Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 2008

Reconfirmation on Aiiance/Tanaric

So how does this reconfirmation thing work? — ク Eloc 貢 21:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have the same question, I think the policy does not explain it well. Coran Ironclaw 21:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Once the nummber of reconfirmation votes equals nummber of inital support votes times the percentage of the year that has passed since intial election, a new one must take place within two weeks or the sysop loses their status. Easy, no? Backsword 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope that was a joke. Coran Ironclaw 21:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it was, since the real process also involves 3 vats of vaseline. Lord of all tyria 21:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to put the request on the bottom of the appropriate sysops confirmation or reconfirmation page. It doesn't immediately trigger a reconfirmation unless there is a lot of support for it. It does trigger one eventually though. --Lemming 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like at here, 75.155.71.72 posted for a reconfirmation to be moved along for those 2. — ク Eloc 貢 23:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved that reconfirmation request to the appropriate place and put links there instead. As I stated on my talk page, I will voluntarily reconfirm if another person requests it. —Tanaric 03:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I keep reading this as Reconfirmation on Alliance/Tanaric. Please leave the WoW talk off of this Guild Wars bulletin board. ThaADVANCEnks! -- Hong 07:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be advTHANKSance? —Tanaric 07:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with advancing in tanks? Great for clearing the Underworld, or so I've heard. -- Hong 07:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wording

This simply comes out as weird to me: (unless there is good reason, one should wait 2 to 3 months to generally avoid being viewed as trying too often)
Is it our problem if a user wishes to be seen as "trying too often"? I'd suggest to reword it into something like (unless there is a good reason, it is recommended to wait 2 to 3 months). - anja 15:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against, but why do we recommend? The previous version gives a reason, but the new version still makes it our problem, just not telling the reader why. Backsword 15:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably because we know that trying that often will result in negative community reaction and thus failed RfAs. —Tanaric 07:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the meaning I'm getting as well, but as Anja said, it sure could do with a nicer wording. But I'd disagree with just replacing it with a simple "recommended", because it doesn't tell people why we recommend it. -- ab.er.rant 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I get the point better now, but I still want a rewording of it. It doesn't come out as professional/official as the rest of the policy, to me. What about (unless there is a good reason, waiting 2 to 3 months is recommended due to generally negavite reactions to frequent tries)? I realise I might just be doing the same thing with more words here, and I don't know if it's any better. - anja 17:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just rewrite that entire point to "someone with a recent unsuccessful RFA (it is recommended to wait at least 2 to 3 months to avoid being negatively perceived as trying too often)"? -- ab.er.rant 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Propose: "someone with a recent unsuccessful RFA (in most cases a 2-3 month period is appropriate to allow for further development as a potential sysop)". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay. Thanks Aiiane, that's what I've been trying to say but not been able to :) - anja 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I support this wording. —Tanaric 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it but if you are going to put it like a restriction rather than a recommendation the time should be specific. -- Coran Ironclaw 00:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I think this particular clause should be a soft restriction, not a hard one. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Calor 02:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it sounded like a restriction either. -- ab.er.rant 06:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA notice

→ moved from User talk:Brains12

I'm not sure where to post this, hope you can give me a link or anything. On the Halopedia wiki they have a notice at the top where it says when an RfA is being, uhm, requested. Might be useful on this wiki too, so people are notified when an RfA is active and they may have a chance to vote on it. -- Mini Me 19:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. It could easily be done, just need other opinions. Calor

like the notifications about bcrat elections? - Y0_ich_halt 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It would be a bit more difficult during election time, but still not very hard at all. Calor 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It could be done through the MediaWiki:Sitenotice, so there would be no problem with getting the notice up. And Calor, I doubt we have enough RfAs during election time for it to conflict ;) -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of this, Support --Shadowphoenix 19:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

we have that sorta message very often over at the german wiki, and i like that. so i'd support, too. - Y0_ich_halt 19:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I support this idea as well.-- Wynthyst 11:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This sounds good. I like it. --People of Antioch talk 02:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I said this somewhere, just can't find it: I'd rather not have this notice until we specifically disallow votes without a valid comment given. My reason is that we would most likely end up getting way too many votes from people who don't know the user in question. Both positive and negative. Most likely we would also get loads of anon votes. — Galil 02:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

RfAs do not generally concern everyone who uses the wiki -- it is only a matter for those who edit here. So notification for these should be part of the scope of the Community portal rather than Sitenotice. Bureaucrat election notices should also eventually move from Sitenotice to the Community portal, with the same reasoning. --Rezyk 03:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Rezyk, and Galil, because I do believe that RfA's SHOULD concern everyone that uses the wiki, for the simple reason that everyone that uses the wiki is a member of the community. By creating some false sense of separation between those who just view it and those who edit it you are limiting the potential numbers of new contributors to this community. If it requires some revision to the RfA voting policy, possibly disallowing anon votes, and or using the contribution count (as with Bureaucrat elections) to limit the issues Galil brought up, then let's revise. I would have never known about the elections the first time without the sitenotice, and I feel that anyone responsible enough to want to have a voice in this community and how it is run will, or at least should be encouraged to do so.-- Wynthyst 05:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to post the same Rezyk. One should remember that the vast amount of users are not interested in behind the scenes stuff. I'd be a mistake to start thinking about the regulars as the community. The current sitenotice is much more in line with what I see as suitable use. Backsword 07:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually have to support Wynthyst here - quite honestly, not even all of our editors look at the Community portal, and because sysadmins shape the general community, including that of talk pages, and not just that of editing, their selection is still of widespread community interest. I would point out that unlike bureaucrat elections, we do not require a minimum number of edits for expressing one's opinion on an RfA. I see no harm that could come of making RfAs and Bureaucrat elections more visible, and quite a lot of harm that could come from not making them visible.

Furthermore Rezyk, I strongly oppose your suggestion that bureaucrat elections should not be announced via sitenotice, as we've already seen that there is a humongous difference in user presence on the election pages from when it is sitenotice'd to when it is not.

