GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/FireFox


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the nomination of a user for adminship. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

FireFox (talk &bull; contribs)
I've been around the wiki for quite some time now (over a year in fact ^.^), made some friends, had some arguments, and done ALOT of uploading *rolls eyes*. All in all, I love the wiki and find myself visiting daily (at work even) to contribute and with recent events we can only assume that vandalism will increase. As you hopefully know I am NOT power hungry (yes indeed that sounded paranoid) and from looking at Obliviowiki you can tell that I will not blow anything up -.-. Although I feel quite awkward nominating myself I feel that I would be a great help with maintaining the wiki. --FireFox  19:26, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Support

 * 1) Favored. Friend of mine, competent and intelligent person. I think he'd make a great admin. Also, he tends to have patience with people, doesn't go revert their pages right away, and doesn't drag out pointless arguments just because he wants to be right about certain builds. Also has cake. Light Cleric 19:53, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * 2) I have known FireFox for a while now, and I think that he would make an excellent admin. His knowledge of Guild Wars is large, and he is able to contribute a lot the community, esspecially in PvP. He is also very intelligent, and would be a great asset to Guild Wiki. And yes, he does have cake. Spiffinz 20:59, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * 3) Conditional - must be v. active &mdash; Skuld 14:57, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Oppose

 * 1) Overall, though he seems good at first, I think this would not be a good decision. On a completely unrelated note, this is the first page to be graced with my new siggy. &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 19:45, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Though he is active, he is not nearly as active as an admin must be. His comments about his own nomination have a "Why not?" attitude, and do not show the confidence one in such a position would need to show.--TheDrifter 20:04, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * 3) You're an excellent contributor; don't get me wrong, but I just don't think you are deserving/understand the full responsibility of an administrator position on this wiki. Please attempt at getting more involved and giving the MAJORITY of the users a chance to know you. Also not sure nominating yourself was a good idea. Best to wait for someone else to. The fact that you haven't been nominated yet should have gave you a fair idea of what the consensus would be as to your appointment. — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg]] 20:34, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * 4) Agreed with all of the above comments, and they've worded them better than I could. &mdash;Tanaric 20:55, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * 5) I haven't seen FireFox around the wiki much (at all?) and I know next to nothing about his contributions and such, so I would be taking all that on his word; which is not reassuring when considering a new admin. Also, seeing as the Wiki fairly recently got two more admins, I question the need of having another one, and so soon! Don't get me wrong, I am not saying too many admins is a bad thing necessarily - just that...it seems right now the poisition is unneeded. Especially since the appointee is a user I can't judge, since I don't know him hardly at all. To sum up, I don't think a new admin is a good idea at this time, and I would not be completely comfortable anyways with the user as an admin. Lastly, /agree with all above and below points. Entropy 17:28, 13 February 2007 (CST)
 * 6) Opposed, partially on principle, because I don't think you should be able to nominate yourself. Also, because he's just not very active, and because I can't see any reason for him to be admin, when he could do the same job without the tools. Craw   15:03, 14 February 2007 (CST)
 * 7) Nice guy, but not active enough to be an admin.--Coloneh RIP[[Image:Coloneh.png]] 00:13, 23 February 2007 (CST)
 * 8) Nominating yourself wasn't the idea, but that's not relevant. What is relevant that I haven't really noticed FireFox almost anywhere in the wiki and scrolling through his contributions doesn't give me any reason to believe that he would need the admin tools for anything. However, I didn't use too much time researching so It's a neutral vote for the moment. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * Moved my opinnion from neutral to opposed. Just checked his contributions and I could see edits from January in the list of 100 (or was it 150) recent edits. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2007 (CST)
 * I gave much thought into deciding to nominate myself, and I understand that it does sound very conceited, my major concern is the wiki and I apologize to any other message I may have sent because the wiki means alot to me. On the topic of recent contributions I would like to say that I have just recently began playing the game again and this has reduced my ability to effectively provide accurate information for the wiki, now that I am beginning to actively play the game again I should soon be able to contribute on a more regular level again --FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.gif]] 20:08, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * I'm not too conserned by the amount of edits but by what the edits are. Being active in the background stuff like policies and such is usually a good thing for someone wanting to be an admin. Someone who mostly provides the wiki with information from the game doesn't really need the admin tools. I would like to see you present us with reasons why you would need the tools and why they should be given to you specifically. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * Well nobody really need the tool Gem. One admin is theoricly enough.&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  20:19, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * One admin might theoretically be enough, but that one admin would get pretty swamped with admin questions, page delete requests, and user ban requests. Also, one admin probably wouldn't be able to catch all the things that are going on, especially if that one admin doesn't pay as much attention to some things (say a mainly PvEer who misses what goes on in the PvP sections). --Theonemephisto 20:35, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * The tools: To help prevent vandalism, as you know the wiki is vandalized fairly frequently and during the hours that I'm around I have noticed that there is not always an admin around to quickly revert said edits. Of course as an admin one would have to get more involved with user disputes and teaching newer users the ways of the wiki. Why should I receive the tools? As stated above I would hope to decrease the time between vandalism and reverts and would also like to help improve the communities view of the wiki by providing user help when I can and give in-game explanations for commonly asked questions (and those not so commonly asked). As I know from experience the way much of the game and the wiki work I believe that I could answer most of the questions asked to me. I would also like to point out that all points that have been brought up against me are valid but in my opinion you do not understand why it is that I nominated myself, with the potential move to the wiki hosted by arena net vandalism will no doubt increase tenfold if the move does go through, once the wiki is official we will need more people to fight vandalism and for overall maintenance of discussions. --FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.gif]] 20:56, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * Maby vandalism will get out of hands later on, maby not. At the moment it seems to be in control. (And reverting is almost as fast without the admin rollback feature than it is by using article history) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * Although I'm still new to contributing on GuildWiki, I don't think that anyone should be approving someone for adminship just because someone's a friend (though not quite the case here). It doesn't reflect anything on how someone would use their powers, how neutral someone is (or at least in control of themselves), or dedication when the wow factor has worn off.  Adminship, from what I understand, isn't content based either.  With vandalism, it's bound to at anytime, particularly when if ANet does end up hosting it, but that's not something that should be used as a reason to nominate.  And if you really wanted to bust down on that, admins would have shifts, but that's just a huge pain and not practical.  On the other side, though, determining who would make good admins for GuildWiki is more difficult than some other methods of online communication. ~ [[Image:GeckoSprite.gif]] Pae 22:31, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * The main problem I have with those statements FireFox is that they have nothing to do with adminship. You can revert a vandalism edit and answer people's questions without needing admin status. And if you're really concerned with the way things are going to happen at ArenaNet's wiki, that's all well and fine, but you should bring the subject up over there, not here. Getting admin status here (especially now since the initial draft of admins has already been done) will have nothing to do with you getting admin status over there. You're forgetting it's two different sites, not mirrors. If you want to be an administrator to help that wiki grow, then I suggest you wait until they outline the policy for implementing new administrators before trying to jump in at an opportune time. But, from what you're saying, I don't see any reason why you necessarily need or should have admin status on this wiki. But, then again, that's just my opinion. — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg]] 23:14, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Neutral

 * 1) I'm neutral here... I've seen you around a lot, doing good work, but I'm not sure if I think you're ready to be an admin. On a related note, I do believe I've read somewhere that you're perfectly free to nominate yourself - I was thinking about it for a bit, but eventually decided against it. Congrats on having the self-confidence to nominate yourself, though. --Armond Warblade (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2007 (CST)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.