Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Rainith

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

Rainith

This request is for the reconfirmation of Rainith (talk • contribs • logs • block log) based on user requests

Created on behalf of Rainith by Tanetris 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Result

Successful. 17:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate statement

I'd like to thank everyone who has voted before I've even had a chance to put any sort of statement up here. I will put a full statement here when I get home from work tonight. --Rainith 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm home from work so here we go. (**WARNING** This user has been known to ramble on at times, and, use, way, too, many, commas,.)

So I've read most, if not all of the discussion here and below that on the page, and from what I can see, some people feel that Sysops (Admins, whatever we're calling them nowadays... back in my day... two miles to school... uphill both ways... damn kids... get off my lawn....) who have been away, dormant, semi-retired, fell off the face of the Earth, etc... should be brought up for reconfirmation. And other people feel that simply because Admins aren't around, that doesn't mean they shouldn't still be Admins and that Admins should only be brought up for reconfirmation if they abuse their "powers" or something to that effect.

Both seem to be very valid opinions to me and hopefully the community is able to come up with a consensus on the issue. As for my opinion on the matter, I'm staying the hell out of the debate. I grew quite weary of wading through wiki-politics (drama) some time back after some of the flying shitstorms seen both on here and on GuildWiki. "But if you aren't going to involve yourself in the discussions, then how can you be a good Admin?" I hear you ask. Simple, in those discussions, an Admin's voice should be no louder than any other user's voice, an Admin is here to enforce the rules, not necessarily to make them. That doesn't mean that Admins can't and don't use their own discretion when they do use their powers or that the community shouldn't have a good amount of trust in their Admins, but I don't need to be involved in a discussion about what the specific criteria are for deleting a page to know that a page filled with the word "FUCK" repeated for 512 lines should be speedily deleted.

Then there are the people who say that the Admins who aren't around aren't using their powers enough to warrant them having the powers. That may be true, and like my page says, I'm generally not checking this site multiple times a day as I was in the past. I don't spend hours patrolling Recentchanges like I used to. But that doesn't mean I don't still pop in 4 — 7 days a week or that I don't still come across a vandal spree from time to time. "But, but, but, but that's from over a year ago." I hear you say. And that is true (although I did use my "powers" once in the last year, unlike what some people seem to think), and I believe that we do have more Admins now, so it is less likely that I will show up where there aren't any Admins around and a vandal spree happens. But know this, if I do happen across one and I can do anything about it, I will take care of it to the best of my ability. If that means blocking them I will, if that simply means undoing and tagging for deletion because I can't delete pages/block people, I'll do that. And if it happens when another Admin is on and I'm still an Admin, we'll both work on it, because it is usually easier to have help when these sort of things happen.

So the long and short of it is, vote how you want. I'll still be lurking around here every few days, and if I see something happen I'll take care of it as I can. I will never be as active as I was in the past, as I no longer love the game the way I did. But I still enjoy the wiki, even if all I do is check out recent changes every so often.