We should not be thinking of "the community at large" and "the editing community" as two separate entities. The entire point of a wiki is that the two are one and the same. There should be no "rites of passage" such as watchlisting the community portal that one must perform to be a "member of the editing community". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I just plain think you're factually wrong. Sysops do not under our current system get a greater say in shaping the wiki. Certainly, the current set of sysops have had a much greater influence than the average editor, not to mention viewer. But correnlation is not causation. They're sysops because they're regulars, and they've had a greater say because they're regular. But that's not a possition anyone is voted into. Additionally, being allowed to edit is not the same as doing it or being interested in doing so.

Also, viewing the CP is hardly a rite. It's the third most visible place on the wiki, behind the site notice and mainpage. Backsword 11:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

it's an open community, keep it as open as possible please. lussh 09:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning to say we shouldn't issue a sitewide notice for RFAs, if that's how it came out. I'm all for it, I would just feel better about it if there was some further enforcement in the RFA policy, namely disallowing anon votes and requiring a comment be made upon voting. I don't separate anons/users as them/us, as the only difference between them IMO is that anons show up as numbers, users as letters. I would still like that change to be made though, cause it's too easy to just log out and get a second vote, or use an open proxy and get infinite votes. The comment is, as I said earlier, to get the reasoning behind the votes (and I'd like the same change to the bcrat election for the same reason). By issuing a sitewide notice about current RFAs, we would indeed increase the amount of votes an RFA would get. My prediction is just that we'd get too many votes from people who know nothing at all about the person in question and as such I believe enforcing comments would make people think a bit before voting, and to help a bcrat decide in even outcomes. I guess I'd be fine with the notice even without enforcing comments though, but disallowing anon votes should IMO be introduced in the RFA policy first. — Galil 11:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Galil, you need more than 100 edits to be able to vote, right? So anon votes wouldn't count either way, unless they made 100+ edits on their ip, which is highly unlikely.

I do agree with the comment part, though. Even something like "agree with this person. blahblahblah" would be enough, sorta. -- Mini Me 19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The 100 edits is for bureaucrat elections, not for requests for adminship/sysophood. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh! I got those 2 mixed up. My apologies. -- Mini Me 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Recognizing the principle of these decisions belonging to people who participate on the wiki rather than all viewers is important; if 100 people who have viewed but never participated on the wiki stop by just to vote in their guildmate (while fulfilling any objective qualifications), their vote should be inherently counted differently (if at all) than those from the editing community.

Yes, there is a general danger of raising the "barrier of entry" too high -- but taking it as "the editing community" is a good level as long as the qualification for that is negligible/automatic enough that people aren't discounted within a consensus discussion for simply being "too new" (while high enough that there is a real basis for discounting/discouraging meatpuppets). Frankly, the actual dangerously looming high-barrier for having a relatively egalitarian say in shaping the wiki is "must have a successful RfA".

As far as notifying the editing community goes, this is an issue about appropriateness of venue for that, not about being open or closed to certain editors. If I were to oppose moving GWW:CP+GWW:RFC+GWW:POLICY into MediaWiki:Sitenotice/editcopy, would I be lambasted for limiting people from the important discussions? Geez, it's not a simple choice between strong headlining and closed-ness. Also, I include talk page participation as a type of editing; sorry for any confusion on that point.

Anyways, this specific decision is not a big deal to me (and I did say "eventually" regarding bureaucrat elections), and I could accept a subjective view of the immediate pros being worthwhile at this point. So don't take my opposition as much of a block against a consensus support -- my interest in continuing debate here only revolves around the underlying principles and where we should end up.

--Rezyk 09:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Some random thoughts from your neighborhood Tharkun: 1. Site notices annoy me, and often seem to take multiple "hide"s before actually going away. Thus, I don't like them. 2. I think that the majority of the users of the wiki don't care. And don't need to. If, however, they want to vote, great. But personally I think that those who are interested in how the community is managed (and therefore who the admins are) will have enough of a grasp of the community portal and related pages to find RfAs on their own. 3. There is already a stratification via the bcrat elections - the 100 edit limit. I think the claims that the viewing public and editing community are identical is a bit disingenuous. Alternately, as one who is in the casual end of the community, I think that the existing "core" or successful-RfA-holders like to think of everyone equally, but they in fact inhabit some form of elite strata. It's subtle, but from my perspective it exists. Not that this is bad, especially in a setting such as this; I feel like there should be a more dedicated group which discusses the minutiae of policy and gets in pages-long debates about the validity of a template for birthday greetings, while thousands of others can just view pages and sometimes edit them if they find a problem or have a brilliant insight. It works well.

So, above rambling aside: I personally oppose broadening use of the site notice, and think the RfAs should stay as they are - open to all and without restrictions (well, I'd actually support a requirement for a reason with a vote.. but otherwise open). (Though having just poked around a bit, why is it not mentioned on CP or RfC, at least? Maybe a BIT more visibility would be valid.)

Ooooorrr... Just a thought after reading over Aiiane's above text again, which says that there's harm from not having everyone vote: When the bcrat election came up, I was the hidden editor type and dismissed it with a glare at the sitenotice box. Then I found out I was ineligible to vote anyway. But after having to dismiss the stupid notice a few times, I did read up a bit to figure out what the big deal was - and I'm still not really sure. As you might surmise from my comments about strata, I feel like there's sort of a mystic other side of the wiki that I can't fully grasp - like finding help for various functions and coding takes me five minutes. Or figuring out what an admin actually does .. much less a bureaucrat (who seem to do nothing unless requested, as far as I can tell). Generally, then, I'm saying that I find pretty much every page starting with GWW: to be unclear and labyrinthine. (yes yes, I know: its a wiki, change them. Hard to when you don't know if you get the point) So my suggestion, I suppose, would be - if you insist of invading the top of my wiki pages - to explain why I should care. Clearly explain what an admin does. Explain how it affects my daily wiki life. What this person who wants my vote will do on a daily basis, so I can actually evaluate their statement. That way, if you really think casuals care and if you WANT them to care, and if some click through to the RfA, they can actually be educated about their vote and what it means. Otherwise it will remain the existing limited group who already know everything and everyone making all the decisions. (And now this post is far too huge. If you want to berate me for my ignorance, feel free to do so on my talk page).

