Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship

Archive

---

• /Archive 2007
• /Archive 2008
• /Archive 2009

To Be Honest

I think all of these RfAs that are popping up are too soon with all the other stuff going on. People just need to Chill out and then run when they really feel they can make a difference, not because of recent events or other things, such as selfish moods. This should really be taken seriously not 'lightly' and I believe we all should do with 'consensus' not by 'ego', not to mention the 'fan votes' that it would cause, because of the 'recent events'. -- riyen ♥

When an RFA pops up, it pops up, regardless of the drama of the day. Whats to say these people don't think they can't make a difference right now? As for dealing with fan votes, those have to be dealt with in any and all RFA's. If a legitimately good candidate came forward and got great supports, but three times the amount of opposition from haters and proxies, I very highly doubt the bureaucrats would give the candidate a denial. The numbers mean jack shit, its all in whether people genuinely think the person will actually do some good instead of saying "he has bad typing, GTFO". -- Wandering Traveler 06:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That is true. Maybe and hopefully this isn't what I 'feel', but I do hope that the candidates mean what they say and that they side with the people on things, not abuse the ops that is if they win. -- riyen ♥ 06:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, my call for more admins posted above as well as the nominations I've posted were on my list of things to do before certain dramatic incidents blew up. The timing is unlucky but had absolutely nothing to do with my actions (though it's certainly added a strong bullet point to my justifications for them). —Tanaric 10:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, hard to AGF on that, but I'm thinking that maybe a hold on the call so to speak, until some dramas cool down with sysops. I think it would help give people time to think and clear their heads, then continue. -- riyen ♥ 10:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand... are you saying you want to bring in more police to police the police that you gave up vigilance on when you left? Isn't that just projectionism and passing the buck? Events are random, you can't just use them to justify Long-Term policy changes or political shifts. What's your real reasoning for all this hub bub? --ilr 23:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As to quote Jette, could I have a road map to that post? NuVII 23:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

ilr, my apologies. "Justification" was the wrong word. I really meant "example." My mistake for editing at 3 in the morning. —Tanaric 02:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always wondered,

isn't the "Neutral" section supposed to represent "I don't think you'd break stuff with sysop tools, but I'm not in a big hurry to give them to you." or something similar? I've seen in the past few elections (though this may have been going on for longer than I've been here) is that people go "I don't know you, so I'm voting Neutral." What's the point of that? If you don't know them, take time to look at their contributions, perhaps? You clutter the voting section with those types of votes. I'd venture to say the logic behind those remarks (at best: none; at worst: elitist) is similar to that of, "I don't know you, so I'm voting Oppose." or, "I don't know you, so I'm voting Support." If you don't know the candidate and don't want to take the time to skim through their contributions, then do the wiki a favor and don't vote. --RIDDLE 21:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I use it for 1) a consideration place, more investigation needed. or 2) I think you are a good contributer, but by my opinion you are not ready yet for the sysop tools. -- Cyan 21:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a third type of vote (from ambivalent or not-just-yet) that should also be welcomed: I care about the selection of admins and, therefore, I cannot support a candidate that hasn't been involved in wiki areas of concern to me. That's different from not voting at all; I prefer that people express a preference rather than the indifference of no vote at all.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as abdicating an explicit stance. Most of my votes have been neutral and I see it simply as "I am concerned about this matter, but it would not negatively impact my role in the Wiki community if this candidate was promoted"... HTH. --ilr 04:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's really only there for the bemefit for users who don't want to vote support or oppose but feel they need to have their say anyway. Sometimes to say that 'yes, I've seen this'. Backsword 12:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

a thought on support / oppose

could it be safely done assumed that trolling / drama provoking votes could be removed, as in the case of person attacks? I'm talking about things like how ive always seen raine vote on an Auron RFA "ilu, k" are just there because said users want to support their friends. Just a thought — Scythe 19:41, 2 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Her vote is well supported by good reasoning. Posts that are just trolling like CA's are already removed. – Emmett 19:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I fail to see how any votes there are "provoking drama". In fact comments like this provoke drama by causing an issue where there isn't one. ShadowRunner 19:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

i agree wholeheartedly that she backed up her vote, however the initial response is trolling, which is, in the end, a negative thing. — Scythe 19:59, 2 Sep 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't trolling and the vote has been expanded. The window to remove the vote (if that window even exists...) is long gone. – Emmett 20:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, guys, your feeding him....stop it. Karate Jesus 20:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

im not trolling KJ, you really just cant seem to get past your anti-me bias. There is a purpose to my actions besides feeding trolls. — Scythe 20:19, 2 Sep 2010 (UTC)

"I love you!!! Obviously this vote isn't effected by that, considering that I've placed it in bold instead of Support like i'm supposed to. Stop hating on us silly boys~" Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 20:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

RFA — suggested rewording of resolution

The current phrasing is: "The RFA has been active for roughly one week. A bureaucrat would close it and determine the result. In general, the RFA is successful if it has at least 3 times as much support as those in opposition; but it is not a simple tally. The bureaucrat will exercise discretion when gauging/interpreting the amount of support/opposition. " I propose rewording to:

Bureaucrat discretion. After the RfA has been active for at least a week, a bureaucrat may will evaluate the feedback and exercise discretion to determine the result. Bureaucrats are encouraged to wait for at least a dozen comments before deciding.

