Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Requests for adminship/JonTheMon

JonTheMon

This request is for the reconfirmation of User:JonTheMon (talk • contribs).
This user hasn't made any mainspace contribution since December 2015 (which is over 4 years ago). Created by: ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Status

Unsuccessful, removed sysop roles. 13:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Candidate response

It's good to know that this wiki is alive and well, unlike my online presence. In light of my woeful absence and inactivity I support my demotion. I hope to be active in the future, but there's a good chance I won't. --JonTheMon (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose retaining sysop rights. After years of consistently blocking spambots he vanished, presumably doesn't play the game anymore and has chosen not to contribute to the wiki. -Chieftain Alex 16:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Seconding this. Haven't seen a single edit of Jon ever since I joined the wiki in 2015. Ironically, he seems to be quite active in-game though. talk 16:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Same reasons as above and on GWW; excessive inactivity. horrible | contribs 19:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose retaining rights - long inactivity. —Kvothe (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose. - Hasn't been active in a very long time, so the sysop rights aren't exactly being used. —Ventriloquist 22:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose. - Almost 5 years inactivity is a long time to retain sysop rights. ~SimeTalk 00:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose. — Four and a half years of inactivity is a clear sign he's not interested in the role right now, and there's no reason he can't reapply in future if he decides to return to active editing. —Idris 20:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Oppose. - Any gamer who WANTS the title of "sysop" has to show an interest in PERFOMING the DUTIES of that position. More than 4 YEARS of "inactivity" says that he just wants the "title", not the responsibility, and WORST OF ALL, doesn't want ANYONE ELSE taking the "job"!! Let someone who WANTS the duty to do it. Undouble (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

   This criteria sounds more like a guild recruitment message and is not valid rationale for discussing wiki admins, who are chosen for their qualities as editors and not as "gamers". Admin roles are not (nor should they be) status symbols, they merely reflect trust with technical and procedural functions on the wiki. An admin that has been inactive for a long period of time may be disqualified solely for technical reasons: he or she may not be up to date with a change in policy, and privileged inactive accounts can become a security risk without benefits. It is not a value judgment and no prejudice should exist if those users choose to return and seek reinstatement. Inactive admins do not prevent anyone else from becoming admins and nobody else will be promoted for the purpose of replacing Jon. 76.126.247.17 05:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

9. Oppose. - I agree that it's a security risk to have inactive modded accounts floating around. If they choose to become active again then they can reapply. --Rain Spell (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Oppose. - I think the fact that candidate themselves hasn't made any response whatsoever in either their defense or to simply resign speaks more volumes to me: Jon's moved on. If he wants to become an admin again in the future, then he can, but for now no. - Do_odleplex 22:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I just read the banner again and thought: "Who is this guy again?" and I haven't seen him over the past years. Contributions are empty lately. Probably not here anymore? ~ Sanna 22:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I worked with Jon for like a decade and I know he's a reliable and capable guy. However, it's been 2 weeks since this RFA was opened and he hasn't responded to it or presumably even seen it. If we're keeping inactive sysops on the roll to handle situations when nobody else is available, well, Jon clearly can't do that right now. - Felix Omni 13:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
13. Oppose. As most other entries here have already pointed out, 4 1/2 years of inactivity are to long to retain sysop rights. In addition to this it's also a security risk to have inactive sysop accounts. If he comes back and wants to start editing the wiki again and regain his position as sysop I'd be happy to welcome him back. Almdudler (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I am fairly new to the wiki, but have strong feelings for it, as I do for the game itself and its community. So I don't feel I have the right to opine too much on any user except myself (lol), but as a token of my love for this wiki and my attempt at good wiki citizenship, after reading all the arguments, I have to agree with them. They are logical, and it appears the user doesn't play any more or at least doesn't contribute or care about the wiki. Even if this isn't the case and he/she is unable to continue contributing, it's evident the community and wiki would likely be better served with someone who is more inclined to do so. This is, of course, merely my humble opinion. :) Sdshepherdx (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Almost half a decade of inactivity. Not much reason to have sysop powers, if you aren't around. - J.P. 13:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
16. Oppose. I like this wiki. I want someone to be an admin who is in touch with all the things around the wiki. Beeing inactive for such a long time makes it impossible to live up to the responsibilities of an admin. --Lexxa (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Removal of admin privileges for reasons of inactivity should first be formed as a policy to set standard criteria (amount of time, etc) and a discussion for removal should only serve to: 1) provide notification of impending action, 2) allow independent verification that the criteria has been met, and 3) create a public record of these actions. 76.126.247.17 05:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

   Activity is my reasoning for reconfirmation. The reasoning was not supported by any policy or a criteria. Any user is allowed to start a reconfirmation even without specifying a reason. ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

   I believe what IP is saying is that it might not be fair/"constitutional" to remove someone's moderator status for inactivity if we haven't established activity as a formal requirement for moderator privileges. You are correct that there are no requirements to call for a reconfirmation, and they are correct that there is no precedent for inactivity to be a basis for reconfirmation. Personally, I do think that an effort should be made to keep the moderator team restricted to people who are actively involved (those who previously had it can come back and reapply), but I don't think formalizing that is necessary (and generally goes against this wiki's efforts to have "spirit" of rules over "letter" of rules). Aqua_[talk] 18:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

   The sort of 'letter of the law' wiki-lawyering that the IP is engaging in came up (indeed, still comes up) all the time on gww, and is (as far as I know) the primary reason such policies don't exist on this wiki. horrible | contribs 18:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)