffin 18:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I have no idea who you are, and from the evidence I've seen you don't appear to know how to use the wiki well. That's a bad combo for admins. Karate Jesus 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Second those above me. — Jon User Jon Lupen Sig Image.png Lupen 18:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Per Emmett, and the recent talk page. --TalkAntioch 19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Per the above reasons. --Xeeron 11:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Per above. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Wandering Traveler 14:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. As per Emmett. User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Per comment on talk page. poke | talk 14:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Per above. Dominator Matrix 23:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Emmett. Mini Me talk 12:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Please see above. -- User indochine dsk tree.png Indochine talk 13:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Per above. -- |Cyan LightUser Cyan Light User-Cyan Light sig.jpgLive!| 13:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. " " -- ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 22:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. You do know we don't just give out adminship to every random idiot who walks in off the internet, right? Lord Belar 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  18. Oppose --User Ezekial Riddle bigsig.pngRiddle 23:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. The vandal situation is under control at the moment and for the forseeable future. Getting a promotion solely for house-cleaning duties makes little sense during times when there are a fair number of active admins who can take care of that as needed (it is not at all a high-priority or even very useful task, contrary to what some seem to believe. "leave the redirect - it hurs no one"). It is only during those times when the admin base is stretched very thin that it might make sense to promote a user with the express intention of simply taking out the trash that no one cares about. Finally, I've not seen any particularly outstanding qualities from this candidate - neither the quality of his edits nor the "admin-ness" of the user in general strike me as particularly outstanding. "Why not?" promotions set a bad precedent by lowering the standards (I do not know how to word that in a way that doesn't come off as offensive, and apologize beforehand). If the candidate's most compelling reasons of promotion are a) activity or b) degree of Wiki love, we may as well retroactively promote Eloc and all his ilk. Vili 点 User talk:Vili 07:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  1. Neutral/leaning to support. Looking through your contribs it certainly looks like you know what your doing. I just haven't encountered you enough personally to see your actions and decisions.—User Rein sig.pngRein 16:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I agree with Rein here. -- Halogod35 User Halogod35 Sig.jpg 16:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I know of you, but I don't actually fully know you and/or your actions to do with things. -- My Talk Lacky 03:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. ...
Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki:Requests_for_adminship/Jope12&oldid=1587388"