Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Jon Lupen

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

Jon Lupen

This request is for the sysophood of Jon Lupen (talk • contribs • logs • block log).
Created by — Jon Lupen 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC).

Status

Unsuccessful 20:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Candidate statement

I honestly never thought I'd see this day, but life tends to throw a lot of curve balls. I'll be the first to admit, as of now, I don't need the sysop tools for anything I do on the wiki, but if the wiki-collective sees fit to trust me with them, then I will use them to the best of my abilities. I've been around long enough to know my way around the wiki and its policies well enough that I believe I could do the job without breaking anything, or anyone for that matter. If this is successful, then I'll expand my roles on the wiki and hopefully be a positive impact. If this fails, I hope to at least walk away with knowledge of where I'm going wrong and areas that I could stand to improve in.

There are two past issues, some more recent than others, that I'd like to take a moment to address:

1. My lash-out at Auron: All I can say is that frustrations from the proceeding days reached the breaking point with what I felt to be outrageous and absurd accusations (more than just spamming) that were presented in what struck me as a very troll-ish manner. I apologies for my reaction to the situation. I don't make it a habit to be an out-right dick to people or react to trolls in such a fashion.
2. Wyn: I'm sure I've been a thorn in Wyn's side on more than one occasion. No harm was intended, nor did I intend to cause any grievances or be of any trouble. We all have a list of things we will not tolerate, and unfortunately sometimes we don't know about an item on someone's list until the damage is already done. Wyn, I'm sorry for any trouble I've cause you, hopefully I can avoid further incident.

If there are any other outstanding or past issues you have with me, or anything else you'd like me to address, feel free to head over to the talk page. — Jon Lupen 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Good luck. --Dominator Matrix 05:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Support. Clear support. Jon is pretty level headed with a knack for discretion. I think he'd do a fine job with the tools. -- Wandering Traveler 05:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. We have plenty of sysops who do the janitorial role of blocking IP vandals and similar tasks; I don't think we need more of those (as I mentioned at the other Jon's RfA). However, Jon Lupen would, I believe, be a sysop of a different kind: the one that actually acts against disruptive users and lessen their impact on the wiki. That's the kind of sysop we lack, and is the kind of sysop we need. Erasculio 10:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Support. Good luck m8 --Nick123 16:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Over time Jon has made a very good impression on me. I believe he would quickly grow to be a great addition to the sysop team should he be given the opportunity. — Why 19:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Drogo Boffin 04:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose Your statement is enough to have me want to oppose. Kaisha 05:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I remember more than just those two instances... I think that Mr. Lupen has always contributed in good faith, and he certainly has been around for some time. He's seen enough dramas go down and participated in enough discussions so that he isn't clueless about how the wiki runs and the current state of affairs. Finally he isn't just restricted to the Talk namespace; he helps out on the actual articles, used to do maintenance work on some of the dev talk pages, and has participated in some policy discussions (if I'm remembering correctly, I might be thinking of JonTheMon).
   Still, I feel that Mr. Lupen, while well-intentioned, sometimes/often gets in over his head so to speak, and ends up unintentionally exacerbating a situation. Sometimes (as noted in candidate statement) he just "blows up", and that's a real facepalmer, although he does apologize afterwards. tl;dr I'm ambivalently uncomfortable supporting such a candidate at the moment, especially since he does not seem to have a real need (or even desire) for the tools. Vili 点 05:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
4. User is incapable of separating his feelings from his work. Also, responds too aggressively to perceived trolling (and, in some cases, is unable to recognize it to begin with). Would do nothing useful with sysop tools, and as he wears his heart on his sleeve, I can't trust him not to make mistakes in the heat of the moment. -Auron 06:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
5. " I don't need the sysop tools" QFT. NuVII 10:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I feel that Auron and Vili covered it nicely. -- FreedomBound 13:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose. "I'm in this for the feedback, not because I think I'll succeed." Karate Jesus 16:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
8. User fairly frequently refuses to get the point; Auron's and Vili's votes are also true. – Emmett 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose Very closed minded, views debate as more of a game, rather than a tool to negotiate a difference. I'd like to have sysops that can admit that they're wrong, and if not that, just stop defending their point if everyone clearly proves they are wrong. We only need 1 Gordon, not two. --adrin 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose Ok user, bad sysop. Pika Fan 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose What I said before Nuke preemptively stole my comment. ~Shard 02:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose I'm uncomfortable supporting a candidate whose statement highlights his tendency to "blow up" and that lacks recognition that sysophood is itself a useful tool (independent of special privileges).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. You're obviously known, and have been around for quite a bit, however I am not exactly 100% if you're sysop material or not yet, and I'm not comfortable voting support or oppose one way or another. -- Lacky 06:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
2. I consider us good wiki friends, and as much as I'd like to vote "support", I do agree with Auron. Sometimes you get a little too serious in discussions--for example, the pve henchman discussion on my page back in October turning into a pvp discussion that didn't need to be discussed. I understand what you are doing, you're playing "devil's advocate" for the sake of making the argument that will get you knowledge. However, there are often better ways of discovering what you need or want to know without making an "argument", or compounding on one already in progress. I also know you "argue" (it isn't arguing, but I can't think of a better word to use for those who read this) to make certain every side of the discussion is covered, even when you don't agree with what you are arguing for, you make the argument if there is no-one to represent that side. I respect that, but not everyone here will understand that kind of action. I've always thought of you as admin material, stepping back and evaluating how others perceive you will make you great in this position in time.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Well, I was going to support you, but reading your candidate statement and reading Vili's, Auron's and Yasmin's comments and going through your contributions again I'm not too comfortable supporting you. — Mini Me 17:17, 25 January 2010
4. Neutral. Difficult decission, and after everything what have been said... However, I think you can handle the task from a sysop, but I still can't make a decission with good arguments. For now its just this. -- Cyan 18:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I'm not immediately sure this user brings much to the table and I just don't have the time right now to really dig into it. —Tanaric 20:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)