Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Requests for adminship/Poke/Archive 1

Poke

Poke (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Status

Concluded, retains sysop role, does not retain bureaucrat role. 06:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Candidate statement

So, if you are here, you probably know me – at least I hope you do – so I won’t take the effort to introduce myself. Nevertheless, unlike the other two lazy ones, I’m going to write a bit more about my status and this reconfirmation: When GW2W was created back then, I was grandfathered as a sysop, and since it got a bit busier here and I got my bureaucrat seat over at GWW, I am also a bureaucrat here. As you may, or may not, have noticed, I have been a bit silent for quite a while. This was mainly due to different private reasons, especially having a busy time at the university, that kept me from doing things I used to spend a lot of time with.

While I’m currently still unable to go back to what you might be used to from me (mainly talking about the activity level before 2011), I’m slowly finding more and more time to get stuff done and get back to a more active state. So basically I’m planning to be spend a lot more time on the wiki than I could within the last months, to get back to an activity level, that I can accept myself too.

In this reconfirmation I am asking for both my sysop, and bureaucrat seat. The way I would like to see the administration role on this wiki, which also matches what it has been here for quite a longer while, is that bureaucrats are essentially full sysops with a bit more to handle the typical wiki-bureaucracy as well. This also implies that I won’t especially leave things to other sysops (non-bureaucrats) if I’m around and believe that I, personally, can handle a situation myself. At least that’s how I see the bureaucrat role currently. poke | talk 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

General response: This is a somewhat general response to multiple comments below, and I hope the people involved actually see it. Some of you mentioned that being only a sysop would fit me better, or in a different way, are unsure if I am/would be a good bureaucrat. As I actually said above, I personally think of bureaucrats on this wiki as power-sysops; at least as of now. There were no decisions made on what roles sysops and bureaucrats will ultimately take, so everything is merely based on a lot discretion and bureaucrats simply are the “next step up” from sysops. This wiki’s rules are very different from what has been done on GWW over the many years, and I think we should continue following our own path here and not implicitely copy the exact thinking from GWW without at least actually thinking about possibly improving it. This was done before and led to our practices and processes which openness I really like a lot. That chaning also means that the GWW’s limited bureacrat does not need to apply here at all, including that 3 people limit – I actually would like to get rid of those numbers at all and just get any well-trusted sysop move up (remember: bcrats are power-sysops to me) to have enough well-trusted bureaucrats available. In addition, with not limiting bureaucrats to some activities, but having them perform any sysop tasks as well, there would – and should – never be a trade-off when promoting bureaucrats.

If you look at my GWW election history, I declined bureaucratship for a long time for exact that reason (although I didn’t specify it back then). With the bureaucrat role becoming more open on GWW, and the number of *suitable* candidates shrinking, I accepted the role though and finally accepted an election there. Wouldn’t it have been like that, then yes, I would have totally agreed with you, that the sysop role fits me a lot more. Here on GW2W though, with a yet completely missing definition of what bureaucrats are, I don’t really see a reason against it though. poke | talk 21:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Maybe compared to Pling and Tanetris, Poke tends to take a more back seat approach when it comes to performing admin duties , but that is not a negative at all. I think Poke tends to see the big picture in ways that others rarely do, giving him insight into things that allows more smooth completion of projects and in case of various user conflicts. Also Poke is a master coder, and his wiki bot when active works tirelessly day and night to keep things organized. Also his input into coding tools for users and sysops and implementing them is also very important. For these reasons, I think Poke should keep his seat. As per my statement below I think Poke can perform his duties better as a sysop rather than as a bcrat, and would like to see someone with more bcrating history instead. --Lania 22:09, 02 April 2012 (UTC)

