Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Salome

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

Salome

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

Result

Successful 23:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Candidate response

Hmmmm... even the holding comment here of "expect to be blank, due to their inactivity", which I've just had to delete; isnt really the best way to start ones comments here.

I have been a sysop for years, my past edits proved my commitment to the formation and function of this wiki and I still peruse this site regularly and am made happy that many of the projects I helped create or worked on, still form integral parts of the wiki in its current format.

Activity has never been an expectation or requirement for maintainence of Sysop rights, thats a simple truth. The wiki isnt bound by previous decisions, its a growing and evolving beast, so an addition of an activity requirement is up to the user base but my request would be "why?"; genuinely I feel that that's a question which has not been adequately answered and needs to take place on behalf of everyone you have listed in the reconfirmation requirements.

Wiki adminship is not an elected position where you need to show constant utility to the community, to continue to keep your role. It's not a job, its not a requirement... instead its a position granted to users who have proved they can be trusted with the tools and administartive powers to work in the best interests of the wiki, when they are avilable. From what I can see none of the people listed for reconfirmation, have abused said tools. Instead they have simply become dormant users. The concept of "spring cleaning" or "tidying up" is again a flase logic, as what needs to be tidied up?

Admin positions aren't limited, the inactive admins do not block new admins from being chosen. We do not have a finite amount of open spaces or a finite number of people who could play that roll... so the current reflection of the admin team being mostly dormant has nothing to do with their dormancy and instead everything to do with the fact that for some reason the sysop selection process stopped being used actively. This is not something that can be put at the feet of the previous team and they do not need to be "cleared away" to make room for new blood.

If it's the aethetics that trouble you with the admin team box, people are free to reformat that too; one could easily develop two boxes instead of one... one listing currently dormant admins and one listing active admins. Their is no parallel with the GW2 wiki's reconfirmation as the reason that was enacted was due to the fact that some people didnt move over to the new sequel game and therefore may not have been in the position to contribute further to that wiki, due to lack of knowledge; thats simply not the case here.

In my oppinion though, I believe these reconfirmations are in bad taste and miss the point of how reconfirmation were intended to be used on this wiki.

I will also state that dormancy and inactivity is incredibly hard for people to judge on this wiki, since it entered an administrative ticking over mode - which frankly is what its been for years now. My presence here shows your assumption of inactivity, is just that, an assumption and I have visited this wiki over the past several years, a few times a month. However due to the relatively low footfall and the high degree of automation to alot of basic admin, their has been little needing my intervention.

If you wish to remove my sysop powers, that's up to the users and I will stand by whatever decision you come to, but I felt i needed to convey that IMHO this is a dramatic misreading and misunderstanding of the essential managment processes that were established in the creation of this wiki. As without a finite number of roles available or a finite cap on new admins, their is zero reason to remove sysop powers from the existing admins; unless some negative utility of those powers can be shown. I personally see no grounds for their adaptation other than the wrong headed notion of "tidying up". -- -- Salome 20:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: With the acceptance of the "standby role" and its implementation, I would state that if the wiki community thinks I would still be of any help, I would stay on in the role of stand-by sysop. -- Salome 21:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I originally voted against but I am changing my vote because of Salome's honest and thoughtful responses on Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/Inactive Clean-up and on the discord. Plus the goal of the inactive cleanup is to remove inactive admins, and Salome has expressed a willingness to resume the duties of a sysop and to keep the wiki a safe, fair, and functional space for contributors. --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support. It is overwhelmingly clear to me that Salome 1) remains interested in keeping access to sysop tools for the betterment of this wiki, 2) has during his previous active period displayed nothing but good judgement and judicious usage of said tools, and 3) in the discussion regarding this series of RfAs displayed what I regard as by far the most measured and well-argued responses of all those involved. I take issue with the assertion made in the Neutral section that Salome's response was in any way emotional, belittling, dismissive or not level-headed. In fact, Salome has been nothing if not courteous, raising valid objections to the manner in which these RfAs were initiated and questioning the process and its merits on legitimate grounds, even when faced with comments that exhibit the exact attitudes that he himself is so unjustly accused of displaying. I would go so far as to encourage anyone involved in this debate to look towards Salome's part in it as a shining example of what good conduct in a wiki discussion looks like. Be more like Salome. And before anyone goes ahead and uses my opposition to my own RfA as grounds to dismiss this comment as hypocritical, I would argue that even just Salome's positive contribution to the discussion at hand far outweighs the negligible if not purely hypothetical benefit of further cleaning up the list of administrators. Coupled with Salome's stated opposition to the process and desire to retain sysophood, I would argue that removing Salome from the roster of sysops has no merit and in light of this I wholeheartedly support this RfA. — Why 16:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Support. In these past few days, Salome has shown to be a vocal and positive participant in the many discussions and questions surrounding this and other topics. In my original neutral stance I touched upon the formal and direct tone they choose to phrase with that might brush active users the wrong way and I have seen that Salome acknowledged and apologised for said tone where (likely) necessary. As my own sysop position in the past (on GW2W) rested mostly on my ability to read between the lines to judge and diffuse situations between users of any status, I no longer feel the need to voice caution here. If the GWW community at the time felt Salome to be sysop material and their conduct and current behaviour is the model for the future, I can only support a reconfirmation of this sysop. Active or on standby, whichever they prefer. - Infinite - talk 16:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Support. He's one of two admins (I feel) shouldn't have been made admins back then when. He seems to be passionate about the wiki, matured, and if he wants the "on standby" role than he's got my support. Steve1 (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
5. Support. I'm starting to like this idea of "standby admins" I would like to see the wording of what is expected. As long as you check in on the wiki a couple times a week and can be reached if something needs to be done I'm all in. Drogo Boffin 03:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
6. Support. I've always had positive interactions with Salome whenever our paths have crossed. Nothing wrong with having experienced back-up, especially one who's demonstrated the desire to talk to resolve issues before moving on to stronger methods. Greener (talk) 19:07, 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)

