Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Raine Valen

What is this "pre-RfA?" elix Omni 01:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

here – Emmett 01:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You say that we know your personality, and as a royal "we" that may hold, but for myself I am unfamiliar with who you are. I am not looking for a synopsis (I'm sure I could make a composite by going through your edits) but I am interested in the neutrality of your role as a sysop, or perhaps I should say, your willingness to take that extra step back. I know that too much hesitation is what you're riding against, but do you see yourself as capable of being impartial when it may be the last thing you want to do? G R E E N E R 02:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe myself very capable of being impartial. — Raine Valen 2:24, 13 Sep 2010 (UTC)

To everyone that says "we don't need another Auron"

be sure to think about the implications of your statement in its entirety. I, for one, vehemently disagree. What the sysop team needs most right now is, in fact, another Auron. As you can see, the current system doesn't work. The trolls have finally realized, after years of getting banned, that all they have to do to avoid my banstick is to troll me directly, thus placing me in a position where I am unable to ban them. A second person willing to quickly ban them would solve the dilemma of people like Scythe.
Scythe trolled and trolled and trolled, and he got a ton of very small bans that were applied too late. Finally, after literally a month or more of disrupting the wiki, forcing me to RfR, RfAing himself, and posting inane shit on the noticeboard, he got a 3 month block (which didn't even come from a sysop - it came from a bcrat, which isn't how shit is "supposed" to work). Do you think that system is working? Do you think more non-Auron sysops are going to make that problem go away? People spout off bullshit about how sysops need to be more trigger happy. Here is your opportunity - a level-headed potential sysop who is friendly with the community (something I never cared nor attempted to be) that is willing to take the flak of banning trolls for trolling. You claim it's a bad thing she seeks to emulate "certain other hardass parties," but again, I disagree. How else are the trolls going to be banned before they stir up a shitload of drama? In order for the current sysops to ban faster for trolling, they need to emulate certain other hardass parties. If that's a bad thing, the current broken system will simply continue to be broken. Unless you have an alternative that leads to trolls being banned quickly without sysops emulating certain other hardass parties? -Auron 02:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

← moved to User talk:Felix Omni#I HAVE FURY

I don't see any benefit in having a second Auron to act when the first one cannot, or will not. If you truly believed an action would be in the best interest of the wiki, I would expect you to take that action regardless of public reaction. elix Omni 20:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting close. Gares beats me by an hour or so usually. Misery 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would expect that of myself as well, but folks like Xeeron get bent out of shape when I do. -Auron 03:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But do they object because it's you, or because they disagree with the action you want to take? I'm inclined to believe it's the latter. elix Omni 04:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would assume they have no opposition to banning a troll for trolling - they have issues with banning someone I'm involved with on principle, and I similarly avoid banning in those cases on principle. That is the entire point of a second sysop willing to ban quickly - the chances of both being involved with the same troll are slim, so when one is cornered and unable to act, the other can step in and perform the block with no (legitimate) complaints of bias or personal involvement.

Are you saying you expect me to ban the troll even though he's personally attacked/harassed me? If so, your opinion differs from the generally held belief on this wiki. I have no problem doing so, because I keep my head clear enough and my stance neutral enough to know when a user has crossed the line, but the wiki at large does not support that action (again, mostly on principle, not because they disagree with the action itself). -Auron 05:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If they had no opposition to "banning a troll for trolling," and if it was as clear-cut as you like to pretend, then they would do it themselves. The problem is that wiki politics is like warfare- the one who acts first gains momentum and carries the day. The thing I see the most often regarding sysop actions is "Well I don't agree with ______'s decision, but I don't disagree strongly enough to oppose it." That's coming from other sysops, mind you, not just random Joes. The pervading sense of apathy from the majority of the team is a problem, but it's also the current reality of the situation. So appointing another trigger-happy sysop to act when you don't feel like it wouldn't be a step forward, but a step back to a Wild West Wiki where the quicker draw wins the duel. elix Omni 05:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I fell down the stairs just now and have a reasonably huge gash on my back.