And lastly, I'm Neutral on most of these votes, so I don't vote - seems silly to opine that I have no opinion. Perhaps others are the same way? It might not be quite as 'ignored' as you think.

- THARKUN 10:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Although I think having a site-wide notice would be a good idea, there are certain issues with having it appear to everyone. One being what Galil mentioned about anon voting, otherwise as he said in his second comment we could end up having people log out and re-voting to give more support/opposition to a particular user they either like/dislike as well as the possibility that the person actually going for the RFA having a vote. I also have to agree with him about including a reason for your vote, I've always felt that both Bureaucrat and RFAs should require a reason for your vote, partly because I think that each person should give careful thought before making a vote and can give their reason for supporting or opposing a certain person. Although I won't get into detail at this time regarding this, generally when it comes to RFAs I take a few days checking out the user in question, both their contributions as well as certain things a sysop has to deal with on a regular basis, for example how they deal with disagreements/user disputes. I also weigh the arguments other people have given for supporting and opposing an RFA and whether I agree with their reasons.
Another problem with having RFAs using the sitenotice is that it could either make people who don't really understand the process or who don't know enough about the RFAing user to make an informed decision. However if we include both disallowing anon voting and requiring a reason for a vote this might not be a big problem. --Kakarot 13:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

These are good points. Though, Kakarot, that takes out the small slice of anons who only contribute positively. I agree there should be a at least a short statement on each vote. Tharkun has a good point in the casual vote that often takes place in real life: "My vote doesn't seem to change much, so how should it affect me?" At my first thought, this sounded like a really good idea, but factor in disruptive anons and how to distinguish them throw a wrench into that plan somewhat. Though the wiki should not be separated into who "contributes" and who doesn't. Each choice should be given careful thought. If every anon read the RfA Candidate's contributions and gave evidence for support/oppose, then that vote would be valid. I'm sure casual users don't often read up on things, but Wynthyst and Aiiane makes a good point: "that anyone responsible enough to want to have a voice in this community and how it is run will, or at least should be encouraged to [voice their opinion with well reasoned facts]." as "We should not be thinking of 'the community at large' and 'the editing community' as two separate entities." Note: If I misread/misinterpreted views, I apologize. --People of Antioch talk 15:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sucks that the bad anons screw it up for the good ones. Although personally I think that if someone wants to make positive contributions it's best to get a proper account, it doesn't cost anything except a bit of time and you get a number of extra benefits; your own userpage/talk, your own contributions list amongst other things. On a few other sites I've been on where it was changed so only registered users could edit or post; not sure if it was completely intentional since it was a change in the software running the site; vandalism was drastically reduced. --Kakarot 15:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe making a small revision to the RfA policy requiring users to be logged in to vote, thus eliminating the anon voters would solve most of the issues that have been presented. I can also tell you that even among the 'regular editing' component of the community, people just go vote for their friends/guildies without any sort of research into their past wiki performance. There is nothing you are going to be able to do about that regardless. I still favor the sitenotice, for both RfAs and Bureaucrat elections.-- Wynthyst 00:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It takes but a few seconds to register, an annoyance, no more. It certainly will discourage far fewer sock and or meatpuppets than it will normal users, if we were to disallow anons. Backsword 10:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose a sitenotice for RfAs. They're frequent enough that the notice would be ever-present. I'd much prefer a "Did you know?" section on community portal or Main Page that cycles through bits of information like "edits are undoable", "you can upload an image," "sysops are elected via RfAs" etc on a daily/weekly basis. Kinda like the "tip of the day" feature on many popular pieces of software. This would occasionally inform users of the RfA page (which they could choose to watch or ignore), as well as other random things that new and old editors alike might not be aware of. —Tanaric 02:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds good. --People of Antioch talk 02:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Why didn't you mention this sooner! :) I added the first tip to Guild Wars Wiki:Community portal#Did you know... (we can probably switch it every week or two) -- ab.er.rant 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe DE's userpage has a template that substitutes a new word depending on what day of the month it is. A similar template could be used so we can have a more frequently changing fact (if desirable) and we aren't uselessly pinging watchlists. Calor 03:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since we're not updating it daily, I'd rather it does ping everyone's watchlists, since I'm going to be interested in any tips coming from the more wiki-savvy. -- ab.er.rant 03:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this as it is too random, relies on people knowing to watchlist community portal or even visiting the main page when they are here, if they are following links from in game, or previously bookmarked favorites, they would never see it.-- Wynthyst 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of the community portal is for users who would like to get more involved with the community. Users who just come her to browse for help won't care one bit about our wiki tips. -- ab.er.rant 05:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea that Ab.er added on the Community Portal although I'd prefer it a bit higher since I feel it's more important than the community news; at least what is currently there; and could get missed. Also to add to his response to Wyn, it mentions at the top of the Community Portal page to add it to your watchlist and even gives a link to do it for those that are unaware of the tab at the top of the page, this means people that actually want to get more involved in the wiki/community would most likely have already added it. --Kakarot 14:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

better? poke | talk 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think so as it's more noticeable now, maybe add border: 1px solid #8EAB72 to it? --Kakarot 16:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea, it fits now better to the rest :) poke | talk 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Was originally going to suggest 2px but when I tested it it looked too much. --Kakarot 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Confirmation

Uhm, as this is actually still discussed, and some people disagree to that (including me), I would like to not have this. Apart from that, Requests for reconfirmation go on the RfA page of the user, and normally require more than one request to start it. poke | talk 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i was aware of that, which is why i brought it to the discussion page first (i could swear i saw that we were supposed to discuss it here before an official RfC, since support is needed). In any case, i feel the other discussion shouldn't be used for deciding for all of the affected users, because each one is in a different situation, even if all of them could be called "inactive", and because the other discussion encloses a few other topics that are not really relevant (i.e. "reasons to pick a sysop").--Fighterdoken 18:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't make any difference when we start thinking about if sysops should be demoted for inactivity. It is something we should bring up in general, not for each specific case. So I would prefer to have that discussed on GWWT:ADMIN first, before starting Requests for reconfirmations.

And please see the section reconfirmation section of this page on how to make reconfirmation requests. poke | talk 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And this is one thing i hate of this wiki. "Let's discuss it in the corner of the big box put in the 32th rack in the back of the storage building, instead of in the meeting hall.".

