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

Basic set-up

I have listed what this community appears to agree on and created the page based on that. - Infinite - talk 12:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a question. Under "Recent Reconfirmation Attempts" it says that they need their most recent RFA. As they were all grandfathered, they don't have RFAs on this wiki. So are we just going to link to their GWW/GWiki RFA or is that just for future RfRc after people have been promoted through RFAs here? Aqua (T|C) 15:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If they were grandfathered, their most recent GWW RFA is relevant to their position, was my impression. - Infinite - talk 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There's apparently disagreement on whether or not any stock at all should be placed in external work. However, not all of the GW2W admins have GWW RfAs-- I assume you also believe GuildWiki's should be linked if there isn't a GWW one. Which should be linked if there are both? – Emmett 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In case of both GW wikis, I think they should both be linked, not just one of the two. Although it feels weird to not see any GWW RFAs for some GW2W admins, but that's probably just me. - Infinite - talk 15:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe I am the only active sysop here who was not also one at some point on GWW. My most recent RfA actually didn't coincide with my most recent promotion, however, so feel free to work around me. 15:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Decision makers

Who actually decides if a nominated user should be promoted? Sysops? Bcrats? Solely community with votes? Bcrats based on the general consensus of the community? General support:oppose ratio of 3:1?

I personally think that it should be community driven, but that bcrats should have enough discretion to influence it one way or the other. --JonTheMon 15:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that statement, as long as the bureaucrats do not shoot down clear community decisions (85%+ support, for instance, would be extremely clear). If they do strongly oppose they should react, rather than oppose proactively. They can always tell us "told you so" if it turns out their insights were correct. The community needs to learn via trial and error from time to time, as well. - Infinite - talk 15:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that focus should be on the community, but the decision should also take into account the bcrats thoughts (given that they do generally know what they're doing) and if they have a strong opinion in either direction they should voice it during the discussion, with everyone else, instead of at the conclusion. Aqua (T|C) 18:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My opinion should probably be taken with a grain of salt, as I am, of course, a current bcrat.

That said, simply from the way that wiki software is set up, user rights changes are always done by a bcrat, so it would be silly to suggest it isn't ultimately up to the bcrats' judgment. The thing is that a bcrat has two judgments involved: their personal judgment of the candidate, and their judgment of what "community opinion" is (which is itself a tricky thing taking a single message from a myriad of divergent voices). There are obvious cases where one can override the other: where the community obviously wholeheartedly endorses a candidate and the bcrat isn't personally convinced, that's a promote, and where the community is fairly neutral to mildly supportive where it would otherwise be a no-action, a bcrat that really believes in the candidate could go out on a limb and promote. There are no numbers that can tell you when one should trump the other, particularly when not all "votes" are equal (A "Support. Why not, I guess. - ~~~~" does not and should not ever have the same weight as a clear and well-reasoned argument one way or the other) (this is one reason I support trying a system like Wikipedia's AfDs, to get rid of the numbers and encourage reasoned arguments and discussions); it's something you look at on a case by case basis. And if a bcrat is clearly doing it wrong, get rid of the bcrat. - Tanetris 18:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I was actually going to propose serious arguments when supporting/opposing, rather than the "ur kewl" supports I've seen on GWW in the past. In short, I agree with Tanetris on bureaucrat discretion. There will be not-so-clear scenarios eventually; obviously the final decisions there should be left to the bureaucrats. - Infinite - talk 18:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Another big strength of wiki's AfD esque voting is that it helps circumvent vote bombing a candidate if said candidate has a "fan"- or "hate"-base on the wiki... which can be a problem if there is a popular editor that the community loves but isn't quite level headed. Instances of that problem occured a few times in previous wikis, and other major wiki sites where it was decided more/less by pure numbers. So, yeah I totally agree the number of votes should never trump well reasoned arguments. I think each support/neutral/oppose etc should always come with some type of a well thought out reason as to why in addition to a pretty tough Q/A discussion on the talk page to help give bcrats a good handle on how the community feels, and how the candidates react to "probing" questions. Even if 90% of the community supports a candidate I think brcats should totally shoot them down if they feel the candidate is not ready along with a wallish of text reason as to why. --Lania 19:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A person who disregards 90% of the community's opinion to enforce his own should never be given authority of any kind. 19:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not if that community opinion was almost entirely based on fanbase support for the editor with a minority of scathing arguments that raises serious doubts about the candidate. Like a very popular player and wiki editor but also engages in malicious trolling or is overly aggressive and/or highly emotional, that fan the flames of conflict. --Lania 19:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Even with good and detailed arguments, it's hard to fanbase a user into sysophood because not enough users here are mindless fans. Sysops should all be objective enough to intervene in that fanbase process, as well. - Infinite - talk 19:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It could reach that point somewhere down the line. Not right now on this wiki, but it is a possibility. I do believe the community should have their say in who is granted sysop rights. But to keep the scenario that Lania posed from happening, bcrats will have discretion if adequate examples are not given as to why a particular person should be given sysop rights. Examples such as positive mediating, conflict resolution, helpfulness, active, intelligent posts in discussions, maturity level, patience, etc. It should be a decision based upon fact and evidence or lack thereof, not opinion. Sysops can help to dissuade any extreme idolizing/fandom, so bcrats can remain unbiased for their accepted/denied decision. — Gares 22:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all self-evident in what an RfA represents; if fanboys are +1'ing their friends, they're not participating in an RfA, they're +1'ing their friends. (Though I think bureaucrats could moderate the RfA just as much as, or more than, sysops. An impression of being unbiased is important, yes, but more so is reinforcing the principles of the RfA and supporting your sysops. The more bureaucrats are seen to do everyday things, the less likely their actions will be seen to be simultaneously high-and-mighty (ala Supreme Court of Arbcomm), and impotent and purely procedural (hey guiz my job is countin ur rfa votes).) pling 23:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is self-evident, but not to most users. A lot follow by someone else's lead, which is why we always want positive and helpful contributors. Instead of ignoring the behavior of +1-ing and "he's kewl", I would suspect discouraging it would be a better option. A generalized statement or remarking that more substance is encouraged from comment makers.