Oh, are Felix and I supposed to be on topic? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You are cute and funny but lack reading comprehension. elix Omni 05:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Felix - your post dodged the entire point of this section. It's not that we need another sysop to ban when I "don't feel like it," it's that we need another sysop to ban in cases where general consensus says I should not. Your scenarios about people coming in to help me with bans is not in touch with reality - look at what actually happens. Look at Ariyen's case. Ariyen was banned, short block after short block, until I proposed (via discussion) we implement a permanent block. You say I should have simply permanently blocked her ("I would expect you to take that action regardless of public reaction"), but again, that's more of you ignoring consensus. The general take on this wiki, as I understand it, is to avoid banning when things get personal. I am not the wiki - I do not go against consensus, even if I think the consensus is wrong. I simply take out the trash.

If you want to challenge wiki consensus or attempt to change it, feel free. That topic, however, has nothing to do with Raine's ability to perform as a sysop, nor the need for another sysop willing to ban trolls for trolling, and thus does not belong on this page or in this section. -Auron 07:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry Wyn, direct reply etc) I believe consensus is that sysops are empowered to make decisions that they feel are in the best interests of the wiki. You can't have it both ways. elix Omni 14:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that, even with clear-cut cases of trolling, many of the sysop team hesitate to ban. Unless it's clear cut vandalism, policy violations, etc; they generally don't act or just hand out short bans after another. Look at the history with all the major trolls on this wiki. It generally takes a very long time for vicious trolls to get a permanent block in the order of several months. Some learned to behave after a couple of bans, which is what I think most of the sysops hope for... "Maybe if I give her/him another 1 week ban with a explanation they would be more productive afterwards". I can only name like maybe 2 that "learned", others were permablocked or got bored and left... --Lania 06:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I just love the whole obviously-implied meaning that you're special and above the rules, tbh. --Master Briar 05:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think people, most especially the sysop team, need to look at the reasons that they are less willing to actively banhammer trolls. If the team itself were a more cohesive unit less of this would be happening. However, it has gotten to the point where the sysops don't want to deal with the troll backlash they receive when banning trolls. It's one of the things that I considered when I finally decided to resign. I had no problem banning trolls, but then all the rest of the trolls would slam my talk page with crap, and none of the other sysops would do anything to support my decisions. In fact some of them would publicly declare my decisions were wrong, and call my judgment into question. I decided it was no longer worth the headaches and stress it was causing me. That is why this system is broken. Rather than constantly questioning each other the sysops we have need to grow some balls and just say no to the trolls and yes to each other. This is supposed to be an admin TEAM. Start acting like one. -- Wyn talk 11:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I know this is a wiki and all, but are you guys able to stay on topic? Needing or not needing another Auron doesn't really have much to do with Raine's ability to act as a sysop. Taking a crappy candidate because of a perceived need is equally as foolish as rejecting a good candidate because of a perceived lack of need. I will briefly state that there is no limit on the number of sysops. Anyone who supported Auron, then opposed Raine on the basis that we don't need two people like that is being pretty silly. Luckily I don't think that person exists, so people should probably stop debating it. Misery 15:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Candidate questions

I know your stated goals as a sysop, but I'm also trying to evaluate what kind of sysop you would be given a different context. So, to that end, here are some questions.

1. Can you provide some examples of situations where you mediated or defused the situation?
2. Have there been situations that you would have done differently and why?
3. Where do you draw the line at new users who are creating conflict? What kind of process would you go through?