Rant aside, since i clearly misunderstood how to even start a RfC, should we just archive this then to avoid further confussion?--Fighterdoken 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh? o.O I think you mean the request for reconfirmation with that "corner".. Actually the requests are on the RfA subpages to be not archived and to be related to the user which it is about. And if you read the RfA policy correct, there is a section for "Recent reconfirmation requests"... poke | talk 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

/off topic: Nah, is more like a general trend, link agreeing changes to templates in user pages or other template pages instead of the page in question (bug for insteance, even if they were related), of aproving changes to "section R" of X guideline in a talk page discussion called "cookies".--Fighterdoken 21:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to put these sysops up for reconfirmations, it's your right. This and the other discussion can happen separately from each other, as they work at different levels. This affects sysops individually, and is what reconfirmations were meant for, while the other discussion is about changing the GWW:ADMIN policy with limits of inactivity.

To start the reconfirmation process, add your name under the "Requests for Reconfirmation" sections at the bottom of the existing RFA for Pepe, Rainith, Xasxas and Gares, and add their name under Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship#Recent reconfirmation requests. --Dirigible 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol. So I'm confused, is there a request for reconfirmation or not?  :) I do pop in multiple times a week still, although as I don't really play the game anymore, I usually don't find much to do. You can check the deletion log (and I think the block log too) to see that if something needs to be done when I'm on, I do it. The Chuck Norris page is what pops to mind immediately. But that said, if people want me to step down/resign/whatever we want to call it, I'm okay with that. I'm not very active here and I believe that I understand some of what Fighterdoken feels. If people feel that I should keep the admin tools for use when I am around and the need arises, I'm okay with that too.  :) Now to put in the info Eloc emailed and asked me to update (which I should have done long ago, but never got around to it and which may be moot soon anyway). --Rainith 02:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Short version: nope. I misread the policy thinking that we had to gather concensus before raising the confirmation, but since i fail at reading it looks like it is not needed, and i am too lazy for trying to understand what the policy actually says and write the request again.--Fighterdoken 02:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fighterdoken wanted my response on this and here it is. First off, since April 4th, I'm not even set to inactive, via Brains12 request. Please review Guild Wars Wiki:Administrators. I have been working on my Masters, I've deleted almost 200 articles on this wiki in less than two weeks, I troll and help GWWiki 2 (even though there isn't much to do atm).

I still don't quite understand what you are trying to accomplish, seeing how we voluntarily offer to perform the duties assigned to us. I get paid for my real job, not cleaning and enforcing a wiki. If my job requires me to take time off from this wiki, understand that real world responsibilities trump anything. Look at Tanaric. Also, I find it odd that this is being pushed so heavily when, in Fighterdoken's words, "i am too lazy for trying to understand what the policy actually says. Dirigible helped out with that.

On a lighter note, it's good to see that Rainith is alive and well. :) Also, I don't play Guild Wars anymore myself. And I have to see what happens with this. lol. I am the paladin class leader and a raid leader for a guild in WoW now. Got to unwind somehow, though the PvP lacks and fishing is the most boring profession ever.

If you feel that demoting four sysops is an answer to some question, please start the proceedings. Until I am no longer a sysop or I resign, I will continue to do what I can, when I can. Thank you for posting on my talk page, though I have been monitoring these discussions for the most part. — Gares 13:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

MisterPepe

Mostly due to inactivity (i mean, 6 months ausent in the last 7 months), but also because i feel that, as the community evolves, our standards for picking Sysops change.--Fighterdoken 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pepe is helpful to have around, inactive or not. We could always email him if we needed him for something. If I recall correctly, he is one of the best editors here in terms of the more advanced side of editing. — ク Eloc 貢 03:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Eloc, that's sweet of you to remember my weird penchant for messing with templates and javascript =P Doing things the easy way is always boring XD

To be fair, I have been pretty inactive. I stop by every once in a while and check up on the Recent Changes log, but that's been pretty much it lately (aside from some work on the GW2W and popping in to the IRC channel). I still check the associated e-mail account and both talk pages (here and GW2W), in case anyone needs to contact me. However, I'll be the first to admit that I've been rather... absent.

The way this whole thing works, if you'd like to nominate me for reconfirmation, it's very simple. Simply add your name to the bottom of my original RfA page. Once a BCrat things it's enough, it'll trigger a new RfA for me, where people can vote just like they did the first time =)

According to the way we wrote the policy (we talked specifically about this part, there were a few related concerns, including from Gaile), you can add your name to a reconfirmation request for any reason you'd like. If you feel my inactivity is enough reason to want to put me up for reconfirmation, go for it and never look back ;)

That being said, most of my contributions of late have been because of my administrator status. I've always enjoyed the back-end cleanup part of the wiki, and that's what I do when I'm here (admittedly, not much recently =P). I'd like to stay as a sysop, but if the community wants me out of the position, I will most assuredly understand. And yes, being reconfirmed does not necessarily mean I'll be demoted. Basically, do whatever you think is best for the wiki in general. If you act with that in mind, most decisions around here are pretty easy =) MisterPepe talk 23:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Xasxas256

Same as previous, inactivity is the main issue (and on the same level). Even though he gave valid reasons for being ausent (real life happends), i feel he is wrong in a critical point: Admins tools are given to be used, if they are not going to be used, then the user should at least reconsider the position, which is not one of privilege after all, but one of duty.--Fighterdoken 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rainith

Inactivity being the main issue, even if not as big as the previous ones. The "standards change" argument is maintained here.--Fighterdoken 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're worried about not keeping up with changing standards, why not try something easier first, like, y'know, asking them? Backsword 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gares Redstorm

Again, inactivity is the issue. I would like to hear from him here if he feels in conditions of performing his sysop duties, and if he has the time required for performing them from now on.--Fighterdoken 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why activity or lack of is an issue, there is no cap on the number of sysops. --Lemming 18:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

the main argument is mentioned above: admin tools are there to be used. the admins' role as we determine it in our policy is to be actively performing the tasks they are given: deleting, block/unblocking, etc. - Y0_ich_halt 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

it's a kinda non-pro non-con situation. since we have enough active admins, there's no real reason to demote the inactive ones, but there's just as little reason to let them keep their status (and maybe upset some new users who don't know they're inactive). just adding beforehand: if anyone's gonna start a bigger discussion about this, i'm out because of said neutrality. - Y0_ich_halt 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Small change to RfA style

