Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Requests for adminship

Archive

---

• 2012

Break

Should we take a short break to figure out what we liked about the current process and what we would want to change? Or just start making changes to the reconfirmations and nominations as they go along? --JonTheMon 13:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally I feel we should address the Q&A section that was mentioned. Other than that we might as well continue the reconfirmations. - Infinite - talk 13:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, some options for the Q&A section are: response only by the nominee vs open to discussion and location, main page vs on talk page (with prominent link on main page). --JonTheMon 14:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally would prefer an open discussion. This also implies that to “vote” one does not necessarily have to add a new bullet point, but can rather just agree on what others said directly (as a subcomment). poke | talk 16:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, i think there are 2 ideas going on. Open Q&A section vs open discussion (general or psuedo-votes) --JonTheMon 17:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Would have been nice to take a break to do a few things:

1. Decide the format we are going to use. Other than Jon's question above on how to format questions to the nominee, it has been mentioned above that it would be useful if people could provide a clear indicator as to whether they're supporting someone, opposing or just being neutral. A few sections above it was mentioned using bold to highlight this, but I would actually suggest using something similar to GWW's model as seen here, with a Support section, an Oppose section and a Neutral section.
2. Decide how long we want a request for adminship to last. Are we going to keep the current ones running for two weeks? Are we going to keep the next ones for longer, shorter, same amount of time?
3. It would be nice to leave a notice at the talk page of the inactive sysops we are going to reconfirm soon, preferably a few days (IMO, a week) before starting their reconfirmations.

Erasculio 10:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And whilst we're at it, I want to address the current trend of lower quality bullets being added to the discussions. I was under the impression they needed to be more than simple support/oppose/neutral, and share some closer defined personal insight on a candidate instead. I think the format in the bureaucrat RfA period was fine overall, and only needed room for a Q&A section which has now been addressed. - Infinite - talk 12:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Especially after this round, there are a lot of both ambiguous responses (again, bolded brief statement about your opinion would be nice) and also a lot of "throw-away/GWW-esque" votes. I'm not sure if GW2W will ever be able to work off the GWW voting system concept, where you just say "sounds pretty cool" as your reason, but it would be nice if we could make it clear that those kinds of votes don't help and should not be made. However, votes that consist of "persons X and Y phrased my thoughts appropriately" then that is valid, because you've provided an explanation, albeit with another's words. Aqua (T|C) 23:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's fine to start talking about things to change and to start tweaking (like "bolding" support/oppose), but I think we should go through the reconfirmation for the rest of the sysops before making any big changes. -- ab.er.rant 03:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the opposite; if we find something to improve upon, it should be improved for the next opened rfa (or if possible, even the ongoing rfas). There are still quite a lot of sysops left to be reconfirmed; their rfas could bring up additional possible improvements. pling 09:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with pling. We've already implemented various changes since the first iteration in the bcrat reconfirmations, like formatting, Q&A section, ordering etc. I think it makes perfect sense to improve things on the go as we see things that needs improving. That said, I don't really agree with using the bolded support/oppose/neutral like GWW did. The bolded words sets too much of a tone for the rest of the comment/discussion and may skew the reader's impression of the comment. Leaving it w/o bolded words allows people to read the comment/discussion as a whole and not end up just tallying up the oppose/support/neutral votes. I really don't mind the short comments since it has no detail about anything so the comment should weigh little in comparison compared to someone posting a well written WoT comment with tons of details. --Lania 17:35, 03 May 2012 (UTC)

"However, votes that consist of "persons X and Y phrased my thoughts appropriately" then that is valid, because you've provided an explanation, albeit with another's words."

I'd argue that those comments are best left as sub-bullets to those users' comments.

• <lengthy comment about what a user feels>
  • I feel this comment represents my sentiment exactly.

Or something like that. I don't feel those comments stand-alone add anything to the discussion. It's like having 3 members around a table, and another 10 members simply there to say that one of the 3 main members is phrasing exactly what they were thinking. These members should not be at the main table. - Infinite - talk 17:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I really like that idea. I think that will help it from getting cluttered with 4-10 word on liners on the main bullets. --Lania 17:49, 03 May 2012 (UTC)

@Lania: The summary is because often people are relatively unclear on their direct opinion. It's not and never should be a simply vote tally and I'm sure whoever closes the RfA will read all of the comments in their entirety before making a decision. Aqua (T|C) 01:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