Also, I too would rather have a bureaucrat that was more likely to help out. That was not the case on GWW, which is one of the reasons I resigned as a bureaucrat. But a bureaucrat should not be needed to step in on every situation. Bureaucrats get scrutinized with every post they make in voting discussions for any type of ammo that could be used to call bcrat bias should a vote not go someone's way. Trust will have to be placed that admins will be able to handle their duty so as not to jeopardize the duty of the bureaucrat. — Gares 00:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All admins get scrutinised, but we don't stop them from making comments, talking to users, or warning people because of it. We rely on their judgement to realise when it is and isn't appropriate for them to act. We choose those users we can trust to do so. Similarly, we should choose bureaucrats whom we trust to act appropriately. I don't think we should restrict bureaucrats from the beginning on the fear that some people might wikilawyer their comments. It's little things like this, this fear that bureaucrats will be neutered by people criticising their actions, that led to GWW neutering its bureaucrats in advance, and I don't like that as a response - instead, we should deal with the root problem of people either misunderstanding bureaucrats' actions or maliciously using them to cause disruption - the first by transparent discussion and constant involvement of the bureaucrat in the RfA, and the second by warning and/or blocking. pling 15:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In day to day operations, bureaucrats should do just what administrators do. I see that happening a lot on here. Just that right there is a big difference from how bureaucrats work on GWW. Please do not misunderstand. I was not referring to weaken individuals that are likely to excel in situations such as reconfirmation and RfA discussions. My concern is not anything that I feel should be mandated, just one I feel needs expressing. During matters that require a bureaucrat's or team of bureaucrat's decision, such as reconfirmations and RFAs, practicing restraint, or stepping back to see the big picture, seems more a priority than constant involvement. It is not an action caused by fear, but one caused by wisdom and self-sacrifice. I know most users do not like sitting on the sidelines, so for a bureaucrat to do this in order to prove they are impartial and objective, shows commitment to the community. — Gares 00:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies things, particularly the mandating/expressing part. My own view is that discerning impartiality and objectivity is easier when the bureaucrat says what he's thinking rather than just thinking it. The bureaucrat could take part in the RfA discussion as anyone else would, for example discussing the merits of the candidate and telling others to contribute constructively, so his personal thoughts would be known; when it comes to making the decision itself, then yeah, carefully reviewing all the input and seeing the big picture is important. pling 17:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

RfA

Question- Can I register an account during the RfA and have my RfA comment be my first edit? A F K When Needed 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. As long as the content of the post is quality, the poster matters little. -Auron 13:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Same for Bureaucrats, or just Administrators? A F K When Needed 14:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't RfA bureaucrats. -Auron 14:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

How will they get chosen (and reconfirmed)? pling 15:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Picking a suitable replacement when they get tired/retire. I don't see much of a need to reconfirm them unless they do something wrong. Not trusting them enough was the crux of the issue on GWW - they needed to be friends with the sysops while also holding their leash (like on gwiki), and they weren't allowed to do any of it because of the terrible arbcomm system they were tied to. If they fuck up majorly, a standard reconfirmation should be sufficient - as long as we arent doing bimonthly elections, I'll be happy. -Auron 02:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if that becomes the process later on (not necessarily saying it should or shouldn't; it's probably too early for that), what about reconfirming the current, grandfathered bureaucrats? The consensus seems to be to reconfirm those (us) as well as the sysops. pling 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason not to reconfirm us the exact same way as reconfirming the other admins (albeit with a more careful mind to bias/appearance of bias... e.g. you can't mark your own reconfirmation successful ;))? - Tanetris 19:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what I had in mind, but I wasn't sure how Auron/others wanted to go about it. pling 19:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, as long as they don't become straight up votes to be held every x number of months, etc :p -Auron 08:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

^. Tho I don't see the point of reconfirming Pling and Tanetris other than for the sake of reconfirming everyone; for Poke, Xeeron, and An.er.rant I think it would be appropriate. Poke will probably come back but i dunno about the others? Anyone have any luck contacting the inactives? But if we're going to reconfirm bcrats as well, we might as well start with them first kinda in a top-down apporach. --Lania 17:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of top-down approach; we might as well reconfirm in that order, but as stated bureaucrats prior to sysops. - Infinite - talk 17:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

