Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Jon Lupen

Questions

I see that a lot of your contribs are in user talk; how does that reflect what you'd be doing as an admin, and as it is user talk, how are you with user conflicts and interactions? --JonTheMon 05:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User Space: This requires a short story. For a while I ran as an untold and ungodly number of different IPs, dropping in to add bits and pieces here and there. After Eye of the North was released and the majority of its respective pages had been created and filled, I started following discussions on Regina's page, and eventually spilled outward to other developer talk pages as I discovered their existence. I never really chimed in much because I either had no comment (which is often the majority), or I felt like what I had to post would have no merit coming from a nameless, faceless IP. Eventually, I found my way into a decent number of developer pages, and relocating all of them as well following new edits quickly became more trouble than it was worth, so I registered so I could keep a watchlist that would follow me, independent of what computer I was on, because God knows it was never the same one. With a name and a face now, I started jumping in on discussions, leaving comments, ect, and spreading outward into other user's user spaces.

As an Admin: I generally don't chase after positions of power, I generally don't want or feel the need to be in a position of power. I suppose I take the George Washington approach when it comes to things like this. While I don't actively seek power, if people see fit to put me in such a position, than I will accept it, and fulfill the responsibilities that come with the position to the best of my abilities. So as a sysop, I wouldn't act in certain areas, only handling certain issues and those alone, but I'd fill in where ever I'm needed, be it solving disputes, or just hawking RC and banning vandals.

User Conflicts and interactions: As for general user interaction, I like to think I'm a reasonable person and can get along with most people just fine. Even if someone really gets under my skin, I try to put it aside and still be civil. After all, I'd like to be able to stick around the wiki for a while and have it be a pleasant experience, something I can't do if I go around openly being a douche bag to any user I happen to not like. Now conflicts on the other hand, are pretty situational in my mind. Every user is different, so dealing with each conflict is most likely going to be as different as the last. One user may be good at slaying trolls, but not good at handling a simple disagreement. One user may be good at breaking up and settling a heated argument, but might not be good at easing tensions when one or both parties have been hurt and deeply offended. Me, personally, as long as both parties are willing to be reasonable, I'm sure I could reach a conclusion without incident. I'll leave the trolls to other sysops, as there are other much more suited to that line of work than myself. — Jon Lupen 06:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, so, I didn't get a whole lot out of that. While I would expect you to do a little of everything, often times you'll have a focus in a certain area; that's what i'm asking about. And as for user conflict, I can't really get a feeling of what you'd do either. You might rage a little, you might be nice, or you might just leave it alone? --JonTheMon 14:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

General focus: Unless an issue came up, I'd spend my time perched on RC sniping vandals or burning through deletion requests.

Conflicts: I don't rage at users, at least not out loud. That is usually done as an internal dialogue or off wiki and then set aside to actually deal with the issue at hand. It's hard to be specific, as I don't form a plan of attack until I have my head around the situation and users in question. As for leaving things alone, I've found myself in a small number of arguments that would not have been aided by sysop intervention. — Jon Lupen 15:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts

This is all my own personal speculation, and if I'm wrong, I apologize in advance, but I believe Jon's nomination by Erasculio was to further his agenda on cracking down on staff talk pages. No offense meant Jon Lupen (as opposed to JonTheMon). It may be that the rest of the admin team (myself included) should be looking at the issue more from the standpoint of what the overall consensus is, rather than whether we are willing to support it, and therefore enforce it or not, I mean, is it really up to us to decide what to enforce and what not to?

Jon Lupen has taken a lead role in helping to maintain Regina's page since she was given the archiving templates to use, and he also stepped up on Linsey's page to do the same. While he's once again stepped up and offered to help with Erasculio's proposal, I'm just not sure he's got the temperament to deal with the kind of pressure he's going to get from users in implementing the proposed restrictions on staff pages. I know this might sound ironic from someone who is currently being held to Arb Com for being "overly hostile" to users, but seriously, when I became a sysop 18 months ago, no one in their right mind would have considered me anything but a carebear, yet now I am seen by many as the bitch of the wiki. Most of this has been caused by the constant and repeated bashings I've taken for trying to uphold a standard of conduct on this wiki that I felt was most appropriate, including the management of staff talk pages.