I have created a template here that is based off of one of wikipedia's voting templates. I would like to add this template (of course it would be moved to the mainspace) into RfA's to make them a bit more appealing. I have created an Example RfA here to show you how it would look on an RfA. Discuss! --Shadowphoenix 08:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems sort of redundant to have a template to indicate support/oppose/neutral when they're already sorted into lists for those options. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is just to make it more appealing, nothing more..... --Shadowphoenix 08:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And it may or may not do that, but it also makes it more (needlessly) complex. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO it's just 'window dressing' and would create more hassles than it would be worth, and likely end up discouraging participation.-- Wynthyst 08:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How would it be complex? If this were to make it through ther template would most likely be changed to just {{supportrfa}} or something so it wouldnt be complex --Shadowphoenix 08:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• At least in the current form, it requires being subst'd. This means that the templates others use will not appear in edit view, and thus potentially confuse a new user voting.
• In any form, it's more work than simply signing ~~~~ and being done with it; thus, it is by definition more complex, even if it just requires people to remember the template name. I don't have to remember any template name to vote as it is currently, I simply click the [edit] next to the section corresponding to my vote, and add my signature. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As a mainspace template it wouldnt have subst:. And u have go to be kidding me, really? it is not that hard to type {{supportrfa}} --Shadowphoenix 09:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also not that hard to bear an RfA page without icons. In fact, I daresay it's easier to do the latter. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

All I am suggesting is that we make our RfA's more appealing, this voting style has worked well on the commons and I think it would be good here as well --Shadowphoenix 09:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, what benefits does this give beyond "looking pretty"? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Actually that is the point to make it look good, doesnt go much beyond that. However, it could make the page look cleaner and less jubled (which imo they look that way) if that counts --Shadowphoenix 09:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How does adding an redundant icon to every line make the page look less jumbled? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding unnecessary templates will make it more complex for newer users, and it really serves no purpose beyond 'looking pretty'. -- Wynthyst 09:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we can discuss more tommorow I am tired so night! --Shadowphoenix 09:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah one more thing, since 90% of new users dont even know that RfA's exist how owuld that apply? (and yes I know introducing new users to RfA's is a good thing, but they should still imo have some interaction in the wiki b4 They get to RfA's) --Shadowphoenix 09:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How about we look into using the template like THIS it is a good use of the template and it cleans the page. All you have to do is click on support, neutral or oppose and ~~~~. That is just as simple as it is already. Drogo Boffin 09:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the icons look kinda ugly, they do not help the situation at all. And Drogo, having three extra subppages for each vote-type not only makes one RfA too cluttered, it also makes it difficult to review the RfA.. poke | talk 13:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aiiane, it has no purpose other than to look "pretty", but makes the edit screen crammed with unnecessary code, confuses other people who want to vote and adds unnecessary complexity (and yes, it is complex because you have to remember each parameter, the template name, and where to put your text and signature) in comparison to just a response. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it was just an idea; if you guys don't like it that is fine. I just saw it being used on wikipedia and the commons and I thought it looked nice, but it was just an idea. Thanks for taking the time to at least look over and consider it :o) --Shadowphoenix 16:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the point to just making RFAs look better with icons. Why not just keep with how it looks now? It works fine how it is now, right? — ク Eloc 貢 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've worn this discussion out, and it seems pretty clear that most people don't see a need for a change here. Let's let it go people, unless someone has a new insight to bring to the table. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

List of current RFAs

As of Wyns recent edit I was wondering which type of link would be preferable for this section [[Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/USERNAME]] or {{Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/USERNAME}}? The first would only provide links rather than an inclusion but if we were to have more than one at the same time; I'm pretty sure I remember that happening at some point but have no idea when so can't provide any links; as well as the fact it would also take up less space. The second type while taking up more space is the way it's been done for a long time so I assume there was a good reason for doing it; one that I can't presently locate. --Kakarot 15:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it the way it is because it's easier to see how the RfA is going. Calor 15:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Same. — ク Eloc 貢 00:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding vote requirement: registered

