Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/AT
From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
I strongly dislike the reasoning "I oppose because I don't personally know this user." I do not think this reasoning is appropriate for this wiki because sysop tools here are supposed to be No Big Deal. If this user has done something to make him untrustworthy, fine. If you feel the user lacks experience, that's also fine. Your lack of knowledge of a user does not mean that user is unworthy of a sysop position. —Tanaric 01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. While sysops have less discretion here than maybe in other wikis, the actual power of a sysops stays the same. A sysop can easily shut down the whole wiki with bad will and cause lots of trouble simply by being well-meaning but doing it the wrong way. Sysop candidates do have to prove they are trustworthy, not someone else that they are not. --Xeeron 07:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Trust is a big part, but on a wiki this big, it's easy to be ignorant of other users. Some people would be great with sysop tools even if you don't see them commenting on every half-assed policy page; those are the kind of people who would get this "I don't know you therefore you'd suck as a sysop" bullshit pulled on them. -Auron 07:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll use an overblown analogy, but maybe it will get my point across: Imagine you own lots of small boxes with just one button. If the button on any box is not pressed at least once every 5 hours you die (=wiki without sysops). However if the button on one box is pressed 50 times in a minute, you die as well (wiki with sysop running amok). Would you give any of these boxes to a stranger? I definitely would not risk that, even if that stranger later turns out to be Ghandi or Jesus. --Xeeron 21:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I believe not being familiar with a user is much more reason to lodge a Neutral vote than it is to Oppose a candidate. Edit: to respond to Xeeron's analogy, no, you would not give one to a stranger, but neither would you go around telling others who may or may not know said stranger that they shouldn't give boxes to them.
(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- In the analogy: I can not speak for you, but I would go around telling others not to give those boxes which might kill me to strangers. --Xeeron 21:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- But see, that's exactly it: you'd tell them not to give boxes to strangers - if the person in question isn't a stranger to them, would you still tell them they shouldn't give a box to that person? I'm all for you encouraging people to vote neutrally if they feel they don't know the person well enough, but actively voting against someone who you don't know seems a little different, doesn't it? An 'Oppose' vote implies that you have a definite opinion that the person in question would not be a good candidate for the position, which is not the same thing as not knowing whether they'd be a good or bad candidate, is it not? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- One thing to think about though, is if you are not "known" at the wiki, people, presumably, have never seen your edits. That might suggest you're not spending time here (not saying this is the case here), which could be a good reason for oppose vote, imo. Just a thought. - anja
22:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ok, let me clarify that: I would tell them not to give the box to any person whom *I* dont know.
- I see where you are comming from, but given the current wording of the policy ( In general, a successful RFA has at least 3 times as much support compared to opposition), I'll stand with my vote. The fact that there are neutral categories in the vote, while the policy only talks about support and opposition is unfortunate btw. It suggests that either the policy is incomplete or all neutral votes are pretty worthless. --Xeeron 22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- One thing to think about though, is if you are not "known" at the wiki, people, presumably, have never seen your edits. That might suggest you're not spending time here (not saying this is the case here), which could be a good reason for oppose vote, imo. Just a thought. - anja
- But see, that's exactly it: you'd tell them not to give boxes to strangers - if the person in question isn't a stranger to them, would you still tell them they shouldn't give a box to that person? I'm all for you encouraging people to vote neutrally if they feel they don't know the person well enough, but actively voting against someone who you don't know seems a little different, doesn't it? An 'Oppose' vote implies that you have a definite opinion that the person in question would not be a good candidate for the position, which is not the same thing as not knowing whether they'd be a good or bad candidate, is it not?
- In the analogy: I can not speak for you, but I would go around telling others not to give those boxes which might kill me to strangers. --Xeeron 21:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I believe not being familiar with a user is much more reason to lodge a Neutral vote than it is to Oppose a candidate. Edit: to respond to Xeeron's analogy, no, you would not give one to a stranger, but neither would you go around telling others who may or may not know said stranger that they shouldn't give boxes to them.
- I'll use an overblown analogy, but maybe it will get my point across: Imagine you own lots of small boxes with just one button. If the button on any box is not pressed at least once every 5 hours you die (=wiki without sysops). However if the button on one box is pressed 50 times in a minute, you die as well (wiki with sysop running amok). Would you give any of these boxes to a stranger? I definitely would not risk that, even if that stranger later turns out to be Ghandi or Jesus. --Xeeron 21:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Trust is a big part, but on a wiki this big, it's easy to be ignorant of other users. Some people would be great with sysop tools even if you don't see them commenting on every half-assed policy page; those are the kind of people who would get this "I don't know you therefore you'd suck as a sysop" bullshit pulled on them. -Auron 07:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- To me, it suggests that people who don't really care one way or another can still bring up discussion points for other people to think about. MisterPepe talk 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- True, but there is always the talk page and currently the voting form makes it look like neutral votes matter, while the policy makes it look like they dont. --Xeeron 22:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict)
- I suppose the logical answer to that is "isn't that what this talk page is for", but to jump one more step into that discourse, I'd say the talk page is a bit less viable in this case simply because of all of these pages being included into the main page - most of the time the individual talk pages aren't linked to in the location that most people are viewing the votes. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- (EC) Heh. and Aiiane goes for the block on Xeeron's comment and my response in one fell swoop =P MisterPepe talk 22:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose the logical answer to that is "isn't that what this talk page is for", but to jump one more step into that discourse, I'd say the talk page is a bit less viable in this case simply because of all of these pages being included into the main page - most of the time the individual talk pages aren't linked to in the location that most people are viewing the votes.
Withdrawing[edit]
The policy page says that a RFA can be closed if a nominee withdraws, but I couldn't see where to make this declaration. So I'm guessing here is the best place. It's fairly obvious that the nomination, although appreciated, isn't going to be successful. I'm withdrawing now before any more disheartening comments appear. It isn't particularly fun to be described as a non-entity. -- AT(talk | contribs) 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa there, sorry about that. If my comment triggered the other comments, I really wasn't treating you as a non-entity, and I'm sure some of the others aren't either. I just personally feel that it's too soon for me to decide. I'm sure I'll have a better feel and more solid impression of you further down the line. -- ab.er.rant
17:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, no, it wasn't comments like the one you made - they were reasoned, and I could see where you were coming from. If people don't feel they know me well enough to have me as sysop, that's fine. I really don't want to come accross as bitter, because I'm really not! I fully expected that this wouldn't be successful. It's just things like "Who?" and "Never heard of him" that make me feel like I'm not actually contributing anything meaningful. Adding: Perhaps I'm not! To be clear, I'm not looking for anything here, I just belive in being honest about stuff like this. -- AT(talk | contribs) 18:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, AT. Guess I'll renominate in a couple months if you're interested, since it's clear to me that you'll do well in the position. At least your nomination got us talking about when to oppose -- I think you were treated a bit unfairly, but I concede that even without "I don't know him" opposition it's quite possible you wouldn't have gotten appointed. —Tanaric 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, no, it wasn't comments like the one you made - they were reasoned, and I could see where you were coming from. If people don't feel they know me well enough to have me as sysop, that's fine. I really don't want to come accross as bitter, because I'm really not! I fully expected that this wouldn't be successful. It's just things like "Who?" and "Never heard of him" that make me feel like I'm not actually contributing anything meaningful. Adding: Perhaps I'm not! To be clear, I'm not looking for anything here, I just belive in being honest about stuff like this. -- AT(talk | contribs) 18:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
