Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Wandering Traveler

Previous RfA discussion: Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Wandering Traveler/Archive1

Statement

Wandering Traveler: could you update your current candidate statement with your current objectives? Even if it's copy/paste, it gives me a better idea of your approach on things. Thanks!   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Wandering Traveler 23:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Per "Inactivity

Looking back at my own contributions, I've somewhat noticed I havent been really "inactive", even though I've got the quasi-clock up on my userpage. Simply put, I'm here even if I'm not editing, and while thats not really a good excuse for "active" I'm contributing daily. I remember a quote: "If you are truly dedicated to something, you will find the time". I am dedicated to this wiki, and I have, can, and shall continue to find the time. -- Wandering Traveler 23:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

*looks at list of inactive Sysops* Yes, like activity means anything. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 07:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A bit early...

Wait, when was his last RfA? Was there another since July 2008?--Fighterdoken 00:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Might should clarify what I meant; I noticed WT getting better only recently, so if he continues like this in the future then I would support him :) poke | talk 11:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The votes so far

Three RfAs were opened at the same time. Two received quite a bit of attention, this one quite a bit less. The general feeling I am getting here is that people aren't really that convinced, but don't seem to care that much either way, so I decided to leave this open a few days more to see if anyone wants speak their piece one way or the other. Misery 16:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm not very well-known around here, I think I'll take a moment to clarify my Strong Oppose, a vote that might seem quite harsh. My position comes from my first and part of my second failed RfAs at PvX. The majority of the sysop staff noted that giving me the mop and bucket wouldn't do a whole lot of good - the things I was accomplishing could be done with or without them. It might've sped up some of the janitorial business, but, from a broad perspective, it wasn't doing anyone a whole lot of good. (Given my fantastic ability to be a massive drama queen, it was probably a much wiser choice than anyone could've forseen at the time.) Point is - even though W.T. seems to be on the other end of the drama-spectrum, I'm extremely unconvinced that giving him (her?) the sysop toolbelt is going to do anything besides add another user to the list.

tl;dr: Giving another person a mop and bucket doesn't do you any good if the floor's already clean. ··· Danny Pew Pew 20:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Noob question

14>9, no? So, +1 sysop called Wandering Traveler, no? Titani Ertan 15:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's supposed to be 3x as much support as opposition, subject to interpretation by the bureaucrats. -- FreedomBound 15:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If it were such a simple tally, why would I have a job? If you want me to explain my reasoning for failing this RfA in more depth, I am happy to do so. Misery 15:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If so, then the number of succeeded RfAs would be nearing 0, as human nature is described.

You caught my attention, Misery. Go on if you wish. Titani Ertan 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well I will start off by saying that this was not a rogue action that I committed on my own, I consulted with both Pling and Tanetris on all three RfAs before I acted. Some people may not like the fact that I did this off wiki, but wikis are very slow and inconvenient modes of communication. I assure you the conversations were not particularly exciting or scandalous. Now, if we want to start off from a pure numerical basis, rule of thumb I've heard is that support should be 2-3 times the oppose, that has not been met here. In fact, 14/32 people who responded were in favour of Wandering Traveler passing this RfA. I find this rather unconvincing, it doesn't even tip over 50%.

I have a personal philosophy that adminship should be reasonably hard to attain and reasonably hard to lose. If I am going to promote someone, either I need to stand behind them 100% with the community not being opposed to it, or the community needs to stand behind them somewhat more strongly than the below 50% that was obtained. I don't feel either threshold was met in this case. If I promote someone in a borderline case, it's on my head what happens, if I promote someone with landslide support, which happens quite a bit with RfAs, that is on the community's head. This was a borderline case. Few people went into many details for their support reasons, Wynthyst's vote would be an example of what I consider a good support vote, the opposers and neutral voters tended to do a slightly better job of explaining why they felt like they did. As such, I got a feeling that many of the neutral voters didn't particularly want Wandering Traveler to be a sysop, but didn't really care if he did.

That was an important fact for me, a lot of people really didn't care. WT got an extended voting period and at the end, 32 people cared enough to vote. Go look at Jette and Vili's RfAs, 32 for Jette in normal time, even though it was clear pretty quickly he would not be passing, 47 people voted on Vili's. That is why I extended WT's, it was borderline at that time and I feel the situation slightly worsened.

Defiant Element's vote is the succinct version of my thoughts. This isn't a "GTFO!", this is a "You haven't convinced us yet, feel free to try again later". Misery 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. Noted. Thanks. Titani Ertan 17:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Misery. During the final days of this being open (heck, even as this started) it was becoming clearer that this wouldn't work out. The supports were there, per say, but there was no substaniation behind them, wheras the opposes/neutrals were really well thought out explanations. The final supports were simply signatures or....weird stuff. Which doesnt really quantify support, even for me. So it was a good call. -- Wandering Traveler 19:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to justify my bureaucratic actions, but I usually won't unless someone asks. Better luck in the future Wandering Traveler. Misery 20:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)