Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Why/Archive 1

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

Why

This request is for the sysophood of Why (talk • contribs • logs • block log).
Created by — Why 05:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC). Original nomination by Tanaric.

Status

Succeeded. 04:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate statement

Well hello there.

I think most of you know me to some extent, but for those who don't, I'll introduce myself briefly. I've been around for over one and a half year, first merely tending to my guild's page, then joining day-to-day editing and discussing in earnest. Especially in my early days, I was pretty much a stereotypical WikiSloth, editing and writing templates merely for my own intellectual enjoyment. Over time I've grown really fond of the community here however, and these days I mainly contribute by merely streamlining various things on this wiki, making sure guidelines and policies are followed, and sharing my opinion wherever I find an interesting or important discussion I can contribute something meaningful to.

I think I'm a pretty level-headed type of person, as far as I know I've never lost my mind when discussing things, and I always do my best to understand and respect the arguments of each interested party in disputes, something I think I succeed in rather well. In critical situations, I always try to do that which I think is best for the wiki and the community. Most of my edits are subtle, but at times they're bold, like when I reinvigorated the Featured pages project.

On to why I made this RfA. Well, because I was asked to. As you can read in that section, at first I was rather reluctant to do it, because I didn't want to get involved in today's drama. I've never aspired to be a sysop, simply because I never felt the need for more tools, and didn't see how sysop status would add anything to my activities on this wiki. I've been nominated once before, and declined, because I didn't want the job and didn't think I was ready for it anyway. I've always thought of the sysop position as something that gives you a bit more power and a lot more trouble. However, when Tanaric approached me on my talk page, I decided to throw away my old superstitions about sysophood and hear what he had to say about it in light of his recent call for nominations. It was one of the things he said that made me change my ideas about being a sysop.

"As for why? Why does anybody do anything?" —Tanaric

The reasons he mentioned all didn't appeal to me very much, but he got me thinking. Why am I still spending my time editing a wiki of a game that doesn't really interest me that much anymore? The answer was simple; it's you, the community. It is you that keep me going, and it is for you that I would take up sysophood.

That is, if you think you could use my services. As I mentioned in the section on my talk page I linked, I don't stalk RC and while I exaggerated a bit about doing "little to no housekeeping", I really wouldn't put as much effort into it as many other admins. I believe my main strength lies in clear thinking, and I would mainly concern myself in settling disputes, streamlining discussions, upholding the policies and swinging the occasional banhammer at vandals. I think I can handle discretionary tasks, and will never abuse my position for personal gain since that's not what I'm interested in anyway. I'm not opposed to being a sysop anymore. In fact, I'd gladly help out. And if you decide I shouldn't have the sysop tools, okay, that's fine too.

This must be the longest wall o' text I've ever written. Well then, so be it. If you want to know more, please don't be shy and use the talk page. I imagine you might have some questions about past actions of mine, and when you want clarification about anything I'd gladly provide it. If you have any remarks about my personality, my editing style or whatever, I'd love to hear them.

It's in your hands now. At your service. — Why 05:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC) last edited 06:09, 2 January 2010

Support

1. --/u/nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.jpg 05:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)...
2. -- Lacky 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
3. I think you would be good. Level-headedness is win. King Neoterikos 10:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Support for all the reasons listed on his talk page, and because an explicit support is easier to count than an implicit nomination. Also, for those who are voting oppose based on a misquote or a misunderstanding: "As you can read in that section, at first I was rather reluctant to [make this RfA]." (emphasis mine) —Tanaric 12:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Support. I feel that Why would be a useful addition to the sysop team. -- FreedomBound 12:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
6. A fine editor with a reasoned head on his shoulders. I think he would make a great addition to the sysop team. -- Salome 12:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
7. User can think critically and see the flaws in the wiki, even when the wiki cannot see those flaws in itself. Given time, this user has the potential to be a large influence on the overall attitude of the wiki userbase. In addition, I highly doubt this user would misuse any of the sysop tools. -Auron 13:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
8. Support. As per Auron. -- Cyan 13:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Support. Mostly level-headed from what I've seen. Just a balance to Ariyen's reasons. Being reluctant can sometimes be better than being too enthusiastic. Being without strong inputs is good for neutrality. And he can't feel confident if he doesn't get to try. I know, I've been there. -- ab.er.rant 14:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Support. ^ --Nick123 16:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Support. I think Why is a pretty cool guy, eh will bring back the paece and doesn't afraid of anything. Addendum: Basically I think that Why is sysop material, but he is reserved about showing it so it is not always immediately obvious. Hopefully, promoting him would encourage him out of his shell a bit. Vili 点 21:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Support. After a few personal messages, sharing opinions, etc. You can do it, as it may not be at all what one thinks. -- riyen ♥ 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
13. Support. --neshot. 22:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Support I don't know Why very well, but I have always respected him and appreciated his presence here.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 00:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Upon further investigation, Why's posts generally seem to be collected and well-reasoned. Furthermore Why seems like the kind of person who would improve over time rather than do nothing to improve. – Emmett 01:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
16. Support I think all has been said already. - J.P.Talk 18:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
17. Support. A more thorough scan of Why's ways of the wiki has convinced me to change my vote. He'll do great with the tools. -- Wandering Traveler 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
18. Support. I always thought Why was exceptionally calm, I do not think I have ever seen him pissed off about something. He is also knowledgeable about this wiki, has shown to be bold at times when it matters (which is something sysops need, imo) and learns from his past mistakes. I believe he would make a very fine addition to the sysop team. - Mini Me talk 19:42, 5 January 2010
19. Support. The answer on the talk page convinced me. --Xeeron 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
20. Support. Basically per above. I liked that Why is able to see past mistakes and improved on them, and I'm sure he will do a good job as a sysop steadily improving his own abilities and behaviour. poke | talk 22:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Semi-weak Oppose. Though Why is a great contributor, parsing through his contributions shows me very little of his handling's of user disputes and the like. Though I trust him, I prefer concrete evidence as opposed to a gut feeling. If I missed something, please point me in the right direction. -- Wandering Traveler 05:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose. "On to why I made this RfA. Well, because I was asked to. As you can read in that section, I was rather reluctant to do it". Drogo Boffin 05:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Reluctant Oppose I think you're a great person, but if you're reluctant makes me wonder. Saying such a word as reluctant doesn't help my gut feeling that you're all too interested in this position. You have participated in a few discussions, but quite frankly not that many. While you may have good opinions, I haven't seen you really give strong inputs on things as to what you think might really belong, etc., or in several matters of the wiki. I feel that if you were so reluctant, that maybe sysop isn't for you. Sysop to me, should be for those who are willing to step up to the tasks that are needed as you would deal with a lot of things, even trolls, drama, etc. Things that are a headache to many, and some seem avoid it, not wanting to solve anything. I feel when you are surely ready and not reluctant, then you might be right for the job. However at this time, I'm going to reluctantly oppose you, even if I feel that there would be good intentions, I just don't think that now is the time, until you feel confident. -- riyen ♥ 07:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. ... Not great,But Not bad Though i dont know loads about him,what i do know about him is hes got a good record of NOT messing up.--Neil2250 14:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
2. My impression of this user is limited to mostly minor one-liners so I can't really derive a more accurate idea of his character. Pika Fan 16:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral: ↑ --ilr 01:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
4. meh tbh, I haven't really seen much from him that really screamed "should be a sysop!!" Don't see a problem with him becoming a sysop but don't see an exceptional reason for him not to be either. – Emmett 01:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Reconfirmation

1. ...