When they are unclear about their opinion then that means they are unsure about the candidate. Even when someone say support or oppose, their language and tone sometimes says otherwise. Either way, i doubt it'll affect final outcomes even if we do choose to clearly specify support/oppose/neutral etc. --Lania 18:14, 05 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding bolded support/neutral/oppose (or more clearly defined variations of such) can not cause any detrimental effects to this format of RfA. Consensus will still need to be read into, exactly because of the format. Not reading into the actual comments would be exceptionally bad practise of bureaucrats, which we only very recently reconfirmed. We (as a community) believe the current bureaucrats are quality bureaucrats; suggesting they'd ignore the comments and just go by simple tally on this format would indicate otherwise. - Infinite - talk 20:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

E-mails

For general information, I've just e-mailed all the inactive sysops asking them to come indicate whether they're still interested in sysophood, and to start reconfirmations if so. I'll give it about two weeks, then demote anyone who hasn't responded. - Tanetris 06:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's been about two weeks and we've seen certain responses. I think it's about time to conclude our reconfirmations (removing the remainder of the non-active sysops from the list) and move on to the possible nominations for new blood to be discussed. - Infinite - talk 22:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, was gonna do that yesterday, got a bit busy. Handled though. - Tanetris 23:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the short-notice actions. - Infinite - talk 23:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

With the recons wrapped up...

I think it's time for new blood. I think Aqua and infinite definitely should be nominated. It's also a good time to figure out how nominations work here and we can do it the same as GWW or do something new. --Lania 04:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that it should just be if you think you (or another person) should be an admin, then start an RfA on their behalf. If you start someone else's RfA, make sure they are aware of it, and they can accept or decline as they see fit. It doesn't have to be too complex. Aqua (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Just ask them on their talk page if they want to undergo RfA, and if they do, make the page (and mention that it was a nomination). Starting the RfA and putting the page up before the nominee even accepts has a couple of problems: 1. this page gets pinged on watchlists without the RfA having properly started, 2. if the nomination is rejected, we've got things to clean up, 3. the RfA looks messy :P. pling 18:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh derp, I wasn't thinking too clearly that night with a little bit too much to drink and being a little too impulsive. Thanks for cleaning it up while infinite was still deciding. --Lania 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

wording

"Explanation of why the candidate should retain rights/be given additional rights."

Strictly speaking, doesn't this mean that people who disagree with a user being given sysop rights shouldn't be commenting at all? Vili 点 00:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so - if you have reasons for not wanting to see someone get more rights, you should state them. Maybe the wording should be adjusted a bit. --Ee 07:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've adjusted it accordingly. - Infinite - talk 10:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

promote or not

The discussions on each of the current RFA's seem to have died out. I don't know how things are done here with RFA's, if they have a set period of time that they have to be open or something, but since nobody seems to be arguing or talking about it anymore, maybe we could have some bureaucrat decisions? --El_Nazgir 09:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

we usually wait 2 weeks. after the start.- Zesbeer 10:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's ok, we haven't forgotten about the RfAs :). I wouldn't say there's a time limit on RfAs - my criteria is roughly "enough input", "been a while since comments", "decision can be made". pling 16:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What Pling means is he's waiting on me to finish the wall of text explanation for one of the results. - Tanetris 18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks for the explanation. --El_Nazgir 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to reading your WoT or multiple WoTs :) --Lania 19:15, 07 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolving an RfA

Who decides when it ends?

And who decides on the outcome of the process? Based on what?

And why isn't that mentioned on teh RfA page? Obfuscation on purpose? ;-P

Just curious. Cheers, Steve1 (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The answer to your first two questions is basically I do. Specifically, Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Bureaucrats do, which is currently myself and User:Poke. - Tanetris (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

And what do you base your decision on? I guess it's not just counting "Yes" and "No"s. Steve1 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no exact formula, but generally we weigh the arguments presented both for and against (and neutral as well), consider the overall level of trust the community has for the candidate, then apply a dash of discretion on things like whether the community is trusting (or distrusting) the person for valid reasons and whether there are any 'red flags'. If the ultimate decision appears to go against general community consensus (or there is no apparent general community consensus), we of course explain the particulars of what led to that decision. You can see that on the talk pages of some past RFAs and reconfirmations, if you wanna go poking around Category:Resolved_RFAs and Category:Resolved reconfirmations. - Tanetris (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Interesting reads.

2 folks with so much to say, weird. Nevermind. ;) Steve1 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd equate it to how some countries treat the Queen of England (or at least in Canada, the Governor General). If the process works well, then those at the top shouldn't have any say, as the community should come to a consensus which our bureaucrats simply follow. G R E E N E R 19:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)