• An RfA will tend to be successful if it has at least three times as much support as it does opposition.
• An RfA will fail if it does not have at least twice as much support as opposition or if over half the comments are neutral.
• However, this is not a simply tally: bureaucrats must also consider the full picture (e.g. the strength of comments as well as the record of the candidate). When the results are close, bureaucrats are encouraged (but not required) to consult with each other before posting results and to post a summary of the reasons for their decision.

1. There are only two resolution types: candidate choice and b'crat decision; that is not as obvious in the current text.
2. The current phrasing implies that there's something magical about a week; the new phrasing implies it's more about having enough useful data.
3. The current phrasing gives criteria for obvious pass, but none for obvious fail.
4. The current phrasing leaves ambiguous the importance of communication for close decisions.
5. The current phrasing leave room for doubt as to what other types of things b'crats should consider. These two minimum criteria (strength of comment/candidate record) are probably obvious to past and present b'crats, but it appears they are not obvious to the general community.

I believe the proposed phrasing is consistent with both current practice and the current phrasing. (It is not meant to change how RfAs are decided, only how we communicate that process as part of GWW policy.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I like this and I am for it. So, I support the change to this. I have been off wiki thinking of a better change to help policies like these. Some seems to need an update to reflect the changes of the community. Kaisha 17:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, this seems like it's drifting towards text that could be easily wiki-lawyer'd. Even the 3:1 is just a guide that doesn't have to be followed (but mostly will). About the only thing that the proposal improve/clarifies is the timing (at least a week). --JonTheMon 18:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Could just change the first sentence of this "The RFA has been active for roughly one week. A bureaucrat would close it and determine the result. In general, the RFA is successful if it has at least 3 times as much support as those in opposition; but it is not a simple tally. The bureaucrat will exercise discretion when gauging/interpreting the amount of support/opposition." to "The RFA has been active for at least a week. A bureaucrat would close it and determine the result. In general, the RFA is successful if it has at least 3 times as much support as those in opposition; but it is not a simple tally. The bureaucrat will exercise discretion when gauging/interpreting the amount of support/opposition." Could add in or two between a and week... Kaisha 18:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  ::: How can will tend to be misinterpreted when it explicitly says that bureaucrats may exercise discretion? I made some edits to help reduce drift, but I think the current phrasing is more subject to wiki-lawyering. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"In general" = "will tend to be" imo. Pretty much, I don't know think that quantifying discretion (e.g. dozen votes, more than 1/2 neutral) is worth it. --JonTheMon 18:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Jon, I disagree that the timing is the only thing improved - it isn't improved at all, since it introduces an explicit limit. Some RfAs, mainly trolling ones, have been decided/deleted before a week's passing. Poke's RfR was open for like a day. Anything that seeks to make numbers more solid or introduces more numbers, ratios and tickbox requirements is bad for policy, imo. pling 18:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that the best way to prevent wikilawyering is to avoid using any criteria, numerical or otherwise. (I think that, for instance, properly created addresses trolling.) Still, if that's the consensus, how about the much simpler:

RFAs that have been properly created can be resolved in one of two ways:

• Candidate withdrawal: the RfA is failed (the candidate does not have to supply a reason).
• Bureaucrat discretion: One or more bureaucrats will review the comments, the candidate's record, and any other relevant data and use their discretion to decide the outcome. Bureaucrats are encouraged (but not required) to consult with each other and post a summary of the reasons for their decision.

What I want to do is end the uncertainty around the timing and the decision making requirements. If there are no real criteria, let's not list any. If there are, let's make use of them. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, there's always uncertainty around the timing - some RfAs get enough input that they end relatively quickly, while others need more input because not enough people have responded or a decision isn't clear, and these generally take longer. There's no one timeframe that applies to all RfAs, which is why I'm hesitant to say that there is. But saying there's no timeframe at all isn't useful for candidates, and increases the likelihood of them asking how long it'll take. Typically, usually, generally - it might take "roughly one week" for an RfA to get enough comments and leave enough time for non-daily-active users to join in. Using that phrase is fine with me, so long as it's clear why there's uncertainty about it. pling 20:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misnomer - does not fit in it's currant usage.

Well its called an RFA when they become Sysops or Bcrats...

and you mean current not currant (a type of raisin found in a pastry bun..). -Chieftain Alex 10:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)