Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Xeeron

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

Xeeron

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

Status

Candidate withdrew 15:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Candidate response

Remove my sysops rights please.

Having seen this entire farce unfold for several months now, I doubt any progress will be made. We have reached the stage of pointless obstructionism and trolling sockpuppets. This whole non-issue could have been solved by dropping a friendly question on inactive sysops' talk pages to ask whether they still monitor their page and whether they want to keep sysop rights. Instead, there are a ton of discussions leading nowhere, an active sysop who left and nothing to show for it except a smaller box on the admin noticeboard. Was that really worth it?

I'd have made this edit earlier, if not for my belief that the sysop clean-up is wrong in principle and based on a wrong notion of sysop status being a reward for active users (which it never should become). --Xeeron (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. As per my numerous comments on this debate and in light of the emerging role of standby sysops; I feel any sysop interested in retaining their sysop rights, should be allowed to do so. -- Salome 16:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Support. Xeeron's shown continued interest in the wiki after all these years. The wiki doesn't demand much these days, but it says a lot to me that someone is willing to come back and help out as needed. Greener (talk) 19:05, 28 August 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) 17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I endorse removal of sysop rights for this user. They left for GW2W with no intentions of coming back and they admirably stuck to that. -Chieftain Alex 18:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Due to administrator's inactivity for more than 7 years. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Almost 8 years inactivity is a long time for an admin. Sime (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Inactivity again. This is not supposed to be a permanent position. Drogo Boffin 06:25, 21 August 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) 21:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Neutral. I don't really have a strong opinion. If they accept the "standby" status, that would be fine by me and my vote can be counted as mild support. Steve1 (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Neutral I still feel that admin/sysop status should not be a lifetime position however that being said I've taken time to think more on it and "inactivity" isn't a valid reason to oppose. Drogo Boffin 03:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)