Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Salome/Archive1

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

Salome[edit]

This request is for the sysophood of User:Salome (talkcontribs).
Created by Salome User salome sig.png 14:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Status[edit]

Failed. 05:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidate statement[edit]

Hello guys,

after reading of the sysops need for a more active sysop team I thought I would throw my hat into the ring. However I don't really expect to be successful, instead I'm hoping to glean some valuable insight into what parts of my own character and psyche I would need to develop to be considered to be sysop material within this community in the future; personal growth and development and all that.

I will say this, I do care passionately about this community and I am able to compartmentalize my behavior and attitudes quite effectively. I know as a user I can come across as argumentative and a bit emotional at times, which I am well aware have no place in the role of a sysop, but I am quite able to remove that side of my psyche when acting in an official capacity, as I do so on a daily basis in my work life. However I do not expect anyone just to take my word for it and I understand that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. My track record on this wiki has had its high points and low points which speaks for itself really.

I believe I have a solid grasp of policy and I have taken part in some policy discussion. I also believe I know what it is to be a sysop and ultimately I'm only motivated here by the strong desire to help keep this wiki ticking over and to make this wiki better. I spend an awful lot of time on the wiki and I try to help as and where possible, moving, tidying, tagging, formatting and filling in whats missing but I am aware I do not need sysop tools to continue in this role. I would however like to develop those abilities so I can be more help to the wiki.

Once again, I'm more doing this for some helpful feedback in how to develop my own self on this wiki, so as in the future I could be considered able to be a sysop, as I very much doubt that this RFA will be successful. Thus I would ask that those putting in oppose votes, which I'm sure their will be many, could you kindly also add some constructive criticism to your votes so I can take it under advisement and work on the areas of my psyche/behavior that are identified.

Blessed be -- Salome User salome sig.png 14:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Support. He knows his way around policy, has a good attitude, and I have no reason to think that he would abuse sysop tools. --ShadowphoenixPlease, talk to me; I'm so lonely ;-; 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Even if I hadn't already supported, the severe irony of Brains post would convince me. Backsword 09:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support. Backsword hits the first reason out of the park; but more importantly...Salome has demonstrated that he has a reasonable head on his shoulders, and is able to listen to others and perhaps even modify his initial impressions without being indecisive. -- Inspired to ____ 04:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose. While I could trust Salome to deal with deletions, simple vandals and whatnot, I don't believe I'd be able to completely trust him with issues of user conduct or in situations where discretion is needed. He has often responded to trolls in a manner which isn't all that useful (feeding them, in other words, but perhaps unknowingly so), often lets his emotions control the way he acts, and I think situations as a sysop will make him even more vulnerable to acting on emotion. I don't believe it's all that easy to shed them, as he says he will, so I can't rely on these emotions disappearing upon becoming a sysop. I understand that we need more sysops to deal with maintenance and deletions, but unless certain sysops are kept specialised to that certain area and not all sysop situations, I can't support this RfA. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 16:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Calor summed it up, but I'm leaning to an oppose. Dominator Matrix 20:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose feed trolls tbh. admins shouldn't do that. --Venomoth 11:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. Per Brains. -Auron 12:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose While a valued contributor, and one I would trust with the every day wiki maintenance like routine deletions etc, I'm not confident Salome would handle user disputes well. As Pling/Brains says, emotions tend to influence his behaviour more often that I'm comfortable with. And I can assure being a sysop only makes it worse, just look at me. ;) - anja talk 17:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Nope. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 22:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  1. Neutral. Salome, you're a great contributor, but I have to agree with Brains in that your way of dealing with some of the more major trolls isnt exactly the best way. But, if this problem can be fixed, I see you as a great sysop. I'm going to remain neutral because I can't speak for any recent outbursts you may (or may not >_<) have had. I do see you as a good sysop one day, but I just don't know yet. Thanks. --User Wandering Traveler Oie User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Wandering Traveler 16:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Another RfA that reminds me of my first one. Salome shows great promise, but, as we have seen, he lacks in the area of effectively dealing with user disputes. Calor Talk 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Salome is a great contributor and very articulate, but I'm not sure how he'd handle user disputes. I've no doubt he'd be perfectly fine with maintenance tools, but before I can vote support, I'd like to see more activity in terms of preventing wiki drama. Keep it up, though, and I very well could vote support next time around! :D Kokuou 20:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Not comfortable with a sysop who seems to lack confidence in one's abilities and the repeated self-depreciating comments about one's potential as an admin. It raises doubts should assertiveness and firmness in disputes be required. Yet he has proven trustworthy and may perhaps gain better self-control when thrust into the role. So, neutral. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 14:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Salome, I have to agree with Ab.er.rant's points; though I lean slightly to oppose, your ability to grow and mature leave this as a neutral vote. --TalkPeople of Antioch 15:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I have seen many a good and some irritable words of Salome. But respectfully I do not know enough to make up my mind. --Silverleaf User_talk:Silverleaf 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral In my various interactions with Salome, my impression has always been that he has the best interest of the wiki at heart. He may stumble a bit, particularly in letting emotions of the moment cloud his better judgment, but the intentions are there, and I've always found him open to constructive criticism. He's friendly, readily willing to accept that he's made a mistake and work to correct it or to accept that someone has a better idea and work with them, and knows when to ask for help, all of which are traits I wish more contributors shared. The bit way back up there about his emotions clouding his better judgment keeps this from being a support this time, but with a bit of work on that point, I'd be happy to welcome him to the sysop team in the future. - Tanetris 10:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. Again, I don't have a strong enough opinion towards either support or oppose to be able to make a fair vote. He's a very friendly fellow, and one solid contributor, but that's about all I know about him. Well, and the fact he likes the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. :P — Galil Talk page 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  9. Not quite sure how to think about this RFA, so ya, Neutral for me. — Eloc 18:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)