I would like to propose a policy change which adds a the vote requirement that people actually have to be registered. While it is very easy to register, it would make it impossible to multi-vote. poke | talk 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't people still be able to by-pass it using dynamic-IP connections, proxies, or just sockpupetting?. Probably it would be better to put the RfAs at the same level of restriction that bcrat elections have, and require a minimum contribution for voting. Either way, asking for registration seems like a reasonable request.--Fighterdoken 22:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Agreed. I would further suggest a very limited main space post minimum to vote as well. Maybe 25 main space edits or something trivial of that type. It would mean that people could not just create multiple accounts and add multiple votes on a whim. I asked Ab.er.rant earlier for the reasoning behind the difference in voting practices and his answer was quite enlightening, I think maybe it should be taken into consideration in regards to this topic also. -- Salome 22:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that it is easier to say that a account was just used for a vote, than saying the same thing for a random dynamic IP. Sure, there is always some risk of sockpuppetry in it, but that also applies to the bcrat elections (it is just harder) - but I am fine with even restricting that more (maybe requiring a confirmed user account) poke | talk 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed only works for me. I've been wanting a change like this for a while now, but never made a proposal. calor (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Calor what happened to your sig matey? -- Salome 22:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Brains came back from January and killed it. Blue was ugly. Monochrome good. I like changing things up every few months. But, back on topic, do we want an edit count requirement added on too, or is autoconfirmed enough? calor (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need an edit requirement; RfAs are about reasons, not just pure votes. Anyway, RfAs are decided by bureaucrat discretion rather than the community looking at the numbers, so having the edit count isn't as important. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO we should use "user" rather than "account" to make it clear that sockpuppets aren't supposed to vote. -- Gordon Ecker 23:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with adding the confirmed user requirement to votes, though I do also like a limited contrib requirement like the 25 that Salome proposed. It would greatly reduce the sockpuppet issues. -- Wyn 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we've had sockpuppet issues with RfAs in recent times to need such an edit requirement. If we do, I'm sure the bureaucrats can identify which comments are from sockpuppets; I also doubt a change in words would deter a user sockpuppeting. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) But it would require the user to put more effort into said sock puppetry and would cut down on people just creating sock puppets immediately to add extra votes. Although as you've said I've not seen any evidence of sock puppetry in recent RFA's, however I have seen obvious trolling votes from people with no main space edits at all and it is somewhat irksome to have these people attempt to disrupt the RFA process just to amuse themselves. Requiring that the person has, even in a trivial manner, aided the development of the wiki, might cut down on this type of disruptive voting. It's not a massive issue though. -- Salome 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I too am fine with the addition of a confirmed user requirement to the RFA policy and although we haven't had any real sockpuppet issues lately with a RFA, I wouldn't have any problem with also having a limited contrib requirement of 25 that Salome proposed. --Kakarot 01:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, for some reason I already thought it was policy (my brain scattered with GWW:ELECT for some reason ^^). I also like the 25 mainspace/gww edits idea, it makes bote socking more difficult to do --Shadowphoenix 01:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a min edit amount? The only votes that really matter are the people that have been around for a while. If no one knows who you are your vote is just filling up space. I'm sure the bureaucrats "weight" the votes based on who has more credibility. — Seru Talk 02:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see an overriding reason to require registration given that a) multi-voting has not been a problem in the past, b) the success (or lack thereof) of an RFA is theoretically determined by the reasons that users provide, and c) Anons are (theoretically) equally capable of contributing a valid reason (not to mention that, if they provide a ludicrous reason, the Bureaucrats can essentially disregard their votes), but I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea either. Of course, the same logic applies to a 25 edit minimum, but, in that case, I think that that particular restriction is unnecessary given that the underlying reason is insufficient to impost an additional restriction; the potential benefit (there is at least some potential benefit to registration) is extremely limited. *Defiant Elements* +talk 02:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

umm did my comment just get written over? — Seru Talk 02:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Sometimes it doesn't show you the conflict and basically reverts the last edit :/ I added your comment back in. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 03:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Great...

1. Another solution in search of a problem.

2. What does number of main space edits have to do with determining whether someone should have a say over whether another user be given the authority to block, delete pages or moderate discussion pages since their comments can already be ignored?

-- Inspired to ____ 03:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As I said not really a big issue, but if it is the concept of sock puppeting we want to prevent then surely asking for some small token number of main space edits on an account before voting would be a help as otherwise people could just form any number of accounts and use them to vote with. At least the edit count would require more effort on the part of the sock puppeter which might dissuade them from doing so. However as I said above though, not a major concern as it doesnt seem to come up that often and votes are given due weight anyway as its not a simple tally. -- Salome 03:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Its really up to the bc's to decided who counts. If you want to limit the names of people voting then thats one thing, but people can just run up edits by not using show preview. There's no real way to filter people out except using opinion. — Seru Talk 03:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the b-crats are smart enough to know a sockpuppet from a real user, and simple tally votes versus well reasoned opinion. --People of Antioch 04:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any gain from this, since we never really had a problem with sockpuppet voting. I'm definitely opposed to adding edit count to this part also, since it is decided by discretion and not by tally. It's always better to have more arguments, both for and against. - anja 05:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anja. Maybe a change at some point in the future if sockpuppet voting winds up being a problem, but RfAs are not like bcrat elections (I personally wish bcrat elections were more like RfAs, but that's another topic for another page on another day). Obvious troll or sockpuppet votes can easily be ignored, and IPs are just as capable of raising a valid argument as registered users. - Tanetris 10:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with poke. — ク Eloc 貢 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cause there has been so much trouble with ips voting in RfAs I mean I look at all the ips voting.... oh wait... I can only see my ip. Prejudice against ips needs to stop, especially when there isn't a problem. Registering is completely optional and in my view only useful (because you can't otherwise) for uploading images. If I edit the wiki's content like anyone else why shouldn't I be able to vote? I can just as easily create several sockpuppet accounts to vote using the same ip, and with a little effort I can use proxies. There is no problem with ip voting, lets not create one. IPs are to be treated the same as any other user on the wiki, unless of course you disagree with them, or decide they are a sockpuppet without any proof. 122.104.161.96 20:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with prejudice against IPs, let's not create one. Stop feeling so hard-done-by, nobody is out to get you, least of all poke. -Auron 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it felt that way for you; actually I was only bringing this up because of the confusion that started by your edits (for example Shadowphoenix striking it first etc.). I just want to clear this up and as I personally would like to not have anonymous users vote, as I cannot see most IPs as a steady part of the community, the proposal sounded like that. poke | talk 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anja. If you had a history of socking/proxying/whatever, then maybe I'd agree. And only if I thought the bureaucrats were too stupid to recognize it. But since this hasn't occured in the past, I don't see a reason to exclude IPs and newer users. --Shadowcrest 21:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The only case of socks in a RfA I remember was with three registered accounts. As you say, it is easy to create an account. Backsword 14:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolving RfAs

This appears to be very weak. How can an RfA be more than a tally when you consider that many users don't leave a comment at all (including users such as aberrant), or write seemingly unrelated comments or nonsense such as: "Defiant Elements" is basically synonymous with "epic adminness incarnate", "More walls ftw", "Gogo DE", "About time", "Umm, sure?", "Auron has proven himself" - how? Did he chug a bottle of rum in under a minute?. Some of those comments are from PvX wiki fanboys but at least one is from a current sysop, which shows how seriously the voting is taken beyond a tally.

To a lesser extent the reasoning of "as per above" or "what he said" is also a problem. It seems very rarely you will you see well thought out reasons with explanations given unless it's an oppose vote - of which many are not, and ones that are, are usually PoV. An example of a more detailed vote would be "Although people will always complain about his "attitude," Auron has always been able to compartmentalize his behavior, that is, able to separate his "user" actions from his "sysop" actions; indeed, when he wants to be, he can be remarkably diplomatic, and he's level-headed and rational besides." Again this is PoV but at least it explains why he thinks this user would be a good admin. An example of a less detailed, and commonly refered to in "what he said" would be: "Auron has successfully proven his abilities within the last bureaucrat term." How? Why do you think that? What about his last term proved what you say it did - did he chug a bottle really fast during it too? It's like me saying "Fighting Hydras that use Swirling Aura proves that this skill is overpowered."