  But as he said, we don't have a solid definition of what a bcrat is supposed to be here. For now, he may not need the added title, but if a new definition comes about, and he well fits the bill... After all, those experienced had to start out among others far more experienced. Poke has become a behind-the-scenes expert here. He may well prove to be a very useful bcrat. ~~ Kiomadoushi 22:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am for Poke, he is a wiki code wizard and he knows exactly what he is doing. Besides if he wasn't a admin who would I poke (pun intended) to change the feature article once that project is up and running.- Zesbeer 02:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• A lot of the most important tools for actually organizing the unique and confusing daily chains of Info from guildwars was coded by poke... can't imagine this place being able to adapt to the even bigger challenges of GW2 without him having direct control over as many wiki permissions as possible. --ilr 06:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• I consider poke as an invaluable addition to this wiki (and others). It should technically go without saying he is a coding expert, responsible, timely (as long as real life permits), experienced, fair, and acts when actions are required. He may not have been active of late, but he is certainly one of the most involved administrators we have around. But that said, which qualities are that of a valuable user, and which qualities are those of a valuable administrator? I feel that almost every single one of the listed qualities fits an administrator—save coding expert (which only indirectly assists his quality of being a sysop and bureaucrat, I assume; via additional tools and technical processes behind the scenes)—and that he is a perfect representative for this wiki. If this user wishes to continue in both his bureaucrat and his sysop seat(s), then I see no reason to remove him from either, nor has he given this wiki any reason to doubt his position as of yet. - Infinite - talk 12:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• He needs to remain a sysop, I think that much is clear. Whether he should remain a bureaucrat, I don't know (by which I actually do mean "I don't know"). The main bureaucrat thingy I can remember him being involved in on GWW was gw1:Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Farlo, and I don't think that was dealt with in the best way, but he was only 1 of 3 bureaucrats so I'm not sure exactly how he himself was involved in it. It's also a different RfA system, so how much of that can even be used as an example? (Again, "I dunno".) Were Poke not already a bureaucrat, would I see him as a potential one? As much I think Poke is an effective sysop, probably not. Poke doesn't seem like someone who'd fit that role, just like some really helpful editors wouldn't fit the sysop role. pling 17:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  Is there anything as far as coding the wiki goes that he won't be able to do if he loses his bcrat seat but maintains his sysop/admin seat? If not then I think his bcrat seat could be up in the air. If there are a limited number of bcrat seats, then I would like to see other people with more "bcrat-ing history" become bureaucrats. --Lania 19:23, 03 April 2012 (UTC)

  The only extra tools bureaucrats have are changing user rights and merging accounts. "Coding" (e.g. editing MediaWiki pages, abusefilter) can be done by sysops. pling 20:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  @Lania: I don't think that we are going for a limited number. Bureaucrat status should be about having the necessary qualities of being a bureaucrat, not "who fills up the seats before they're all gone." Aqua (T|C) 22:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  Replying to the Farlo incident (for the other stuff, see the general response above), it indeed was a difficult situation – for all of us though. As you can see on that page yourself, I personally opposed the RfA. The ultimate decision was a group decision and I explained it on the talk page. Apart from that situation it’s not really my fault that nothing else happened (like an arbcomm), that would have shown my capabilities better. poke | talk 21:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• As per Pling, there is little evidence one way or the other of poke's bureaucratic effectiveness. 17:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  (Not replying to you alone, but you said this just so clearly) Just because there is no evidence for or against me, it does not make me a bad bureaucrat, right? I mean new candidates are seen neutral too, and if, while being a bureaucrat, nothing really happened, the general opinion on “bureaucratic effectiveness” shouldn’t really change. poke | talk 21:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  Nope, it doesn't make you a bad bureaucrat. It just makes it hard to say if you'd be a good bureaucrat. In sysop RfAs (on GWW anyway), we tend to ask for evidence indicating the user would make a good sysop - saying "he won't be bad" usually isn't enough. pling 22:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• As said above, poke makes an invaluable addition to the sysop team, especially due to his extensive knowledge of coding. That being said, I'm not really sure if there's anything gained by poke being a bureaucrat. I'm not entirely sure if he really needs a bureaucrat seat, but I don't think he would do harm if he did. Aqua (T|C) 22:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Solid sysop. Would prefer not to see him as bureaucrat, as there are others who grasp the position more firmly (he's decent at it, but weaker than others currently in the seats). Poke probably wouldn't let his bcrat tag slow down his sysoping, so that's a plus, but I still can't shake the feeling he'd perform best with solely sysop tools. -Auron 03:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• As per... everyone else. Invaluable Administrator, but I don't envisage him ever actually doing anything as a Bureaucrat. While he gets on superbly well with every member of the community, I'm not sure if he has a solid enough history of successful user mediation for my personal tastes. While Administrators may be the janitors of the wiki, the Bureaucrats are the leaders of the community. Simply being an excellent member of the community does not make one a leader of it. A F K When Needed 13:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• I see Poke as a capable administrator, with a lot of experience. -- Cyan 20:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• My main issue with the admins from GW1W is how many of them are not part of this community. They are not active enough here to understand how this place is simply different, and does not share the same mindset than the official wiki for the original game. This is one of poke’s faults – he is not active here at all. His list of contributions shows how he has done little here, with his last spout of activity being one year ago. The promise to be more active in the coming months is not reassuring – quite the opposite. If he’s not active here, I’m worried that he’s willing to come back as a sysop – he’s willing to manage a community he does not really understand, and probably without even thinking that he should first stop and learn a bit before being a sysop here. This is one of the reasons why I don’t believe he should be a sysop, and much less a bureaucrat, on the GW2 wiki.

