Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/DominatorMatrix

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

Archive 2 Archive 1

DominatorMatrix

This request is for the sysophood of DominatorMatrix (talk • contribs • logs • block log).
Created by --Dominator Matrix 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC). Nomination By User:Wandering Traveler.

Status

Failed. 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate statement

I have been a wiki user here for well over 2 years. I've made well over 7,000 edits, in that time. With the experience I am regularly patrolling the recent changes for vandals.

Although most of the time when I do notice I vandal I seem to be the only one active on the wiki. While posting on the noticeboard for vandals it still can be detrimental when all you can do is revert, and hope the user will stop.

My past year has shown I am a level headed wiki user willing to deal with the grit of the wiki.

While some see me as a care-bear I will not sugarcoat or give special treatment to any user. If a user gets out of line they will be blocked.

While that may seem that I am more harsh then the regular sysops, but I do not find that the case. We all block at different rates, while most blocks follow media wiki guidelines (day, week, etc).

Since it has been 8 months since my last Request for Adminship I have learned what is, and what is not wanted on this wiki and I will help keep the wiki in check as much as one sysop can.

Support

1. Support. Same reasons as before. Dom's a bit blunt, but he knows what he's doing. He'd make a fine sysop. -- Wandering Traveler 00:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC
2. Support. As per WT. He's great to talk with on things, too. -- riyen ♥ 04:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
3. -- Lacky 07:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This, and the following comments, are what I remember of DominatorMatrix. -- FreedomBound 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I think it's great that you are more in control of yourself than in past times, Dom. You're not nearly as overemotional. However, that's just the start. I have never seen anything spectacular out of you, or even so-so that could be called sysop material. Mostly I just remember a lot of conflicts and issues with guild tagging. Your one saving grace is that you are one of those people who actually bothers to watch the RC, so you catch vandals and stuff with relative speed and ease. But that alone isn't enough to gain my support, since there are other less-troubled-history users who also scan the RC. Vili 点 04:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Ah... No. NuVII 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Freedom Bound's link is enough for me, August is too soon for the kind of attitude shift needed—I'd consider in more detail next summer or so and the talk page discussion has confirmed that nothing's changed. —Tanaric 21:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Not all that bad, but not fantastic enough to warrant sysophood. Sysops have certain qualities that set aside normal users from others i.e leadership, charisma, maturity, knowledge/wisdom, depth, conflict resolution, fairness and firmness etc. I have not seen much of any from you other than some janitorial stuff that any normal user can do/already is doing. EDIT: When it's clearly your fault, don't change the topic by pulling out the "i'm so oppressed" card. It's inappropriate, irresponsible and shows you do not actually mean your apology. Pika Fan 02:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Meh. -Auron 15:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Talk page. - Mini Me talk 20:57, 6 January 2010
8. Oppose: Dunno how he can handle the responsibilities of sysop if he can't compose himself in regular discussion? You'd have to convince me otherwise, but as for now I have my doubts about his ability --rawr 21:05, 6 January 2010
9. Oppose. Meh. - Drogo Boffin 21:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose Talk page. King Neoterikos 23:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose As per talk page. -- Salome 02:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I am quite sad that I had to change my mind here. In fact I was initially leaning towards changing my neutral to support since Dom means well and is a valuable contributor. But his handling of this very minor issue has convinced me that he is not ready to be sysop. He had every chance to make it go away, but in stead he made it bigger. Sorry. --Lensor (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
13. I've watched the talk page as it developed, and chose not to interfere because it was a perfect opportunity for Dom to show he is level-headed in difficult situations. He failed to convince me though. I fear giving him the sysop tools would make him perfect troll-bait. I'm sorry Dom. — Why 16:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I was going to be neutral, because I couldn't care less. However, I took a look at the talk page, and all the drama promoted on that page....and Ariyen's support make me want to oppose. Karate Jesus 18:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Strong Oppose From what I've seen, there's no reason he should be a sysop and a few dozen that scream that promoting him would be on par or only slightly better than promoting myself, and, around here, that's something I can't even come close to considering. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Daññy (talk).
16. Oppose. Comments on the talk page were very telling. — piper doesn't talk 19:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I just don't know you enough to support or oppose. -- Cyan 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I only ever interacted with Dom during the days when I took the fight to get editors to tag inactive Guild pages according to policy. We had some words, and even though he had a hard time admitting a mistake in writing, his actions showed that he could do better and now I seldom see him tagging in error. Basically I am not completely convinced he is ready for being a sysop, but I am not about to oppose him either. --Lensor (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral I seem to recall that the user in question thinks that Macs are luxury computers. elix Omni 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)