*“Poke will probably come back”* – I didn’t go, I just went a bit silent. poke | talk 17:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So Pling, poke, Tanetris, Aberrant, Xeeron? I'm ok with that. How should the RfA itself go? I'm happy to try Tane's idea (AfD-style, something like this). Discussions under each bullet-point comment should, imo, stay there instead of being moved to a separate page, so the RfA isn't fragmented across pages. That way, we also ensure that discussing plays as important a part as commenting. If the discussions become large, we can add ====subheaders==== for those particular discussions so they're easy to edit. pling 21:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the AfD-style set-up would work perfectly for RfAs. Anything to avoid +1 voting by just typing out "support." Constructive votes are definitely the most meaningful votes and should present a much clearer insight. - Infinite - talk 22:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I been out of the loop, but why is this only just happening now? There could be the biggest flood of new info here ever in just 16 more days and some of it might not even fit the old Formats we're used to. Also: Are bcrats going to be able to just jam new admins through with less than 60% approval? --ilr 06:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they provide valid reasoning. There is no policy demanding a minimum support/oppose ratio, so in theory, they could promote whoever they wished - in fact, that's happened on this wiki already. The reasoning given for that promotion was "because I could," so the promotion was counteracted, but the decision is always ultimately up to the bureaucrats. -Auron 09:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Adminship role

As per User_talk:Erasculio#pling_and_poke it seems that there are some fundamental differences about sysop roles, and that is causing some extreme views of candidates actions and intentions. So, in short, are sysops glorified janitors or are they leaders of the community that have demonstrated they can use the tools well?

For myself, I think they should be able to do both, but be selected for the latter. The glorified janitor works for most things, except those where you really want the experience and knowledge of sysop to handle a situation. Now, often times a sysop will settle into a role at one end of the spectrum or the other, but it'd be foolish to say they can only be a sysop at one end only. --JonTheMon 04:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

When choosing sysops, we have to know we can trust the candidate's judgement as well as their ability to physically use a tool. Therefore, in administrative issues, admins' actions/comments do have more weight than non-admins because they are the very users we have entrusted to deal with said admin issues. Bureaucrats have more weight than sysops because they ultimately decide who the sysops are. So admins aren't just janitors. If you think they're leaders, they're leaders only in admin issues - when the consensus isn't clear or reasonable.

Of course, in content issues admins' edits/comments have no more weight than non-admins' simply for being admins, and I think people do usually point that out when someone gets the wrong impression. pling 18:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The way I like to think about it from a nonadmin's perspective is that sysops's comments tend to have more weight in admin related issues is because the admins tend to have more experience in those issues compared to a nonadmin. This leads to arguments and comments to be more well thought out and convincing compared to nonadmins during user conflicts, and other admin issues. I think when nonadmins also make very convincing arguments in admin issues i like to think that can at times, tho rarely, change how things are dealt. So, yeah in my perspective I do tend to think whoever has the best well thought out, logical, and convincing arguments tend to win the day. Just with admin related issues, admins have more insight and experience than regular users so they are just naturally better at making these kinds of arguments. With content related issues, no one really has an edge in making convincing arguments unless it's the user's specialty. Content programming or code related issues are probably more well commented by programmers, while math/formula issues are probably commented more effectively by math geeks etc. --Lania 20:00, 05 April 2012 (UTC)

Sysops are janitors, IMO. They are common users who have been given access to maintenance-based tools. The fact they have been chosen by the community to use those tools means we are expected to believe in their discretion, and allow them to use the maintenance tools as they see fit, without second-guessing them at every turn.

I heavily disagree on the notion of admins as "leaders of the community". I also believe that saying sysops are "leaders only in admin issues" is, other than bad word play, somewhat far from the truth. Does a sysop have more say in this discussion, about what are sysops expected to do, than everyone else in the community?

(Incidentally, from the point of view above, a sysop who does not want to use the maintenance tools is not really a sysop.) Erasculio 01:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

One large thing that you are forgetting is that sysops are often moderators as well. Normal users can moderate and assist in conversation and arguments, but sysops can enforce civility or a direction on the issue, which is one reason we trust them with the tools. That's one way in which they "lead". --JonTheMon 03:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sysops can't enforce a direction on an issue of content discussion, for example, unless you are assuming that admins have more say on matters of content than most users. Sysops can't really enforce something beyond what a common user already can other than by threatening to use the sysop tools to block someone; as a community, we should be able to deal with the great majority of arguments and conversations without requiring a block or the threat of a block.

This isn't a forum, to require moderation; more importantly, a wiki community should not be seen as a bunch of children needing adults to keep it under watch, but rather as a group of mature individuals who can solve the significantly great majority of conflicts by itself, without the need of some kind of intervention. Solving conflicts is not and should not be an attribution of sysops; solving conflicts is the main reason why articles have talk pages, and it's something the community is expected to do by itself.

