Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Xasxas256

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

Xasxas256

This request is for the reconfirmation of User:Xasxas256 talk • contribs • logs.
Created by: User:Horrible 16:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Result

Presumed retired 14:36, 14 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 far too long. Steve1 (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I endorse removal of this sysop's rights. They seem to have vanished shortly after their original RFA was approved in 2007. -Chieftain Alex 16:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Due to administrator's inactivity for more than 11 years. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Almost 12 years inactivity is a long time for an admin. Sime (talk) 00:45, 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)