The second reason is a matter of someone being in a position of power for simply too long. Both the individual himself and others become simply too used to it, in the case of poke in a detrimental way. I remember a discussion about the infobox design in which someone asked “why don’t we do X?” and the answer someone else provided was “because poke said he doesn’t like that”, with no further explanations given. The unspoken assumption was that, since poke is someone important, his opinion carries a lot of weight and thus the fact he does not like something already makes said something bad. This idea goes against the notion that admins do not have a bigger say than other users, and it’s the kind of thing that should be avoided; but with poke keeping a position of authority, I doubt it will be fixed any time soon. Poke himself is not free of this, either – he has never been the person most willing to listen to criticism himself, and comments such as “I have really better things to do than to have discussions about these details” point how, even to himself, he is someone of importance in this wiki.

The third reason is how his presence leads other people to be lazy. Whenever there’s a programming roadblock in any kind of project, the common answer is “let’s ask poke to do this for us”. The proper answer would be for the wiki to try to solve it itself, with people learning what they don’t know, instead of just relying on a single person, with a single point of view, for this kind of thing. Poke has a lot of knowledge about programming but a single point of view; the automatic solution that he is the only one with knowledge about this kind of thing is only holding the community from using tools he does not like.

Taking away the programming aspect... Poke has not done anything for this wiki, as far as admin tools are concerned. He has barely used the block tool, the deletion tool, or done any of the maintenance activities that sysops are expected to do. His bot, Wikichu, has been innactive since Feburary 2011. I don't believe we have the need for a sysop who's so focused on a single aspect of the "sysop" role (as far as coding is an aspect of being a sysop, which by itself is debatable) instead of being willing to embrace all, or at least most, tasks an admin is expected to do.

I think poke should not be a bureaucrat, or a sysop, or a contributor to this wiki – for now. I think the fact he’s currently busy with other things would be the perfect opportunity for he to be gone, and both make people adapt to his absence (so someone – hopefully multiple “someones” – will have to deal with the code-based problems we may get in the recent future) and allow him to return, in the future, as a common user who, as any new common user, has to learn about the community before trying to become an admin. Erasculio 20:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So the TLDR is: Too inactive, too influential, go away. --JonTheMon 21:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Erasculio, where should I start? I appreciate that you took time to do some research, given your own rather limited activity on either wiki too. However most of your “arguments” base around that I am not active here enough, compared to GWW. If you take a look at my activity at GWW too, you can easily see that the activity I explained in my introductory post is not limited to just this wiki. I really had very little time for anything. However that does not mean that I was not involved with either community during that time. While I didn’t have the time to do all the things I wanted to do, I was indeed still around, just silent. I still read quite a lot and still had contact – and I know you’ll dislike that – with part of the core members externally (like IRC). And as you apparently have not noticed, some of my “tasks” are already covered by others when I’m not around, and I’m perfectly fine with that.

During that time there were also some things where I indeed raised my opinions. I however don’t remember ever not explaining my opinions in some way, so if you really read such a comment, then I’m sorry that my opinion was quoted without the explanations. But in such a situation, I would like you to contact me on my talk page to clarify it, if you really have a problem with it. Apart from that, I can’t really help it that I was involved in so many decisions on GWW and that my opinion is valued due to my long history on the wikis. However I was, am, and always be, open to concerns, and I’m more than happy to reason my opinions or accept other’s opinions if they turn out well. What I don’t like however is talking to a wall, and to be honest with you, this is what discussing things with you usually feels like – probably not only to me – and this is also the reason for that quote from me. I’m already sure that you will skip the important points of this reply and just comment on some minor things, but I’m still trying to have the discussion about it.

To disappoint you; no, I won’t disappear, definitely not. I am far too attached to both wikis to disappear; the time I have spent on the wikis, with its community and the great people I got to know made the wikis a rather important part of my life, and I’m not going to throw that away. Yes, I have had a very busy time before in which I had very limited time for the wikis, and while it is definitly not becoming easier in my future, I am definitely coming back – maybe slowly, but steadily. It has been five years now since I started on GWW, and I actually hope that I can spend a similar amount of time focussing on GW2W with GW2’s release being imminent. poke | talk 21:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't make me very comfortable to read a reply to the inactivity argument based on "I was around, you just didn't see it". I'm somewhat curious about the idea of "core members", as I can't help but wonder if that truly means "GW2W core members" (...who?) or actually "GW1W core members who have kept their influence, but not their actions, on GW2W". And lastly, I can't help but notice how the only negative comment here is disqualified as coming from someone who's a "wall".

