Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/People of Antioch

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

People of Antioch

This request is for the sysophood of User:People of Antioch (talk • contribs).
Created by People of Antioch talk 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

Status

Failed. 13:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC) (not enough support)

Candidate statement

Hello. First I would like to thank Shadowphoenix for the nomination, though I created this page myself. Also I’d like to thank you for visiting this page and perhaps leaving a comment/vote. On to business.

I have been attending this fine Wiki since October 13, 2007 where I made my first edit into the Bergen Hot Springs. Since then, I have made several little mistakes that I have learned to try to avoid. I believe I have grown enough to take on the responsibilities of becoming a Sysop. I have studied polices, guidelines and Sysop guide as well. I have a cool head in arguments and I can look at daunting tasks and be unflinching. I believe in the spiritual interpretation of policy and its literal forms, along with "assuming good faith". Like in Guild Wars itself, there must be a balance.

I am open on how to proceed as both a user and a sysop, and I realize there is little difference between the two.

If you have any questions for me, please feel free to ask. There is also a nice section there of Brains asking me questions. Either way, Sysop or not, I am proud to be a part of this wonderful community and trust in your judgment if you believe I am worthy of being a Sysop. Take care.--People of Antioch talk 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --Sum Mesmer Guy 17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Very Strong Support You have done excelent work on this wiki, in the short time you have been here you have proven yourself to me (and I am sure many others). At first I had a just a Support for you but after you answered the questions on your talk page you went far beyond. I hope this RfA is a complete aproval. --Shadowphoenix 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Weak Support While he doesn't have as much experience as other users, he definitely understands the wiki and the way things need to work for everyone to be content. He's not the type of person who will jump the gun and make an overzealous ban or deletion without discussing. He definitely can't hurt the wiki being a sysop, and would learn fast. Calor 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Support I believe PoA would make a good sysop. I don't feel that participation in policy discussion should be given such emphasis when choosing admins, since other than understanding how to apply them, they are no different than any other user. I believe he's shown a willingness to deal with the maintenance work that is required of a sysop and has handled himself well while dealing with other users. He's shown a level of reason and intelligence that I find appealing in an admin. -- Wynthyst 08:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I have nothing against you, but I feel that you being here for only 5 months is to short of time. I also feel that you are not quite experienced enough with the wiki editing/coding. You may be a nice contributor, but I think you need to learn some more or just do some more stuff around here before you should be a Sysop. — ク Eloc 貢 17:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. While I think you are a good contributor I think you should definitely take part in wiki discussions to show that you are ready for being a sysop. Tagging hundreds of orphaned images for deletion is not really something that qualifies someone for being a good sysop; there are a lot other people who do that daily in other areas (while I still think that was a great action ;) ). For now, I would prefer to see you as a well contributing user who also takes part in active wiki discussions, which we always have. I believe that if you can improve in that way, you'll probably have a great future - maybe even as a sysop. poke | talk 17:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose Agreed with Poke. Prophet Ascension 21:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I've seen your work around the wiki, as well as the way you've handled a few user problems. While I think you've done very well, I've got to agree with the others that perhaps a little more experience is needed before you make the jump to sysop.--Pyron Sy 02:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. not enough contributions --Cursed Angel 02:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Although you have made some good contributions to the wiki I think more experience is needed in certain areas; dealing with user disputes and policy discussion are two that come to mind (although I realize that participation in policy discussion isn't necessary before being made sysop); that a sysop is required to deal with. I think given more time you could be ready to take on the sysop role just not yet. I also have to agree with what Poke said in his vote. While I was leaning towards neutral the reasons I gave made me finally choose oppose, although it could possibly be a slightly weak oppose (it's not enough for an actual Weak Oppose though). --Kakarot 02:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I feel that this has come to soon for People of Antioch, however I do believe I could support his adminship in the future. --Lemming 16:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose The sysop tools would likely be in good hands, since I can see good contributions. But I am unsure of how much help they would be to the way the user currently contributes. -- ab.er.rant 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose -- scourge 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
10. ...

Neutral

1. Neutral. I have no idea what you have done, so I can't really have an opinion. Although, with this neutral vote, I'd like to state that maybe you need some more experience first. - helena 21:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I agree with what poke said above, but I have more of a neutral stance than oppose. Kokuou 06:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I agree with many of the reasons given for Oppose, primarily experience, discussion and general "doing-other-things-ness", but I don't think that warrants an oppose. PoA is an excellent contributor, but I don't see him as a sysop at this moment in time. In future, maybe. -- Brains12 \ Talk 02:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral. The only things that matter for me personally when deciding on an RFA are "Would this user be helpful as an admin?", "Would this user misuse the sysop tools?" and "Would this user benefit from the sysop tools?". At the moment the answers would be yes, no and no, in that order which to me warrants a neutral vote. — Galil 16:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
5. I'm leaning a bit more towards oppose, but otherwise I agree with zombiefood above. Backsword 09:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral. PoA seems helpful, intelligent, and mature in discussions, but I feel like he hasn't been in a lot of them; a bit more time would not hurt. I don't know him well enough to support but think he'd be good enough that I won't oppose. Try again in a while, perhaps. - THARKUN 19:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral. While I fully trust you to never misuse the admin tools, I have not (yet?) seen how they would benefit you either. I would not oppose, but I cannot give a full support either :) - anja 00:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral. Switched vote to Neutral. — ク Eloc 貢 23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Agreed with Galil and Anja. —Tanaric 01:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral. I don't feel like I know PoA well enough to actually support or oppose. That said, however, while I feel that PoA is an excellent contributor, I have always placed a good deal of stock in a users involvement in wiki discussions (particularly in the "GWW talk:" namespace) as a means of gauging a persons true readiness for Sysoption (it's a lesson I took to heart after my GuildWiki RfA), and, on that basis, I feel like I need to lean towards opposition. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)