Since Tanetris wants me to go more in-depth, I will do so now with the information provided over the months since I've started this. Salome has done nothing more than provide lip service to staying on as a sysop. As I have pointed out directly several times, there are numerous sysop tasks that remain undone, directly contrasting to him stating that there were no sysop tasks outstanding. Salome had no interaction with the wiki for 9 years before coming back solely to vehemently defend his right to retain sysop status. Since his "return," he has made a total of 69 edits, and has done 8 sysop actions.

To break these down:

Edits:

1. 53 of these edits directly related to the inactivity process that re-alerted him to the existence of the wiki,
2. 5 were user talk page edits of a personal nature,
3. 3 were directly related to Admin Noticeboard activity, and
4. 8 were mainspace & filespace talk page edits related to topical discussions.

Blocks & Deletions:

1. 5 were deletions of purely vandalism articles.
2. 3 were IP blocks of vandals, for a period of 3 days each.

The last 16 actions are the only ones of any merit to the wiki. If this were a sysop who had shown this level of activity for years before this discussion (and I was aware of said contributions), I would not have even considered adding them to this list. However, each instance of activity from Salome comes directly after a solicitation. The fact is, Salome would never take action on the wiki if he were not directly asked to. I expect sysops to care more about the wiki than that. Despite his claims that he does care for the wiki, his actual activity and his outright refusal to deal with sysop tasks are far more accurate.

I would also add that there is no doubt in my mind that Salome will return to pure inactivity after this process has concluded. horrible | contribs 01:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Inactive for too long and shouldn't have been a sysop in the first place. Steve1 (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I endorse removal of sysop rights for this user. They said their sad farewells almost 9 years ago on their talk page. -Chieftain Alex 17:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I've read the above Salome's response, however, that administrator's last active participation in affairs of this Wiki has taken place more than 8 years ago. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Last edit more than 8 years ago is a long time inactivity for an admin. Admin rights shouldn't be permanent. Sime (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose. While it is true there is no defined activity requirement to retain your status, why do you want to remain an admin if you don't actively edit anymore? Adminship is a privilege, and looking into the future, how are you going to use your admin status to improve the wiki given your lack of participation these past years? You haven't abused the trust placed in you, but you also haven't made an effort to put that trust to good use in the last 8 years. --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I've looked into edits and past user history and I can't explain it better than it was above. A long inactive term shows a lack of care for this wiki and I agree that he will go right back to being inactive as soon as this has concluded. Drogo Boffin 05:19, 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) 21:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Neutral. While the user's response indicates some form of engagement regardless of edits made or actions taken for years, its content worries me that this topic hits Salome on an emotional level it should not. Sysop tools are tools. There is no reason to be triggered in this manner by the prospect of those tools being removed when they were unused for a ridiculously long time, with the main (if not only) argument against this being "I have had them and just because I didn't use them for many years, doesn't mean you should take them from me now." That is a rather complicated new impression in a community where most contributors have not seen any activity from them before and I urge Salome to engage with more level-headedness and lenient discussion in said current community to establish if they are still the correct user for the position. Salome's belittling and almost dismissive tone may have been unintended, though will rub certain active users the wrong way. - Infinite - talk 21:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)