Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/JonTheMon

Closing Time

The outcome of this RFA seems pretty clear, how long are we intending to keep the voting open? It's been more than two weeks without any sign of life. talk 07:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Tanetris has gone ahead and proactively closed the 16 similarly inactive RFA's on gw1w (including Jon's bcrat one) so I'm going to assume it's a deliberate decision to leave this one open a bit longer. -Chieftain Alex 17:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It could be that the GW2W bureaucrats want to resolve Tanetris' RFA before doing any further bureaucrat-y things. - Felix Omni 18:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought it would run for about a month personally. ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There is never a strict ruling for how long an RFA goes on. The fact that there is still some feedback being posted is a good sign that we can leave it open a bit longer though.

In addition, I specifically asked to keep this open a bit longer to allow Jon a bit more time to at least give his own statement. poke | talk 23:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. For some reason I had a rough timeframe of two weeks in my head (probably because my own RFA lasted that long).

There's some slight discrepancy here though: why leave this RFA open when you already closed the one on the GWWW? Furthermore, did anyone manage to contact Jon? Are we certain that he will give a statement? At present he'd just be setting himself up for failure. talk 07:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I’ve sent him an email last night (I don’t know if anyone tried to email him before me) and want to give it until the end of the week. On GWW, we want to follow a different approach, with a potential policy change. The wikis are distinct with different role definitions, so I don’t see a problem with doing different things here. poke | talk 08:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To be completely honest, in no world should Jon maintain moderator privileges at this point. He has moved on from the wiki, and the wiki has moved on from him. To disregard the unanimous agreement of almost 20 users in the active community is well beyond the bounds of good faith admin discretion in my opinion. Should he come back and resume activity, I would be happy to see him reinstated, but, existing precedent for removal for inactivity or no, it is clear the wiki does not believe he has fulfilled whatever abstract collective view on the duties of administrators there may be. (As a slight aside, while I agree that removal on the basis of some ex-post decision that admins need visible activity is not great, I would argue that total inactivity is also a valid reason to suggest that someone be removed, formal rule or no.) Aqua_[talk] 23:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to clarify that in no way did I say that him coming back to make a statement (or not) does affect the decision being made for this RFA. This is mostly meant as an act of courtesy. poke | talk 20:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)