People are complaining because the Guild Wars suggestion pages are full of garbage suggestions without well thought out detailed submissions. Why should your votes for admin be any different? I realise people don't want to post long blocks of text, but they don't have to vote. If you can't take the time to explain why you think something, then voting becomes nothing more than a popularity contest, which is arguably balanced by the decision of three BCs. Three people who say "what he said" about a vague vote are likely weighted more than one person with a thought out detailed vote. While BCs can decide that voting reasons were inadequate, or misinformed, with so many users giving next to no explanation to their votes, few admin would be promoted. One of the common reasons an RfA is very unpopular is people saying their RfA speech showed they didn't understand the role of admin at all. If you look at RfAs which are doing well, the statement is very very short and details very little about their understanding of the role of admin. Following this logic, if you've been around long enough and are popular with the usual voters (usually people who watch recent changes), you would be better off keeping your statement short and vague so you don't say something incorrect. The same goes for your vote.

An RfA is too easy to be taken as a popularity contest rather than a serious RfA. The problem I see is two things. One, RfA statements have no requirements or restrictions. You could argue that someone who doesn't do a good RfA statement won't do well but unfortunately the reality is only those who do bad RfA statements don't do well, the others get by by simply not saying anything wrong and going by reputation or popularity, which isn't too bad, reputation means something, but stricter conditions on RfA statements likely won't hurt these people if they are good candidates. If you are going to make a good Sysop you should be able to write a good statement that demonstrates you know the policies and understand the role and duty of an admin.

The second problem is there is no thought process required for voting. No explanations given, no required knowledge or demonstration that you understand anything about what makes a good admin. My sister could create an account tomorrow and say "what he said" and have her vote considered as valuable as his without knowing anything about the game or the wiki? I could edit regularly and never have read a single policy here and still say "what he said". I can say that while voting for someone I've never heard of because I like someone who voted for them. I think we should create a vote button with criteria similair to suggestions criteria but tailored to admins, to help people to fill out reasoning for votes - it won't create a new page, but a new comment or topic, similar to "ask a question" button. If they don't answer "why" or "how", their vote should be worth very little. Their vote should also demonstrate some understanding of admin role and policy, this can easily be done with reasoning. Examples can be given but won't be necessary, but obviously good examples are better than no examples. Admin statements should basically read like a well structured and detailed vote for support. Voters should be required to write votes in their own words, obviously some people will still choose to copy paste and only change some words around, but BCs will be able to recognise this. A good vote would likely be no bigger than a small paragraph. Well thus ends my long proposal. What do you think? 122.104.161.96 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I like turtles.

Now seriously, we only post summaries of our reasons for voting here. If someone feels our reasons are questionable, the talk page exists for discussing it (and has proven to be useful before). Requering a whole "why do i vote how i do" paragraph would quickly bring RfA pages beyond the 32k recomended limit... that, and would be mostly redundant ideas. After all, we more often than not share our reasons for voting for or against someone with other people, hence the "what user X said" reasons you see from time on time.--Fighterdoken 22:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Too much work for something that doesn't matter that much. A wiki, unlike a forum, works on the assumption that most people either know what they're doing or are doing what they believe is best for the wiki - "Assume Good Faith" and all that. To automatically assume that most voters are misinformed contributors who have no idea what they're talking about goes again that basic concept. Truth is, the wiki community isn't that big - there's no need for Auron to make a long statement when so many people know who he is and/or are perfectly capable of looking through his recent contributions in order to figure out more about him based on his actions, not only on what he has to said for himself.

And sysops simply do not matter that much. Sure, they are chosen by the community and all that, but they are just common users with access to a few extra technical tools. They are not leaders or representatives of the community or anything along these lines. We don't have to wrap the process of choosing them in piles and piles of bureaucracy when the current process not only is good enough (I know a bureaucrat that was asked to step down, but I can't remember a sysop that failed a reconfirmation) but also simple enough given its stated goal. Erasculio 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 122.104. I'd love it if every vote on every RFA was a full paragraph of detailed reasons, and the page sizes be damned. Support and oppose votes with no comment or a joke reason are next to worthless (neutral votes that say nothing more than "I have no opinion" -are- worthless). Votes that say agreed with (whomever), particularly if they add their own elaboration, at least say "This is what sticks out about this candidate that's important to me, but (whomever) said it well and I don't feel like retyping it".

On the other hand, I don't think we can actually regulate this other than to encourage users that the more detailed they are, the more useful their vote. If we set a rule of minimum length, or minimum new content, or whatever, people are likely to wind up using nonsense filler or focus on tiny, practically meaningless details just to make their vote count. - Tanetris 23:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Take into account that some votes might deliberately be joking, indicating weak support/oppose or similar.
Guild Wars and wiki is a past time, not a job. Don't try to make it one. :/ - anja 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement by the OP that his sister could create an account and vote and say "what he said" and have it count just as much as a long time contributor is exactly why the RfA resolution is NOT a simple vote tally. The two votes would NOT count the same because the Bureaucrats making the decision are all very capable of judging the weight of a vote, how informed it may be, etc, just by looking at the contributions of that user. And btw... she wouldn't have to create an account to vote, since IP's are allowed to vote in RfA's. I also don't see why if someone has the same PoV as someone else that they should be required to type it all out again. Again, I believe the people making the final decision are intelligent enough to understand that. -- Wyn 00:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"What do you think?" I thought of the following:

Our RfA has been periodically denounced as a popularity contest ever since it came into being. I still don't see how any form of vote-gathering can be separated from popularity. Simply put: You do not vote for someone you do not know. Why do politicians go around their constituencies and getting themselves seen and heard? Popularity; to be known. Why do companies spend money on advertising? Brand-awareness, i.e. being well-known.

