The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship: Difference between revisions

imported>Lost Labyrinth
imported>Auror Andrachome
Line 153:
:I've seen an additional point raised, regarding whether activity and "caring" about the wiki should factor into the decision. I do not believe it is relevant because, simply put, we all care about the wiki. If we didn't care, we wouldn't be bothering to edit here. So to say that Hana (or any applicant) should receive rights just because they care seriously belittles all the other users who clearly also care about the wiki.
:On the subject of editing here... the matter of editor activity was raised, and I believe it is equally without merit. No applicant for an RfA would be seriously considered in the first place without showing they were active on the wiki, so this isn't a redeeming quality that could be assigned to Hana individually, or a reason to support her RfA. And to take the stance that many of the opposing votes to this RfA aren't active seems to seriously go against all the contributions that the opposing voters (as well as the supporters) really '''do''' make to the wiki. I for one do not appreciate having that sort of an accusation lobbed at me.
:We need to cut through the false arguments for or against this RfA and get to the heart of the matter - is HanaGoth96 capable of being a fair and effective administrator. I do not believe that she is ready to be an administrator, and there are ''many'' incidents that show that she would not be trustworthy in a leadership position at the present time. That is why I voted in opposition. Unless supporters can come up with an explanation of why my assertion is incorrect, I cannot take their votes of support to mean anything other than personal support for the candidate, not for their ability to do the job, which is ultimately what the RfA is meant to be about. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 01:25, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
::I agree fully. In fact because the argument claiming that most of the admins on this nomination aren't active editors and don't "genuinely care about the wiki" is generally rude and demeaning not just to other administrators but also, as LiR clearly stated, every other user who "cares" about the wiki, which by extension is almost everybody here (not to mention the argument says nothing about the nominee's suitability as an administrator), I've striked it out and thus is null and void.
 
Line 160:
::I'm not expecting my decision to go without controversy and if anybody does wish to complain then come on by to IRC and we can discuss this thoroughly and amicably. I'm now going to distance myself from this RfA to avoid any conflicts of interest with regards to my opposition vote. I do hope that in the future, those supporting an RfA will put more emphasis on the candidate's suitability for the role rather than personal ties, which, as LiR once again stated, appears to be most (though not all) of the support votes (oh and before somebody throws this at me, Auror's vote was striked due to the bad faith assertion of her argument with regards to other users, if I was camping on support votes then I would have striked the "she deserves this" votes too). {{LabSig}} 11:42, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
:::'''Postscript:''' I've reversed my aformentioned decision for the sake of neutrality. I'll echo the fact that I'm not happy with the argument/underlying comment made in that particular vote; I'm doing this to defuse any potential accusations of bias on my part. {{LabSig}} 18:22, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
::::'''Firstly''', my post was solely to show my support for [[User:HanaGoth96|HanaGoth96]]. Suggesting anything else, such as throwing out accusations or belittling others was not meant to be done, but seeing the post-passage written by you two, I don't feel too sorry for having typed it. Perhaps there is an undertone I'm not aware of that should be brought up elsewhere? My partition about "activity" was meant for myself as well, so don't get so rash. I brought up my points because that is where Hana stood out most and I was simply commenting on them. If you saw something else, then that's a fault on your part. Lab, I know full well what administratorship is and isn't. If you hadn't already been aware, I've been blocked four times, yet still an admin today. If you feel I don't deserve it, then the admins can discuss about revoking my rights while I stand in as admin pro tempore.
::::On another note, it seems I've forgotten when the definition for "majority" seems to have changed. Providing four active admins doesn't make the whole team active. The whole "hypocrite" argument is also dead as I've already mentioned that I included myself with the "inactive admin" clip. And really, striking my vote because of what I retorted is bad faith? Yeah, I'm throwing an accusation of bias at you, good sir. [[User:Auror Andrachome|Ѧüя◎ґ]] ([[User talk:Auror Andrachome|talk]]) 22:18, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
 
==== Conclusion ====