Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Why

Why

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

Status

Candidate withdrew 00:28, 2 June 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)
2. Oppose. Inactive for too long. Steve1 (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I endorse removal of sysop rights for this user. Vanished in 2012. Found this piece of lovely positivity in the annuls though, must have been a lovely person to have earnt such warm comments. -Chieftain Alex 18:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Due to administrator's inactivity for more than 7 years. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose. 8 years inactivity is a long time for an admin. Sime (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I tend to agree that admin powers are best restricted to active users. I have fond memories of my time here and in the game, it's nice to see a few of the old guard still around, and it's good to see that the Featured Pages project is still alive and rotating, that one will always be special to me. But I've moved on to different corners on the internet. So long, and thanks for all the fish! — Why 23:46, 1 June 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)