Is it not natural to nominate and support people whose tendencies and behavior you have seen and know about? To even get a chance of being nominated, you first have to make yourself known. Nobody will nominate you if you are not known. Nobody will support you if you do not have a history of interacting with other users because no one will know your character. Interacting with others indirectly increases your popularity, or your well-known factor. Being popular does not necessarily mean being well-liked, but they do get along. Both fame and infamy contributes to popularity. People support or reject based on their impressions. When you impress someone, you gain popularity. I don't see how the impact of popularity and familiarity on any candidacy voting can be lessened or removed.

RfAs with short candidate statements generally do well. You saw a hypothesis, I saw a conclusion. Long-time users have a long history of contributions to speak for them, hence, they usually do not write long candidate statements and just point to their contributions. You can require them to write, but I personally find it pointless to tell a long-time contributor to state their dedication and profess their knowledge of the wiki. Anything a candidate writes, no matter how eloquent, will not override the importance of past contributions. Why are long statements targeted for rejection reasons? I'd like to believe that it's simply because it's convenient as "evidence" to validate one's impression.

I found your no "as-above" reasons to be unrealistic. Is "He is a calm and rational person in discussions I have seen him in." too similar to "He is a level-headed person and is diplomatic in all discussions." There's really only so much you can say about a person. This basically denies regular contributors their right to support the candidacy of user they have confidence in, unless they are eloquent enough to perform some word-wrangling and phrase-jumbling or example-making to make their vote count. This sort of voting also suggests that impressing that small group of "regular voters" would be enough to guarantee an RfA. It merely shifts the so-called "popularity issue" from many users to a smaller number of users, which in turn seems to imply a form of elitism.

Lastly, I thought that you essentially took something that's simple, and made it sound unnecessarily complex. What you are proposing, is already being done by bureaucrats, just perhaps not to an extent to which you are comfortable with. You are essentially saying that bureaucrats should weigh comment-less and not-serious-sounding votes very low, and to weigh serious-sounding, uniquely-specific commented votes very highly. If you were to look back at all the previous RfAs, how many do you think would've turned out differently had we forced voters to give comments to a level of detail you are proposing? -- ab.er.rant 06:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is all very confusing and over-political. Can't we just let the user's contributions do the talking by linking to well-substantiated examples? This will avoid any unnecessary debate about whether the role for a specific person is appropriate. (Terra Xin 02:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

That already (should) happens. Most well reasoned votes and voters decide based on personality and such on the person's actions (contributions). --Antioch 03:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

what if..

i want to try for another RfA,but i cant use my username since it brings up an old RfA?--Raph Talk 03:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just move the old one to Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Raph/Archive1. - Tanetris 04:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

ty, and yes, i am going to try again tomorrow morning--Raph Talk 04:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Reconfirmation

". The level of required support starts at the amount of support given for sysophood during the latest RFA (direct opposition to either is not counted), and this requirement gradually descends over time to a minimum of one user supporting after one year." How many "level of required support starts at the amount of support given for sysophood during the latest RFA" do I need to start that? How do I know how many "level of required support starts at the amount of support given for sysophood during the latest RFA" I need?--65.23.207.81 11:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

bcrats decide if there is enough support for a reconfirmation request; if you want to start it, just add your comment on the RfA page, maybe some others will add their support (for the RfA reconfirmation) then, or maybe not. poke | talk 12:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

...is there a solid number the bcrats use for that reconfirmation? Do they compare that number to other numbers to reach that decision? If so, how do I know how many do I need for that?--ShadowFog 12:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering the policy says it's not a simple tally, I doubt the bureaucrats use a solid number. However, I don't see why you're considering "how many [you] need" - it's not a campaign to rally users against another, and you can't exactly use multiple accounts :/. As Poke and the policy say, you just sign under the "requests for reconfirmation" header on the individual's RfA page and let it be, providing a neutral argument. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It generally means that the amount of people supporting the reconfirmation has to be equal to the amount of support that sysop had (during his/her last RFA) reduced by how much time has passed. If a reconfirmation request has garnered a sufficient number of users supporting it, then that sysop would be required to undergo a reconfirmation. -- ab.er.rant 14:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

About the ways to bring a Reconfirmation: where does someone start to do the reconfirmation?(A place to show the community is in favor of this). Where can I see a sysop's RFA?--ShadowFog 16:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK...the link was there...silly me still the first question: where does someone start to do the reconfirmation?(A place to show the community is in favor of this).--ShadowFog 16:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

On the sysops' original RFA page. I remember that someone wanted to place calls for reconfirmation on the community portal before, but I forgot whether that actually happened. --Xeeron 16:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

links to such RfA pages go here: #Recent reconfirmation requests poke | talk 17:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

When it says, "reduced by how much time has passed", is that since the RfA or the initial request for reconfirmation? I'm guessing that if I asked the question, "how long does it take to get reduced to one as stated in the policy page", the answer would be "bureaucrat discretion", so I won't ask that one. :) Freedom Bound 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's from the time the RfA was approved initially. So basically, after a year, one person can request a reconfirmation and have it granted. -- Wyn 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like the threshold to decrease at a linear rate and be rounded up, with the threshold hitting 1 on the anniversary of the last resolved RFA or reconfirmation. A template could probably be used to calculate and display the vote threshold. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, what is the value of such a count when a simple tally doesn't actually factor in at all? Misery 06:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A simple tally does factor in, significantly. It is not just a simple tally, but that tally is the guideline. Backsword 12:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how the level of support for a RfR matters at all. I think that it should just be "When enough evidence/valid reasons for a RfR has been given, as deemed by a BCrat a RfR should take place". No tallies involved at all. ~ PheNaxKian 13:13, 1 July 2009

People don't have to give any reason. A rfr isn't some sort of tribunal. People just add their name and most of the time, as the policy says, this leads to absolutly nothing at that point in time. Rfrs are not a big deal, and are not replacements for RfAs, they only lead to one. Backsword 13:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, if we had a number it would just be "omg, we need 5 and we have 5, start the RfR already!". If you want a rule of thumb, just do the maths. Linear scale, 365 days, number of support to one. Misery 13:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with either a linear scale or have the vote threshold stay the same for the first year then drop to 1 after a year has passed. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)