Jon, if you need a TL;DR: poke is too inactive to understand this community, too stubborn to realize he actually has to learn about this community before being an admin here, too unwilling to use the tools an admin is expected to use (deletions, blocks, etc), and too influential in all the wrong ways an admin should be influential. Erasculio 22:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don’t really understand where you got the idea that your comment is disqualified in any way, not to mention that it is definitely not the only negative-sided comment, at least how I see it (nonetheless it is obviously the most drastical comment). But this already confirms what I thought would happen: You again skipped most of the actual parts of my reply, which yes, just further firms this view of “Erasculio being a wall”. Those few members I have contact with obviously do include quite a few from GWW, but denying that those are part of the community would be highly inappropriate, but also some members who regularly contribute here and do not have any real reputation on GWW at all. poke | talk 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Eras, I'm somewhat alarmed by your opinion of poke's almighty status. He's not the only programmer in the admin lineup. In fact, JonTheMon is a professional programmer, Pling is a comp sci major Stephen Hawking, and I'm getting my bachelor's in CS in about a month. If poke were to poof, I have no doubt we would cope. But the reason that poke does the majority of coding is because he wants to. No matter how you skilled you are, programming is time-consuming and often frustrating work. We don't rely on poke out of necessity, we do because we are lazy and he is not. 23:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(Pling is actually studying physics, completely unrelated with CS; and I actually have a bachelor in CS. And there are a lot others around doing professional programming. Also, I would call myself very lazy actually ^^) poke | talk 23:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(Oops, I was thinking of Phenaxkian.) 23:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• If there is not a reason to limit seats in any category or capasity then i see no reason not to permit increased diversity and skill within the hierarchy so long as the individuals involved can "Play" well together without trying to pull things in different directions or to use personality conflicts to harm the public impression, and perception of the Wiki. Rudhraighe 16:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• I've been looking for a while to find substantial evidence of mediation on the part of Poke, but have not found enough to make a solid case for or against, including the link provided by Pling. What I do have evidence of and know is that Poke is intelligent, level-headed, and can be objective when needed. I am neutral to Poke as a bureaucrat, but fully support he retains his sysophood. — Gares 23:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Poke by far probably has to be one of the most capable and trusted administrators. I fully support his retention as sysop. -- Lacky 07:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• I've seen poke here and there. It's a fine and capable sysop/bureau. I don't have a lot to say further, but good luck on the RfA. Ge4ce-Talk-Contribs 11:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• There appears to be quite a voice for Poke thus far, so I shall weigh in as well. Firstly I agree that Poke does not appear to be the most active individual on the wiki, but I believe that this is not a negative point. I've seen him pop in then pop out, demonstrating a certain stalkiness to the wiki (which may I remind, is for a game yet to be released). I will not fault him for being semi-active as he has stated that outside issues draw his attention regularly. To that, I will state that his influence in the community and his willingness to help others far outweighs his semi-activeness. In the years drawing to this time, he has shown an ability to judge issues and disruptions without bias and with a fair hand. I feel that Poke's involvement, intelligence and willingness to help out in the community thus far is merit enough for him to retain his position at this wiki. Venom20 13:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• I find that my own opinion on poke's RfA is slightly more ambivalent than some of my other current conclusions. I would like to note that I feel his RfA statement starts him off on the wrong foot with those who, for whatever reason, actually do not know him--this is as small or as telling as one may make of it; mileages may vary, of course. As with most of the current considerations, there is very little to go on in terms of bureaucratic efficacy in the scope of this wiki. Many of the comments here have instead focused on his strength as a codemaker, which is not taken lightly. Observations from logs and in-wiki contributions are also more limited than some other candidates, and thus again this leaves less room to make a more assured statement. For these reasons, I am lacking my own justification as to why he should remain a bureaucrat; retention as sysop is less insecure and I would welcome that as he hopefully finds a comfortable balance for himself between this wiki and the other demands on his time. Redshift 11:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• As per Pling, poke is another great gem in this wiki and (imo) one of the main reasons why it's so trusted and valued within the Guild Wars 2 community. I can think of no other person who can fit the role of bcrat more than poke. --Naut 11:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Please leave an elaborate comment about why, or why not, the candidate should retain his seat. Discussions are desired!
• ...