Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Salome/Archive 2

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

Salome

This request is for the sysophood of User:Salome (talk • contribs).
Created by Salome 19:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Status

Succeeded. 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidate statement

Hello peeps,

Well as many of you will probably know my last RFA wasn't too successful, however I did receive alot of helpful and very positive feedback from many people I trust and respect. Since that time I have tried to incorporate this advice into my activities on the wiki. I will concede that when I first began as a user on this wiki, I allowed my more emotional side free reign in my responses, however over time I feel I have developed alot as a user. Over the past several months I have decided to approach the wiki in a manner more fitting with my professional life, keeping my emotions in check and taking a more objective stance in issues of contention.

I know we now have a very active sysop base and maybe their isn't currently a "need" for more sysops, however I still care about this wiki and it's aims and I feel that as a sysop I could do more to help here. I feel over the past several months I have demonstrated an ability to keep myself emotionally distanced as well being able to help diffuse potential issues.

As a sysop I will mainly be focused upon the extra administrative tasks of the wiki that come with the extra sysop tools and I am happy, if I am successful in this RFA, to follow the lead of more experienced sysops in dealing with the more contentious user arguments and the like. That is not to say I will avoid the more troublesome debates, but more to say that I feel any new role has a learning curve and taking point from those with established experience in this area is a sound footing to begin with. I do however think I would be a good addition to the sysop team as although a "care bear" in nature, I approach many things with a different viewpoint from alot of the current sysops and thus I think I could add something to the established sysop dynamic on this wiki.

As stated in my last RFA, I am a very active user and I still feel I have advanced interpersonal and communication skills which would aid me in the role of sysop. I also still have a firm grasp of current wiki policy and its ongoing developing nature.

Thus in conclusion, I want to help and I hope that if the community feels I have demonstrated the abilities needed to help in this role, that they allow me to do so.

Blessed be -- Salome 19:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

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. (My opinion has not changed) --Shadowphoenix 03:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. I also think Salome has gotten a better hold of his previously emotional outbursts, and would do a good job as a sysop. -- Wyn 04:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Support While I have not seen much of Salome (and thats mainly my fault due to unforseen inactivity), what I have seen is greatly improved from the times of his last RFA. -- Wandering Traveler 04:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. I echo my neutral vote from Salome's last RFA in saying that he's a good guy, friendly, works hard for the wiki, and accepts help when needed, He's also demonstrated greater maturity since then in terms of keeping his emotions in check and not letting them negatively affect his interactions on the wiki. Since that was my only reservation, I'd be happy to welcome him to the sysop team. - Tanetris 13:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Active, wise and in control. — Why 14:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. In agreement with Wandering Traveler and Tanetris. And also to compensate those stupid opposing votes from that two users... poke | talk 21:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. Salome has solid knowledge of policy and would be well-suited to the sysop role. -- Indochine talk 21:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Ok, same reasons as before. Backsword 06:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. I have often seen Salome acting like how I would expect a sysop to. Erasculio 23:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Often right on the mark. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 18:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Support See above.. |Cyan LightHere!| 16:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Halfhearted support to counter Loves' terrible vote. Still not really convinced. -Auron 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I have seen no real improvement on the things brought up last RfA. Lack of active trolls doesn't mean someone has matured. -Auron 13:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose Has a nasty habit of hiding his true intentions during debate to make strange and often obscure points. While this doesn't specifically exclude someone from adminship, I don't feel it is a quality I really want an admin to have. Misery 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose. not enough contributions. --Cursed Angel 19:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose Because I can! :D --Super Igor 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose Re: Misery.--Shadowsin 14:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose because of deadly language in your candidate statement. Loves to Sync 15:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose Due to attitudes towards censorship / perceived offensiveness I wouldn't like to see in a sysop. Biscuits 16:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose Re:Loves to Sync. --AnorithTalk 13:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Well, I do feel that Salome has improved, Auron make a good point that just because a person does not have any negative contributions lately does not mean maturity. Though I did verge on a weak support, I settle into neutral more comfortably. --Antioch 17:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I think you basically have the traits to become sysop, so I'm tending to support, but... well, I do remember some occasions where I'd preferred to see different behavior ;) Show your improvement with the next occasion (or maybe I just missed some?) and I'll gladly reconsider this vote :D - Y0_ich_halt 20:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I feel that voting without being informed is worse than not voting at all, yet I am compelled to anyway from my sense of empowerment. Pending a check of contribs and past RfA, this vote will be adjusted accordingly; for the record, though, I am weakly leaning towards opposed. But that is based on one single incident with Salome - the only interaction I've ever had with the user - so I will not put much stock to it. After some digging, still weakly opposed, but not enough that I'd move it to the Opposed category. I'm split, because I've seen some good examples of Salome acting in an "admin-like" manner which I like; but I also see cases where I strongly disagreed with his choice of actions. Meh. :\ Vili 20:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC) 23:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Seems level-headed and knowledgeable enough. Looking through his contribs I notice he also helped with images. However, I don't see any qualities that make him admin-worthy (as opposed to just being a good user). --JonTheMon 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral You seem to be active, helpful, and kind now. Though you look to be like a good user, I don't feel like you would benefit from sysop tools (yet). Dominator Matrix 03:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral -- I haven't seen anything that makes me absolutely certain that Salome should be a sysop, but I haven't seen anything that would be an instant no-vote. --Riddle 02:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral. While I don't think Salome would abuse sysophood (he'd probably do ok), I also don't see a strong need for Salome to become a sysop; hence me being neutral. -- ab.er.rant 15:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral. While I haven't seen anything that would make me definitively oppose this rfa and I have noticed an improvement in the way Salome deals with certain situations since his last one I have chosen to go neutral because I agree with a few of the comments left by other users in this neutral section. --Kakarot 16:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for Reconfirmation

1. It's time for this. Salome has had problems in the past and recently there's seemed to be a growing rift between him and the rest of the sysops. Oh, and the unbanning issues. Karate Jesus 19:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
2. I agree with the above user. Loves to Sync 17:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)