Anonymous user
The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship: Difference between revisions
→Comments/Questions
imported>Auror Andrachome |
imported>LostInRiverview |
||
Line 131:
'''TL;DR?''' User rights, including adminship, are ''not'' deserved; they are utilised to aid a user in maintaining the wiki; they're not rewards for long-term/high edit count/trusted users. Saying that somebody "deserves to be an admin" is a very weak argument and doesn't say anything into why a user should be an admin. {{LabSig}} 18:37, May 8, 2013 (UTC)
: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)
== Closed requests ==
| |||