(And besides, it's not uncommon to see sysops causing conflicts, intead of stopping them.) Erasculio 03:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no age limit to edit a wiki, and we do in fact have to babysit children sometimes. For instance, Scythe. 04:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"We" the sysops, or "we" the community? And c'mon, you know what I meant :-P Erasculio 04:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Specifically we sysops in this case. But my point is you cannot assume everyone will be a mature and responsible individual, because it's the internet. 04:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe we will have to block so many people due to immature and irresponsible behavior in order to need a sysop most of the time. And other than blocking people, an admin is as equipped to deal with conflicts as any other user. The idea that we need sysops to be "moderators" is IMO false, when common users can (and should) have the role of intervening when a situation gets out of control without the need for admin action. Erasculio 04:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that at times, regular users by themselves can't get the situation under control, and other times fan the flames instead. Hasn't really happened much in GW2W but it will occur more often in the future. Right now GW2W doesn't need much active admin action because the community is still small and most people work well together. It's not going to stay the same as the community grows as more immature/disruptive users come here. --Lania 04:48, 06 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... do you not agree that having an admin intervene in a flame war by blocking the participants is a good pre-emption of a potentially disruptive situation? That would be a form of moderation, would it not? -- ab.er.rant 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Jon has he right idea regarding how admins are thought about on this wiki. I seriously doubt we're dealing with the "janitor" vs "leader" thing ala GWW. From the comments of the primarily GW2W users on the RfA pages, it would appear that the majority thinks "somewhere in the middle". And since this wiki has gone so long without defining that, seems safe to assume that the majority are not too concerned about where exactly is this "somewhere in the middle". -- ab.er.rant 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Observations on RfA so far

Hi there. I'm watching the RfAs so far and am honestly finding it hard to comment because, for me, at least, there is really so little to go on for some of these. Half of them have been self-admittedly distant and quiet in the community. This isn't inherently a negative, but it also, as has been said, doesn't constitute or provide evidence for members of the community to make a decision unless one has already had prior history with the individual.

This leads me to my second thought, in that a lot of these conversations are feeling a little bit like a closed club--I'm not quite sure if there's any 'new blood' providing input here. Again, this isn't necessarily negative, and it might be just the nature of the beast. It does, however, make for a strange crossroads: the refrain is that this is not the GW1W community, nor should it be treated as such, but the impression I get is that it is dominantly a crossover crowd relying on crossed-over history. Those who are unfamiliar with this current round of reconfirmations might just have to rely on trust, which I feel should be recognized as something that is both fair and unfair. Fair in that true, discretion and judgment and good use of tools are portable traits, and that secondhand history carries some amount of weight. Unfair in that some of us have to rely only on trust to have someone return to a position of trust, regardless of how close that position might be to being a 'glorified janitor.' And a note on that: I'd rather work top-down from expectations. Janitors have the key to everything. I would not want someone I didn't trust as a janitor. Hope this makes sense. Redshift 11:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your statement is perfectly fair. I'd just like to point out that, given that you are willing to spend the time, you can know just as much about any of the candidates as everyone else around. Since all relevant places are wikis, you can look at all actions ever taken by a candidate.

E.g. here are the links that should tell you pretty much everything about my activities on GWW:

• User page
• User talk page
• Contributions
• blocks done
• User rights changes
• RFA
• Bureaucrat elections: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

You can also look up the account on all other wikis, it is always the same name. --Xeeron 10:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and for being clear with the list of references. I do want to note that to do this, in my opinion, might be cumulatively an undue amount of work for the audience: To look this up maybe once or twice is one thing, but for every single individual on one's own effort because a candidate hasn't been present in this current community? In essence, I feel that the onus should be on the individual being RfA'd to give the reasons to be reconfirmed rather than, however unintentionally, building an expectation for others to look for reasons to support. (Not that there isn't fair footwork involved, but there needs to be a balance.)

I think in my considerations that the idea I'm returning to is the idea that there's really not much history here for the RfAs. This might just be a peculiarity of 'the first' (set of confirmations/reconfirmations) that, when looked back on, needs to be understood for what it was. Redshift 11:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not fond of using actions on GW1W (or GuildWiki or PvX Wiki) as a way to judge if someone would be a good admin for this wiki. A kind of adminship that may be considered great in one of those wikis may not be seen as good here; an action taken on other wiki that was reprimendad there may have been seen as something nice here, and so on. People with knowledge about the other wikis and enough knowledge to take each action in its own context can extrapolate and access if someone who was a good sysop on, say, PvX wiki would be a good sysop here, sure; but I don't think we should expect people from this community to have that degree of knowledge about the other communities.

Saying "I was a good sysop in another wiki, so I can be a good sysop here" is not nearly enough. I would rather see actions here showing that someone can be a good sysop than actions somewhere else. The fact that the great majority of the current sysops and bureaucrats do not have those actions here is, to me, a sign that they should not be admins anymore, not a sign that we have to look elsewhere to see what they have done. Erasculio 13:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think good judgment and impartiality and all that are pretty universal qualities for adminship, and displays of them on other wikis leads me to believe that that person is capable of displaying them here. The only thing missing is awareness of community standards, but even then having the above qualities should still prevent them from doing anything too stupid while they catch up. I don't see where your lack of faith in retaining personality traits that are good for adminship stems from. – Emmett 14:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The definition of what is "good judgment" is not the same between all communities. Someone who's just taking a glance at a sysop's actions in other wikis could see said sysop being congratulated there for good judgment thanks to an action that here would have been seen as something bad. Stopping to learn about the context of each action in the other wikis would let someone know about this kind of thing, but I don't believe in demanding people here to make such a deep study in how the other wikis work.