While I don't think Jon Lupen would abuse his sysop tools, his personal attachment to the staff talk pages might lead to the same kinds of issues I am currently facing, and I don't wish that on anyone. Given that he has self acknowledged his potential for lashing out when frustrated, I am not sure giving him sysop rights at this time is the best thing, especially if it was done with the primary goal of having a sysop to implement the restrictions on staff pages. -- Wyn talk 05:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A few quick comments. It's less of a personal attachment, and more of just the area I've vested interest and time in helping maintain. As for my frustrations, while they can color my words, I've never really let them color my actions. When I get pissed enough to do something about it, I take that as a cue and step away from the wiki to compose myself. As for Erasculio nominating me to front his agenda, that was irrelevant to me accepting. See my post in the above topic as soon as I post it. Just to clear the air on a few things. — Jon Lupen 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in looking at your above statement, this is what stands out to me "as long as both parties are willing to be reasonable, I'm sure I could reach a conclusion without incident." The simple fact is that you are going to find a lot of the people you will be dealing with will not be reasonable. They will argue and wiki-lawyer with their dying breath that you are oppressing their right to freedom of speech and restricting their best access to staff when they just have to get their point across, over and over and over ad nauseum. So sure, while people are willing to be reasonable, it's easy.... the simple fact is, trolls are not reasonable people, that's why they are called trolls, and there is a lot of self-entitlement that seems to go along with posting on staff pages ~ they are all entitled to an answer to their questions, and it has nothing at all to do with reason. -- Wyn talk 06:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat offended to see that someone thinks I would do something to further my agenda, without considering what is good for the wiki. I'm also in the awkward position of having to answer to a criticism with the most effective way of doing so being to criticize the person who spoke first, which is something I'm not fond of.

Wyn, I really admire you, and I really admire everything you have done for the wiki. But your speech above is the opposite of what I would like to see in a sysop. I think you have been burned out to the point of believing it's better to leave the trolls trolling than to deal with them; and that leads us to a situation in which trolls are left trolling, and those who were supposed to do something about it do nothing.

It's true that dealing with trolls is frustrating. I believe it becomes worse when only one or only a few admins actually bother to try dealing with trolls, leaving most of the stress for a few sysops who will eventually burn themselves out. But my conclusion is the opposite of Wyn's one: instead of not picking sysops who would be willing to do that work (and by "doing that work" I don't mean my proposal; even if Jon became a sysop, having a single adming enforcing it would not be enough), we need more sysops willing to deal with trolls in order to avoid overtaxing a single one, or a few ones. Jon is one of the few users here who I believe would be willing to deal with trolls, and, with an admin team in which the majority of sysops is more suited to janitorial roles only, his addition would be important for the wiki. Erasculio 10:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Couple things: I believe Wyn's point was that it was a good opportunity to RfA someone who would be willing to deal with staff talk pages, not that it was some insidious plot to back your idea. And, uh, Lupen being a sysop suited to dealing with trolls, uh, above he says he's willing to leave that to other sysops, so... --JonTheMon 14:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And this section mentions how he helps to maintain Regina's page, which is filled with trolls, so... Erasculio 15:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Right now, maintaining Regina's page consists of archiving, a pretty clean-cut task. As of yet, nobody has come raging at me for doing something that was going to get done one way or another. And, as Auron said, I'm not good with trolls. — Jon Lupen 15:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned being willing, even as an user, to move comments away from Regina's talk page, which would place you in direct collision course with trolls. We won't move those comments, but you were willing to do something others would be wary of doing as it would paint a big troll target on their back. Erasculio 15:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been down that route before with Izzy's page and survived, as a user. One or two users fought me tooth and nail until it was clear they weren't going to win, but most users just required an explanation of "Hey, this is how we do things on this page," were cool with it and moved on. — Jon Lupen 15:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I mean with "dealing with trolls". See Wynthyst's point above on how some admins would not want to do something if it meant being targeted by trolls as a consequence; you are willing to do those things, and that's not common here. Erasculio 16:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget that "willing to" and "good at" are two different things. — Jon Lupen 16:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to break up this two man circle-jerk-fest or anything, but since when have the admins here not dealt with trolls? I can only think of a few instances where admins were most likely hindered by what they thought the trolls would retaliate with here. Hopefully, most of the admins don't give a rat's ass what trolls think of them. Karate Jesus 16:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think I was doing any circle-jerking. I thought I was expressing my thoughts on what I've done, as well as what I'm willing to go through with and what I was/was not good at. If I missed something and started targeting the other sysops, please correct me and point out where. — Jon Lupen 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh trust me, there was circlejerking.