--JonTheMon 03:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

1. [1] and [2], off the top of my head.
2. I don't have the diff saved, but I do recall a specific case between myself and Wyn some time ago (I want to say "years", but I am not sure; it may be "months"), where I responded with unnecessary and, admittedly, undeserved harshness toward a legitimate concern; I subsequently apologized to her.
   In a situation like this, I should have been more civil at the outset.
3. I believe that the first step should be to alert a user that they are doing something wrong, in case they do not know (e.g. uploading copyrighted images). After that, if they continue, I'd advocate a short ban (something on the order of hours) and accompanying reasoning (e.g. "you were banned because you continued to upload copyrighted images"). If, after this, the behaviour persists, that user should be met with bans of increasing duration (still with accompanying reasoning), eventually cumulating in a permanent ban.
   To answer the other part of that question, I draw the line at the point where it becomes evident that the user in question does not intend to alter their behaviour (or, in some cases, where they become incapable of admitting personal fault); if a user demonstrates effort to improve, then they should be assisted in that venture.

If I can clarify anything for you, I'd be glad to. — Raine Valen 3:58, 13 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Your Candidate Statement mentioned precedent. How do you feel about how setting that precedent was gone about, was there anything you would have done differently? Do you have any examples of where you would use that precedent? --Ceru talk contribs 04:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel that that case was allowed on to carry on too long. Consequently, I'd've used that as reasoning to handle a situation of a similar nature in a more expedient manner. — Raine Valen 4:19, 13 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Your candidate statement: "No one has "stepped up" to deal with this [recent drama] as it mandates being dealt with (even based on precedent)".

When I permanently blocked Ariyen/Kaisha on February 24, it was reverted by a bureaucrat with the reason "Unilateral infinite blocks should not be utilized in cases where the issue in question is not clear-cut and objective. Please either utilize a temporary block or obtain sysop consensus". Between then and March 30, her Kaisha account only had week-blocks at most. By March 30, the sysops came to a consensus to block her accounts for a year. This showed/set a precedent that a sysop using discretion to infinitely block Ariyen wasn't acceptable and a long-term block required sysop consensus.

How would you have stopped Ariyen's case "[carrying] on too long"? How would you use it "as reasoning to handle a situation of a similar nature in a more expedient manner"? Theoretically, if you were to follow the 'precedent' Ariyen's case set, you wouldn't give out such a block without seeking a consensus, yet you seem to be a proponent of blocking harder and faster (presumably without that consensus). -- pling 23:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

When the set precedent works, one makes a sensible decision to proceed in a similar fashion based on it. When it does not, one makes an equally sensible decision to proceed differently based on it. When I say "based on precedent", I don't mean that the same thing should occur if it does not work; I mean that the things that were not ideal in said precedent should be adjusted, while those parts that are ideal should be preserved.

The way your initial permanent block was handled is, I think, a strong case of a non-ideal outcome that mandated adjustment. I am inclined to say that others agree, also, judging by the way that the situation ended up: the same way it would've ended at your decision, but with more unnecessary drama and bureaucracy. If we knew then what we know now, do you believe that your ban would have been overturned? If you had blocked Scythe before garnering consensus, do you believe anyone would have said, "You need to be sure that you have consensus before doing this because you needed to have consensus for blocking Ariyen"? Or do you think the more likely response would be, "We learned from Ariyen's case, and we will not overturn your block this time"? I strongly believe that the latter is far more appropriate.

We do know now what we didn't, then. With this knowledge, this experience based on precedent, I believe that quicker bans are, in fact, in order in similar situations. You were right on February 24th, and I believe that we've all seen enough, both in Ariyen's case and more recent cases, to agree on that, now. — Raine Valen 2:48, 15 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Trollbait

Sometimes you went through spells where you were magically delicious, and I feel that this may come to be a problem later. What is your plan to make sure things stay completely clear to you? -- Tha Reckoning 12:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'll give me an example (I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to), I'll be happy to explain what I'd do differently. — Raine Valen 14:41, 13 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to look it up, but a lot of Briar comes to mind. -- Tha Reckoning 15:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith until it becomes disruptive or unless I am positive that the user in question is aware of what they're doing (for example, a user breaking 1RR over non-vandalism would be banned for breaking 1RR after someone explained to them what 1RR is, as they'd no longer have any sort of excuse).