The current admins here are mostly saying "if someone is a good admin in GW1W or GuildWiki, he would be a good admin here". Which is not surprising, since the current admins here happen to be the admins from GW1W or GuildWiki. I would rather have the point of view that if someone has been a good admin here, he will continue to be a good admin here. If not, well... Erasculio 14:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of how a specific user who demonstrates good judgment on GWW doesn't demonstrate it (through actions, not inactivity) here? Aqua (T|C) 14:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, Aqua. Which old heated discussion would you like me to mention, so we can start them again?

I would rather (and IMO it's considerably healthier to) point the opposite: how a lot of users have demonstrated good judgment on GW1W but have not done anything to demonstrate said good judgment here. If your argument is that they have not done so because there was no need for them... Nice, they are not needed as admins, so we can let their admin status go. Erasculio 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole reason we are doing this now is because we are predicting a need for more active admins as the release date approaches. As far as I can tell I can't find any examples where a level headed, capable, and fair admin from one wiki suddenly became a massive troll at another. For example Felix demonstrates fairly consistent behavior between all three guild wars related wikis. You can bring up the case of Misery who was a PvX admin, but I don't recall any disruptions that Misery has caused on GWW, and when "they" were active Misery was an effective admin. --Lania 15:00, 06 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Admins who have been completely inactive should and probably will be demoted when we get to that round of RfAs. On the other hand, those who have contributed, who have earned that trust with this community and clearly know what they're doing, should remain. The wiki is relatively small and relatively young and thus often it is better to look at GWW, where the game is out and conflicts have occurred and various admins have handled them. When I say that I think a person should or shouldn't be a sysop, I evaluate them primarily based on what they've done here. If I *have* to go to GWW, then that reflects negatively on them in terms of how I feel about their adminship. However, people don't magically change outlook or personal traits between wikis. That being said, you have to do something to earn this community's trust rather than say that "I did good elsewhere."

Again, could you please not deflect my questions and actually answer them? Aqua (T|C) 15:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Lania, if you don't believe admins from one wiki can be seen as trolls on another, take a look here. That is the list of GW1W users that were considered trolls and in need of long-term blocks, per Pling's comments here. Many of them are and/or were admins on PvX wiki. Different communities have different points of view regarding what is a good admin and what is a troll.

Aqua, if you think a sysop cannot rest only on laurels won on other wiki, instead having to earn this community's trust... Why exactly are you disagreeing with me? Erasculio 15:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Except no one is seriously (hell, even jokingly) saying PvX has anything to do with anything we do here or want to do here or have done here or will do here. PvX is not, shall we say, a conventional wiki - stop using it as an example. We're talking about GWW and GuildWiki, two wikis whose aims are broadly similar to ours (documenting the game) and for the most part see as disruption what we would also see as disruption. They can't be completely ignored just as they can't be completely relied upon. pling 15:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Eras- PvX is really an odd wiki, and really shouldn't be used as an example. Also I said level headed, fair, rational, and capable admins. The vast majority of admins in PvX were trolls themselves and were far from "capable" or rational. --Lania 15:54, 06 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's an absolutely fair concern to have if you don't know who an admin is and aren't comfortable taking the "old guard"'s word for it. The reason actions on GWW and GuildWiki carry weight with many of us is that we already have the full context those actions have taken place under; if you don't have that context, there's nothing wrong with dismissing those actions as meaningless to you. If you want to make your !vote on any/all of the reconfirmations that you don't have faith in an admin because they haven't demonstrated the qualities you're looking for in an admin on this wiki, I encourage you to put that !vote on the reconfirmation page(s). One of the components, perhaps even the defining component, of a good admin is having the trust of the community. If a large portion of the community doesn't trust someone being reconfirmed, that's something we need to hear about.

By the same token, it's also fair to say "I've seen this person admin on GWW/GWiki for years. I haven't the slightest doubt he/she/it will bring the same level of dedication and fairness here." Neither is an inherently "wrong" argument, though both are certainly weaker than pointing to examples of exhibiting either good or poor adminly behavior. It's certainly not black & white; there are varying levels of activity/involvement on this wiki, and different people have different views of what's "enough". Part of building a consensus is hearing from all sides.

Building on that, as well as specifically replying to "I'm not quite sure if there's any 'new blood' providing input here": I will simply note that the whole point of the reconfirmations is to get input from the whole community. Anyone who wants a say in things need only say something. - Tanetris 16:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

IF we really want new blood, should we put it in the sitenotice? --JonTheMon 16:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I would like to clarify that my hesitancy to put forth individual commentary stems from a number of fronts. I do believe that these prior histories carry some modicum of weight. I do trust some of the other critique being placed forward. However, I am finding that secondhand knowledge falls short of constituting my own support--in terms of knowledge, I would like my own. To that end, I'd honestly likely be fine with temporary retention (with an addendum that these RfAs, however necessary, feel premature). However, in result, that seems like a support, when it isn't so much. In the end, saying yea or nay seems arbitrary: in terms of trust, I simply feel that I do and I don't. Redshift 22:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

@Redshift, I understand how you feel. I also try to find the facts myself to make up my own mind. And it is a time consuming task finding good, solid examples. Don't be afraid to comment on what you know. I see that as having an innocent quality and that can be just as useful in decision making as comments from people that have known a user for years. However, if you do want more information than can be found on this wiki to make a more informed decision, look at GWW and GWiki. Talk pages make an excellent starting point and not that time consuming of a read. I'm sure if it were asked, users would oblige and find examples, such as Xeeron did. I had been thinking of doing that myself, to save users from having to search themselves.

