Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Requests for adminship/Ab.er.rant

Ab.er.rant

Ab.er.rant (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Started 02:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Status

Unsuccessful, removed from both bureaucrat and sysop roles. 06:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Candidate statement

I'm one of the grandfathered admins back when GW2W was set up. To be perfectly honest, I did not contribute much (if at all) to this wiki, especially when compared to the peak level of involvement I've been in GWW and GWiki. I've mostly been lurking when I get around to play GW on and off these days, what with my activeness being somewhat linked to how much I'm in the game. And with GW2 looming around the corner... yea, I'll definitely be around. -- ab.er.rant 02:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Whilst I do not doubt ab.er.rant's quality as a bureaucrat, I am inclined to say he is much too distant from the Guild Wars 2 Wiki community to be of real consideration. I don't feel we need to continue with 5 bureaucrats at this time, so I would remove his bureaucrat position for now. If the user is going to be around when the game is released, new RfAs can be made down the line. That said, I do feel ab.er.rant should remain as a sysop due to the fact that he is still considered semi-active/lurking here. I see no reason to remove him of the administrator list altogether. He may not be actively involved with this community, but he clearly states he wishes to be involved later on. If that promise lasts, the sysop team should definitely have him. Sysop status can also be seen as an invitation to be more closely involved with this wiki's methods and users, something a bureaucrat would rather on the side. - Infinite - talk 12:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Unless ab.er.rant has been acting with community "behind the scenes" (IRC, etc.), I don't think having just six edits during past year counts as "semi-active." It is also not very convincing that he didn't even realize that he was a bcrat on GW2W. As such, I believe this wiki could use a more active sysop as a bureaucrat instead. However, I don't see any reason ab.er.rant should not remain as a sysop if he's going to spend more time in GW2W and with its community. Mediggo 19:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Source of above statement. 21:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• As Ab.er.rant put it himself: "I'm just way too clueless about what's been happening on GW2W." (source above) The quote is a year old, but he has barely edited the main space since then, and only when the adminship discussions started up did he begin blocking people (two on March 20, he did block one person prior) and deleting pages (6, all in March 2012). I'm not sure he truly has a need for being a sysop, but he does have some experience doing it, so that's neither here nor there. On the bureaucrat note: having a bureaucrat that has had so little to do recently with this wiki, and I, personally, don't like the concept of promises that say "when x happens I'll come back and be (more) active." If that's the case, then that person can RfA again when they've had time to immerse themselves in the community more fully. A bureaucrat making decisions without knowledge of the community or its underlying foundations is worrying. I believe that he should definitely be removed from his bureaucrat seat, and I'm leaning towards demoting him from sysop as well. If and when he decides to contribute to various wiki discussions and voice his opinion actively, I would definitely love to see him reinstated as a sysop, but I'm not that convinced right now. Aqua (T|C) 22:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• User can open another RfA if he wishes to contribute his sysop skills to the wiki when he bothers to come back to it. Lack of interest and lack of activity make it hard to judge his merits based solely on his work here, but I'd favor removal of sysop and bcrat tags from Ab.er.rant. -Auron 03:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is pretty much my thoughts exactly. 18:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• The only display of his judgement this community can observe is him seeking to retain a role he has not earned. That's crap judgement, so I'm strongly opposed to this user retaining his rights. While Tanaric may be correct in that Adminship is not a reward to be earned, it is a position of trust, and he has not earned a position of trust within this community. Even if he began contributing, his work would not be trusted by this community as the majority don't have a clue who he is. Regardless of intent or ability, it is impossible for him to be an effective Administrator on this wiki. While he has failed to state his understanding of the role, he has demonstrated an assumption that he can ask for the tools now, and put in the hard work later. I beg to differ. A F K When Needed 13:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You're making a lot of assumptions from his statement. There might be a slight implied "I want sysop tools", but it's more a statement of facts than anything else. --JonTheMon 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're unfairly characterizing Ab.er.rant here, AFK. Tanetris asked him to open a reconfirmation and didn't in any way make it clear that he could simply decline to retain his seat. 18:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well of course he can request not to be a Bureaucrat anymore, that's hardly forced upon him. Particularly when he likely has the option himself (I can't claim to have checked on an ArenaNet hosted wiki). A F K When Needed 23:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• While I think that Ab.er.rant would be fine as a sysop and bureaucrat, I don't think that at this time he should be retained since he is not that familiar with the community. If/when he does return to an active role, he can still be useful as an experienced voice w/o sysop tools. --JonTheMon 19:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm in agreement with Auron and Jon. When he was active he was a fine admin, but he has been quite detached from GW2W and even GWW, and haven't made any serious contributions in terms of important discussions since about late 2009-early 2010. Once he's active again, I think he should open another rfa in the future when he has gotten a better feel of the current GW2W community. --Lania 19:43, 04 April 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with some of what has been said above. Due to his lack of activity, I don't think Aberrant is part of this community enough to be an adming. If, in the future, he becomes more active and becomes someone who this community would like to have as a sysop and/or buraucrat, great, he could ask for adminship (which is true for any contributor in this wiki); but not for now. Erasculio 19:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• I have to agree with the above consensus. to little involvement can rfa later if becomes more active.- Zesbeer 01:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Can i please repeat my previous comment ?? "Never discard a person who can be trusted to weild power responsibly, and effectively. Even with a reduced activity level the skill, knowledge, and ability is clearly present. Please retain, and encourage increased interest and participation." Rudhraighe 15:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

the thing is that any of these people can do another RFA at any time just because this one fails dose not mean that they can't RFA again.- Zesbeer 21:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Having an active, capable sysop around UTC+8 would also be helpful once activity on this wiki gets in full motion. However, I would have to agree that until then, it would be good for Ab.er.rant to become more aware of the needs of this particular community, and to not retain his bureaucrat status at this time. — Gares 22:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Ab.er.ant has been able to show that he can be trusted numerous times with the Sysop tools, and thus I fully support his further retention of the sysop role. -- Lacky 07:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Exp & the statement "yea, I'll definitely be around" means my support. We all know the "active" GW community. Strong, exp, active when GW2 goes retail is needed when the "New players" start to benefit the GW2W. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 09:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Even though my voice is less heard, yours is more even with your lack of activity. But, no idea what you can, could or would do in the future, so staying neutral on your RfA. Best of luck on the RfA. Ge4ce-Talk-Contribs 11:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• I don't even feel that I should be commenting, but I shall offer my two cents. I was not an active member of GWW nor of GWiki, thus I have no idea who Ab.er.rant is. Thus based solely on the actions of GW2W, I would see him removed from the roles of sysop. While I do not doubt his ability as a sysop, I feel the same way as others have said. I feel that his involvement with the GW2W community is too little to appreciate the dynamics of the group. This topic can always be revisited in the future, should he seek to reclaim the position. Venom20 12:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• I see no reason to keep Ab.er.rant as a Sysop/Bureaucrat. Lack of activity and what seems to be a lack of interest makes me feel he shouldn't be an admin. While other Sysop/Bureaucrats might have been inactive for a while, Ab.er.rant doesn't look to have ever been very active on GW2W. If later on he becomes active on GW2W and wants to rfa again then maybe, but for now I think he should be removed from being either an Sysop or a Bureaucrat. 03:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Though Ab.er.rant's presence lately has been encouraging, I agree that with the minimal amount of prior history this current RfA does not allow for me to provide my support. Please allow us more time, in all respects. Redshift 12:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Please leave an elaborate comment about why, or why not, the candidate should retain his seat. Discussions are desired!
• …