If Briar wants to talk about how PvE hexway is serious business, I'd have no problem explaining why PvP hexway is more serious (I think this is the section that you're referring to), as long as it remains civil. When NPA gets stepped on, it's time for warnings and bans (this didn't happen, in that case, so no action needed to be taken). — Raine Valen 14:06, 14 Sep 2010 (UTC)

This is just a bunch of "maybe". The statement on the RFA screams "ACTION" but you have yet to name your pain. Example: Kiyoshi NPA's & trolls... Kiyoshi is my pain. I'm sure I'm someone's pain as well. But this isn't about vote trading, it's about specifics. What about Rogueonion & that Scythe guy? Name names or stop acting tough. --ilr 18:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What? — Raine Valen 18:50, 21 Sep 2010 (UTC)

I think he's calling for you to pick a distinct enemy on the wiki. Though I'm not sure what it has to do with Kiyoshi, who's made all of 23 edits, or what it has to do with me, if he just spelled my name wrong. Or what it has to do with this RFA, for that matter, since you seem the type to speak out bluntly against your enemies rather than skirt the issue and declare it suddenly on an RFA. --Kyoshi (Talk) 19:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, it doesn't even matter now. Somehow you passed with a 19-11 (+ 1 tentative) vote. That's a neat trick considering officially policy suggests: "In general, the RFA is successful if it has at least 3 times as much support as those in opposition;". Gratz, seems you were the perfect candidate all along for this sinking ship of "Let me be perfectly clear" politics. --ilr 19:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"In general" Key words. Bureaucrats don't have to go with consensus, they go with what they think is best for the wiki. And while I disagree in this case, we'll see how it goes. --Kyoshi (Talk) 21:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy isn't absolute. Ever. — Raine Valen 21:09, 21 Sep 2010 (UTC)

How would you have handled this situation?

This is a lot to read through, but how would you have handled this situation? When would you have stepped in, and with what action? I am hoping to compare your opening statements to your response, here.

1. Rogueonion's talk page
2. The Admin notice board (Note the two related headings)
3. After it was moved to the talk page
4. Jon's talk page

Wow, I didn't think it would be THAT much to read. Take your time in responding! G R E E N E R 15:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It was quite a bit to read!

Honestly, much the same way that Jon did:

First, I would've asked the users that were being accused of "harassment" to back off for a while (I'd even go so far as to make it an official warning; neither of them are stupid and both of them knew what they were doing, I'd wager), so that the issue could be resolved.

• Shard and Sparky weren't breaking any policies, but their presence was escalating the situation, even though they were giving the correct information.
• Were I an angry Rogueonion (keep in mind that I'm never an angry Rogueonion; I am an angry Raine, at worst), I probably wouldn't've listened to anything they said, either.
• Because of this, their aid was largely going to waste – asking them to vacate the premises for a while would've saved them wasted "sincere" effort and, indeed, cut out a lot of the drama from that situation.
• Jon made a proper decision there, I think, and I'd've made a similar one.

Once the coals were removed from the flame, so to speak, I'd've explained the policy to him.

• It's clear that he wasn't closed to receiving the information (as evidenced by his acceptance of the very same advice from Jon and Greener); he was closed to receiving anything from the people that were ostensibly harassing him.
• However, being mad at someone isn't a valid excuse for policy violations (neither, technically, is ignorance, but new users do it all the time and blindside bans don't actually solve anything), so I'd make it evident that said explanation of policy also served as an official warning and that further violations on his part would result in the appropriate bans.

Somewhere along the line, I'd emphasize that user talkpages don't, in fact, belong to users, and, accordingly, that Rogueonion had shown undue hostility toward those users; calm and rational is the way to go!