@Jon, I think a sitenotice might bring in a few more to respond, but I am being optimistic when I write that. I think those users that contribute currently and care about these proceedings are already responding here and there. Now, there may be some users that might be interested, but are hesitant to post, if they are new contributors. A sitenotice would be an additional way to invite others post and extend a more obvious "welcome mat".

The way I am gathering information for my comments are from here, GWW, and GWiki. I have seen the concern brought forth by Eras. It's my opinion that to make as informed a decision as possible, one has to use all available information provided. With most of these bureaucrats/syops going up for RfA, there are years of documentation on how they have performed in a sysop position, what their core values are, examples of what situations they have perfomed best/worst at, communication skill level, average activity levels, etc. Some have been doing it across multiple wikis with differing communities of users. All information should be regarded as substantial. That is not to say those actions on other wikis should take precedent over the examples or lack of examples found on this wiki, but they should still be taken into account. Aqua stated, ""The wiki (GW2W) is relatively small and relatively young and thus often it is better to look at GWW, where the game is out and conflicts have occurred and various admins have handled them."". This is true. I may find only one example of how an admin handles conflict resolution here due to various circumstances (not a lot of conflicts, conflicts already resolved, inactivity of admin, etc.). In that, I cannot make a solid claim that this particular admin is adept/inept at handling conflicts. However, I can add to that one example, multiple other examples of conflict resolution from GWW and GWiki and make a more comprehensive claim on how the admin handles those particular issues. Things of this nature do not necessarily fall under following policies that are not the same on GW2W. They fall under universal values and virtues (temperance, responsibility, trust, wisdom, teamwork, etc.) that a person should display regardless of what wiki they are/were apart of. — Gares 21:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been checking these pages for a while but i'm staying out of discussions or confirmations. Too new to say anything remotely useful, i'd simply favor those who bring me chocolate cookies.--Ee 08:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a part of something that concerns me because doing research in this wiki and past wiki does take a lot of time and is in part a kind of a "barrier" that precludes some people from participating effectively in these discussions. Even people who are not new but haven't kept up with the politics of the wiki might find it difficult to say anything useful or novel. I think people shouldn't concern themselves with trying to say something novel or useful but more important to voice an opinion. But then again, making an informed opinion still does take a lot of research. This does makes me wonder if we are narrowing our viewpoint too much or not since a lot of people are probably a little too afraid to say something that they think is "dumb". If that's the case, how do we encourage people to say something?--Lania 18:41, 09 April 2012 (UTC)

Top-down

At this point it looks like we are going for top-down discussions, to get the bcrats in place before we reconfirm/add sysops. Would this be the time to add any new bcrats or would that happen as we go through the next phase? --JonTheMon 16:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If we add new bureaucrats now, they can help decide whether to keep the old bureaucrats. 17:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

But first the old bureaucrats would need to decide whether to add the new bureaucrats. :P

Either way (now or later), I don't think it matters much, unless we end up with too few bureaucrats to decide sysop recons/RfAs. pling 18:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The way things are going right now, I expect we'll only have two bureaucrats after the reconfirmations finish. That's too few imo. 21:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

3-4 is probably the way to go, 2 is definitely not enough. -Auron 04:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I was going to just agree here, but keep in mind that if an old bureaucrat is not reconfirmed, it is basically the community saying that this person does not have the full trust needed to be bureaucrat. It would be somehow weird if this non-trusted person was responsible for picking someone into the most powerful position on the wiki. I can't really see any of the less active bureaucrats being the decisive vote. --Xeeron 10:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remove the bureaucrats that will fail reconfirmation, and then pick new ones in a process focused more on community consensus than the opinion of the remaining bureaucrat(s), since we will have so few of those. It wouldn't bother me if, after the current round of reconfirmations, we end with a single bureaucrat, and then had to pick one or two new ones; in fact, that's the outcome I'm hoping for. Erasculio 13:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we'll end up with a sequence of: reconfirm bcrats, add new bcrats, reconfirm sysops (multiple waves?), add new sysops ? --JonTheMon 14:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I would actually prefer to go from where we are to reconfirming sysops, adding new sysops, and then picking new bureaucrats from the pool of sysops. Since bureaucrats are basically sysops who can change user rights, I doubt very much we would have someone suited to be a bureaucrat that would not be suited to be a sysop. Erasculio 14:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So you wouldn't want any new bcrats to be involved in the sysop decision-making? --JonTheMon 14:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I would rather have the community more involved than usual this time. Erasculio 14:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion would be that, if you're thinking someone who's already a sysop, a question of whether or not to promote them to bcrat can just be part of their reconfirmation. As for brand-new admins (bcrat and/or sysop), I would lean toward settling reconfirmations first, but wouldn't have a problem with mixing them in with the sysop reconfirmations. - Tanetris 16:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Scattered discussions

Now that the rfa process for bcrats are now at full swing, it seems like some of the discussions has spread to some of the user talk pages participating in the process. I think people should feel encouraged to keep discussions within the talk page here or on the respective canidate's rfa discussions area so that people won't have to jump between pages to keep track of the relevant discussions. I wonder if it would be helpful to add links for some of these scattered discussions so that interested parties could fine and read them easily. --Lania 19:49, 06 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, related links on each RfA's discussion page would be fine. pling 20:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking that, but then I started to realize that some of these discussions don't seem to have a good place to put them. This one deals with both Pling and Poke, while This discussion is about admins in general. This one is specific to Ab.er.rant but I'm not sure where would be a good place to put them. So far those three are the only ones that I know about. --Lania 21:16, 06 April 2012 (UTC)

Nominating...