--Rainith 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Rainith was entrusted with admin tools for good reason, and has not done a single thing to break nor even stretch that trust. That's really all that should need to be said, and if that's not good enough, I don't even know what this is about anymore. - Tanetris 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Support I am not very familiar with Rainith, so I can't say I know his capabilities all that well. However, given the community's prior support for him and that there has been a lack of evidence suggesting that he has used his Sysop tools as a means to advance his own personal agenda, I fail to see why he shouldn't be re-elected as sysop. --Riddle 20:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Rainith was one of the grandfathered sysops back when this wiki was in its very early days, and since then he always did a great job. The reconfirmation that was made for all grandfathered sysops later, made clear that he was not just a grandfathered one but also a sysop that has the support of the community. Despite being inactive he still comes around from time to time, or when needed, and he is still willing to help out with the tools if required.
   Not only because of clear support for Rainith in this reconfirmation, but also in objection of the general idea of demoting inactive people and having to start reconfirmations because of it, I personally want this to be a success. poke | talk 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Support As he has shown in the past that he is responsible and worthy of the tools, I say aye. --JonTheMon 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Per Tanetris. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. As per Tanetris and Poke. There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that Rainith is no longer competent to perform the duties of a sysop, not to mention that Rainith's timely response to Tanetris on Rainith's talk page indicates that Rainith can still be easily contacted should the need ever arise. As with Poke, I too would like to set a precedent that inactivity alone should not be grounds for demoting a sysop. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. There is absolutely no need to demote sysops who have become inactive. It is better to have the tools when the need arises than to face trouble and be found wanting. Felix Omni 21:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Support I checked through Rainith's recent contributions and could not find any actions that I consider questionable as a sysop. As such I can see no reason for him not to retain the sysop tools. Misery 21:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Support I wasted far to much of the last few days reading reasons why Ranith (and others) should no longer be a sysop for inactivity and they still didn't convince me he shouldn't be. He may not have made many edits in the last year, but his ever watching presence was felt. --Lemming 21:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support I see no problems here. Dominator Matrix 21:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Support, per Tanetris. – Emmett 22:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Rainith is just cool. And what Tanetris said. Also, I'm sure Rainith loves muffins. LordBiro 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Anyone whose name is an anagram of thin air has got to be clued up with all aspects of higher administrative detail. --snograt 22:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. Lord Belar 23:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. Has never misused his sysop tools, I see no point in removing them. Erasculio 23:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. Able before, able now. --Aspectacle 23:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. -- Wyn talk 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. --★KOKUOU★ 00:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. As per Tanetris and Poke. I might not have been around when he was fully active but I don't see any reason to remove the sysop tools from him. --Kakarot 03:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Support I haven't seen any evidence that Rainith would misuse the sysop tools. - anja 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Support As above. -- Indochine talk 13:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. I haven't seen anything that says he still can't get the job done, active or not. — Jon Lupen 17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. Please use hindsight.
    Demoting inactive sysops doesn't make sense on GWW. You see, on GuildWiki we went through this situation quite a while back, over a year ago. I (sole bureaucrat/dictator at the time) felt that some of the ancient sysops should be demoted in order to make the system-generated lists of sysops/bcrats more usable. (Our table-making skills are far inferior to yours, we didn't have a fancy color-coded thing which made it really fucking easy to identify who was inactive.) Now, unlike here on GWW, some of my choices actually had merit. These were sysops that had not contributed for like three years - they didn't even visit or read their wikimail! - , and pretty much no one left on GuildWiki even knew who the hell they were...they were its earliest sysops from way back in the days, from another time and age.
    That isn't the case at all on GWW, especially with users like Rainith who actually still check in and visit once in a while, regardless of whether they are editing or not. So you see, I actually had something of a case on GuildWiki, but this current farce has no standing whatsoever, and I can't fathom at all why the issue has even been brought up. You still have another two years to wait before Rainith officially falls off the Internet. GWW hasn't changed in a major way over the past year or so - or rather, not in such a way that a sysop "returning from hibernation" would have any trouble performing their duties.
    "Inactivity and having fun as a sysop is a sin!" And you wonder why people say "lol GWW". Vili 点 07:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. Per Tanetris. --Xeeron 00:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
25. If knowing him from the past hadn't been enough, his statment makes it clears he wunderstands wikis better than many active sysops. Backsword 18:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. I would Support this guy as I agree in his own statements. to see a page full of a bad language or someone dissing Guild Wars, etc. (As I have seen before) Should be deleted. -- Ariyen 16:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Support. Per all of the above. -- Wandering Traveler 01:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Support. Same... |Cyan LightLive!| 13:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. DrogoBoffin 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Similar to the supporters, I see a dangerous precedent here, one that will likely be set in policy soon, that allows sysops to neglect the tools and duties entrusted to them by the community. Oppose, for this reason, and those discussed in much more detail on the RfA talk page. --Freedom Bound 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose. As per the RfR discussion.--Fighterdoken 08:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Since i haven't seen you around during my active times in this wiki, i can't say yes or no. - J.P.Talk 20:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)7
2. Neutral Either I haven't been around long enough to see you active, or you simply have been active with a lot of stealth. I can't say yes or no. ~Ryuu[ Talk|Contributions ] 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral From the little I've seen of him, he seems capable. ~Shard 22:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral. There is nothing to be gained by removing his sysop tools; there is nothing to be gained by letting him keep them. Mini Me 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral Rainith's not really doing anything a more active sysop couldn't do, losing his status would do little to effect the wiki overall nor would it burden the other sysops. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 03:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
6. -- Lacky 01:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
7. ...

Request for Reconfirmation

1. ...