Similarly, I'd've emphasized to said "harassers" that fanning the flames is not cool (read: "Dude. Not helping."), even if it's technically not a policy violation. I don't imagine for a second that they'd've misunderstood that, and I know that they're both capable of being civil, if not outright helpful.

tl;dr: remove complications, deal with underlying issue, stitch incision. — Raine Valen 14:01, 14 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Comments

1. I don't know if I should even be involving myself in these types of things, but my comment (put in context) is this: I'm new to the wiki community as far as a contributer is concerned. I really haven't done much yet but am looking to help out. In starting out, while looking at change logs and such, and then the larger community in general, I've noticed there is definitely a lot of negativity going around... I know, cite examples (Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/The Scythe Has Fallen). I know it's the real word, but flame wars, PA, and the like are what has has turned me off from any type of contribution with various wikis and forums in the past. Maybe I just came in at a bad time, or maybe it isn't that bad. Whatever the case is, I think someone focused on balancing productive help, personal style, and bad eggs is definitely a good idea. -- Squidman458 05:44 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess you can say that the 70's had the flower power, the 80's had disco and hair metal, the 90's had skateboards and bubble gum, the 0's had collectible card games, and this era has forum trolls. Here is to hoping they go the same way as all the previous trends. Koda Kumi 10:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to Jon's Vote

I think Jon's vote sheds light on this issue fairly clearly. It's a difference between positive reinforcement vs negative reinforcement, and the false hope that encouragement and guidance will stop trolls from trolling. Positive reinforcement only works on users who genuinely didn't know, willing to learn, and want to have a positive impact on the wiki. It doesn't work on trolls, and the more "positive" attention they get, the more "fun" they have. It also doesn't work on those with mentally illnesses, which I think many trolls have them. Positive reinforcement should be given out for people who want to learn, has the capacity to learn, and shows improvement. Most of the time with major trolls they are given short ban after ban, followed by several walls of text telling someone not to do x,y and z, and when they come back, they do x,y and z again, another wall of text, another short ban. Scythe's perma ban occurred earlier than expected, because someone had the initiative and discretion to block him after causing useless drama every single time he is unblocked, even though he was told not to every time he was blocked. In summary, trolls don't care about the community or what anyone thinks, either they are the classic troll wanting to cause disruption and laugh at the warnings and short bans; or they are mentally ill, ignore warnings, decide they are right, and cause disruption because they feel they are justified to go against a "corrupt" system run by a cabal.
In addition, not everyone is cut out to interact with the wiki. Just like not everyone has the intelligence to do higher math, or conduct complicated experiments. You can train someone for over three months, and if they still make the same mistake they made at day one, it's time to let them go. It wasn't like he was lazy or something like that either, he would work on it for 8-12 hours a day with bad results because of his poor technique (that never improved cause he never learned from his mistakes), while an experienced tech was able to do what he was trying to do in less than an hour and it worked beautifully. He wasn't retarded either, he had a 3.8 GPA. The point is... even though I'm repeating my self...even if some people who have a positive outlook on the wiki and want to contribute positively, if they don't have the capacity to learn from their mistakes, they don't belong here. --Lania 14:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Requests for reconfirmation

It's kinda pointless to sign without even a short explanation at the very least. It's been brought up in previous RfRs that bureaucrats want well-reasoned RfRs, not just signatures. -- pling 22:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just going off what I saw on other RfRs. I'll add stuff. elix Omni 22:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry as well in the past it has been just signatures. me and raine have had a few run ins in the past. - Zesbeer 22:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the admin in question supporting hisher own reconfirmation would be enough... -- FreedomBound 23:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For one, no, nine times out of ten the sysop wants the reconfirmation for reasons entirely different from what other people want it for. For two, Raine's not a he. -- Armond{{Bacon}} 23:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those have any impact on what I said. -- FreedomBound 00:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

My read of the rules is that if Raine wants to be reconfirmed that is enough. So if she is voting for her reconfirmation it should start. Am I completely misreading that? --Rainith 00:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

i read it the same way...- Zesbeer 01:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think Raine's vote was serious. -- pling 15:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Raine Valen#So... suggests otherwise. elix Omni 18:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it actually supports my claim. Clarity evidently won't be something in the support section should a new RfA start. -- pling 19:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

To explain what Pling said at the beginning: While it is not necessary to add explanations, doing that will most probably help the evaluation if the reconfirmation is actually worth it; of course, with a higher number of votes this becomes more and more redundant. poke | talk 16:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)