How do we go about nominating someone? There are a few people I would like to put forward since it does look like we're going to be left with only 2 bcrats after the rfa dust settles... which as others have said is too small a number. Maybe there is a possibility for existing admins to be bcrats at least temporarily to help move things though. Personally I would love to see Gares Redstorm, Aiiane, or JonTheMon fill a bcrat seat. Auron or Felix would be goo choices too but maybe more controversial? --Lania 00:49, 07 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should figure out how we are going to decide these or did we already?- Zesbeer 01:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm controversial? 02:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh oops, I meant to say that Auron is, but some how you got lumped in there :>. No you aren't controversial. --Lania 03:47, 07 April 2012 (UTC)

It'd be Jon out of those three, because the others are not active enough here. At least, that's what these reconfirms point out to us. - Infinite - talk 09:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for clarification on that last comment, Infinite, specifically in regards to myself. How do these reconfirms point out that I am not active enough here? — Gares 06:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

When Infinite posted that comment, you had made 22 edits since 2010. 06:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

When Infinite posted that comment, I had already stated I was back in a post I did on March 22 and have contributed fairly regularly since then. My assumption is that between April 3rd and when he posted the above comment, "At least, that's what these reconfirms point out to us.", he felt I needed to post more, which I would find rather stringent. That or Lania using my last name has him believing that is another user. Or perhaps it is poor wording and you are correct, Felix. Which is why I asked for clarification. — Gares 06:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no. What I meant was that the community here seems to value consistent activity more than past-proved quality, as the RfAs' general trend appears to be. Understandable as it is, it would mean only Jon has an actual chance out of the three listed (one of which I know is you, Gares). - Infinite - talk 08:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. The wording was a bit misleading, and I'd also agree. Jon would make a great candidate for bureaucrat. — Gares 23:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually rather disturbed at the quantity over quality thing. Setting arbitrary precedents for an imagined number of required edits before one becomes "active," and favoring that over better edits made less frequently... I dunno, it's a shitty road to travel. Scary that it's becoming a theme in these RfAs; poke and gares are both great examples of editors posting infrequently, but their posts being of rather high caliber. I'd definitely trust them with tools over mediocre users with twice as many edits. Hopefully the wiki can break out of that mindset before weak sysop candidates get promoted based on edit count and the status of their membership (or lack thereof) on other wikis. -Auron 14:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well we did make an arbitrary minimum edit limit for bureaucrat elections on GWW, which I thought was a dumb idea. It doesn't distinguish between troll, minor, or detailed extensive edits, and elections ended up being more of a hassle that didn't always work out for the best interest for the wiki. Lets just say that we're counting only constructive article edit counts. There were several people who made hundreds of constructive edits a day on GWW that I wouldn't trust to have sysop tools. I think edits that really increase the "trust level" for canidates are edits that participate in key discussions. Most of the less active sysops and bcrats basically almost exclusively participate in discussions rather than article edits. Participation in discussions allows users to guage someone's personality, temperament, cooperativeness, and ability to handle stressful situations, while article edits do not. Also massive wall of text edits that Tanetris and Gares do take a long time to make... much longer than a dozen minor article edits. Plus there are some off wiki work like research, or programming work that take hours to do.

There are some people in GW2W that I thought were decent sysop candidates because they were active, friendly, and seemed rational. But after their participation in recent discussions I am not sure about their level headedness anymore. GW2W is a low stress environment right now because of the relative lack of drama and conflicts (with a few historical exceptions). The sysop discussions are also low stress. But if these low stress discussions bring about something that I think are questionable about someone that I thought might be a sysop candidate, then it really makes me wonder what would happen what something stressful actually does happen.

TL;DR: GW2W is not a good testing ground to see if a candidate can handle trolls, drama, stress etc; and thus when choosing candidates people shouldn't focus just on GW2W contributions, but look at GWW and GWiki as well. --Lania 18:24, 09 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Auron: I think there is a certain idea out there that bcrats and sysops need to have a certain awareness of the wiki and its going-ons. Which does have a certain merit, that you can't intervene if you don't know about it and you might not make as good of a decision without proper information, but on the flip side, sometimes and outside PoV is needed and can be more helpful. Both sides have merit, but I think at the point involvement is one of the desired traits. --JonTheMon 18:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think activity is only a factor now because we're building the GW2W admin list for the first time. pling 18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Auron, the problem with your point of view (good contributions are enough to make someone become a sysop) is that it muddles what exactly are we trying to get when we make a request for adminship. What is a RfA trying to measure? The quality of someone's contributions, so someone who knows a lot about GW2 is going to become an admin? How good an user someone is, making the RfAs basically a popularity contest? How level-headed and rational someone is, so someone with no knowledge of the wiki's technical aspects could be given a bunch of technical tools?