"Jon, what do you think of trolls? Are they good or bad?"

"Trolls are bad"

"Great answer! Here's a stroke or two"

:/ Karate Jesus 16:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

... *facepalms* >.< — Jon Lupen 16:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon, trolls will always be against sysops who they believe would deal with trolls. That's a given on any RfA here. Erasculio 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"... *facepalms* >.<" Karate Jesus 16:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, KJ is the tester troll. If you can't handle him, you can't handle any one of us. NuVII 19:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I just get called the "Diet Coke" of trolls? That's uncool. Also, every edit I make is heartfelt and pure. How dare you question my motives :D Karate Jesus 19:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're a successful troll is successful KJ. In fact, you inspired my troll pic on Adrin's page. --*Yasmin Parvaneh* 20:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

@Erasculio, NuVII: That was a "Wow, we're really going to go down this road, aren't we?" facepalm. Basically a minor expression of discontent at how quickly this degraded to trolling. — Jon Lupen 21:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

@Erasculio, I would like to get something straight here please... I was not criticizing you, or your passion for trying to make things better. I have a lot of respect for your willingness to stand up for the things you believe in. I was simply questioning the timing of this nomination in conjunction with the impasse the proposal to crack down on staff talk pages seems to have reached. If a sysop who is as "stable and rational" as Pling is saying that it was emotionally trying, not to mention time intensive to do the same on Izzy's page (which I agree with as I was one of the few other sysops that helped him as well as my own attempts to help Linsey), any sysop taking on Regina's page basically has to be made of stone, willing to take the abuse. I just feel that Jon (by his own acknowledgment) is not the person to do this. This wasn't meant as a slight to Jon, or yourself, and I started my comment trying to convey that. I also did not mean to imply that I as a sysop am not willing to deal with trolls (a fact I think I have proven over and over and over), just that doing so has taken it's inevitable toll, as I think it has with more than just me. I was simply trying to make it clear to Jon what kind of thing he was potentially setting himself up for, and asking that he examine why he accepted and if he really felt suited for it. Again, I apologize for any offense my comments may have caused through misunderstanding their intent. -- Wyn talk 22:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wyn makes a good point, the position certainly requires a vast amount of fortitude and objectivity--not that Jon isn't objective--but I can certainly see some passion getting in the way and being used as potential troll bait. I can forsee some arguments and or discussions going further that needed due to Jon's desire for truth and becoming "disruptive" whereas someone like Pling will step in and stop it all together. Not that Jon has negative traits...I think his actions are well intended.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 23:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Wyn: I can only speak for myself, but I think we are all well aware by now that if I felt slighted, I'd let you know. I knew well enough what I'd be getting myself into as a sysop, but there were other motives behind accepting the nomination and opening the RfA than simply the end result of becoming a sysop. — Jon Lupen 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it so hard for you and Era to realize that Wyn is concerned about how capable you will be at handling trolls(which is extremely important)? Thus far I have only seen Erasculio cast aspersions on Wyn's character by attacking her most innoculous comments and you totally ignoring valid concerns of Wyn. If you can't handle criticism and/or concerns set by other users, you are not going to get your support votes.

@Era Is it terribly difficult to set aside your personal vendettas when engaging in a serious discussion? This is another reason why your nomination failed, you can't even see the extremely clear positive connotation attached to the context "agenda" in which Wyn used. Pika Fan 02:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No comment does not mean ignored. If you feel that I'm ignoring Wyn's comments than I will address them. Wyn, I acknowledge your concerns, they are legitimate, and I appreciate that. I have no comment on them as of now, but I'll have words for them when all is said and done. — Jon Lupen 02:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)