I don't understand exactly what are admins expected to do (or to be) here. What I do know is that the list of desired traits mentioned above for admins has little to do with using "the tools to block/unblock IP addresses and registered users, delete/undelete pages and protect/unprotect pages". Erasculio 13:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the number of edits equaling "good" in this case is underlined quite clearly with poke's situation. He's remained up-to-date with goings-on in the community, but hasn't posted as much recently. He fails the post-count quota, but is no less a member of the community than you or I. I can understand trying to weed out the obviously inactives - the ones that haven't made a peep in 2+ years - but splitting hairs with people that are members of the community by trying to bring up post counts is simply a waste of time. For a one-time weed-out of the dinosaurs that don't contribute at all, it's an acceptable method, but it's honestly pretty fucking easy to look at the list and tell which ones are completely inactive and which ones aren't. That shouldn't be the focus of the discussion - it should be their merits as a sysop and/or as a bureaucrat, since determining their level of activity is as simple as loading up their contribs page and looking at dates.

I'll summarize my gripes; a contrib list has very little to do with how much a part of this community someone is, and only serves to give a basic view of their activity level. This basic activity level doesn't correspond with how well an individual knows the community, its history or its decisions, and regardless, still doesn't have very much impact on their ability to use sysop tools, only their ability to mediate (which, as even you've pointed out, is a "duty" of the community as a whole, not just sysops). Entire discussions revolving around basic activity levels are pointless. If they're inactive, weed them out because they're inactive. If they're bad sysops, weed them out because they're bad sysops. Trying to discuss both at once, and especially trying to focus on discussing the pointless thing, is what pushes my buttons about these RfAs. Trying to bring in post counts or basic activity levels in a discussion about one's ability to perform as a sysop simply confuses matters, as the two have very little to do with each other. The RfAs are trying to hold an apple judging competition alongside an orange judging competition and pretending they're the same thing, and they aren't. -Auron 14:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, contributions is the only accessible metric for some users. You and I know poke has always been around, for instance- we see him nearly every day on IRC and talk to him regularly. But that information isn't available to the general community. 00:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Given our timezone differences, I rarely see him on and even more rarely have a chance to chat. I'm just talking about his presence on the wiki. -Auron 01:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Would not a user's presence on the wiki be entirely apparent from their contributions? You could also include action logs for sysops, of course. 02:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrat limit

In light of comments being made around this page, I feel a section just on this particular topic may be in order.

Poke wrote in his general response: "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."

Auron stated in the Top-down: "3-4 is probably the way to go, 2 is definitely not enough."

Is there a magic number that the community wants to decide to use? Should it be based on how trusted a sysop is to attain the role of bureaucrat? — Gares 07:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like an odd number. 07:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I too support an odd number. Just to prevent a deadlock when it is eminent. That means 5 is the next option available and all current candidate can be supported. All know they will have enough on their hands when GW2 goes retail and the community swells to a small country. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 09:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Whilst we have 5 in reconfirm, doesn't mean we'll still have 5 after the reconfirms. - Infinite - talk 09:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Very true Infinite. But I hope it can be considered to make the "pool" 5 in order to "share to load". --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 09:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think that picking arbitrary numbers is unnecessary. There should be no limit on the number of bureaucrats. Provided we keep strict and high standards for bureaucrats, we will only wind up with people qualified to do the job. Any number of those individuals can't be bad. Aqua (T|C) 14:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that any arbitrary number will do, I also recommend keeping an odd number. To this, 3 or 5 is fine. Venom20 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree more with Auron's idea-- setting an arbitrary number is useless (and I also find the scenario of bureaucrats needing a "tie-breaker" ridiculously improbable), and the pool should be kept small to avoid "too many cooks in the kitchen" and to uphold higher standards. – Emmett 15:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with emmett and auron. I think 5 should be the absolute maximum and 3 to be the minimum. I don't think it matters if it's 3,4, or 5 bcrats in the long run, as yeah need a tie breaker? I just don't see that happening. Anything more than that and I think you'll run into the "too many cooks in the kitchen" scenario as Emmett said... Similarly, I think sysop numbers should also be kept from becoming too large to prevent the same scenario. --Lania 16:21, 08 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the things I have never enjoyed about the bureaucrat position is how people appear to believe they are more than they actually are. Bureaucrats are just sysops who can change user rights. For now, no one here has said "let's ask the bureaucrats to pick our admins", instead we have been using those requests for adminship (which is what this article is about). Considering that a bureaucrat almost never has to use the bureaucrat tools, and when he does so it's usually after a long discussion involving a big part of the community... Who cares how many there are? One would probably be enough, considering how we almost never need them. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need a limit on the number of bureaucrats, we need a limit on people's view of what, exactly, a bureaucrat does (which, in the end, is very little). Erasculio 16:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care for any arbitrary number of bureaucrats. In fact, if we have a slightly larger pool than we're used to, collective bureaucrat argumentation could/should follow the same process as these RfAs are following. Instead of fighting it out in a smaller group, have full transparency amongst a larger group. The process of bureaucrat actions should be equally transparent as the process of a discussion regarding a revision on any article. We are a wiki after all, not real life politicians. - Infinite - talk 16:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Erasculio here, and reinstate my statement from above: Bcrats on GWW mainly did two thinks, evaluate RfAs/RfRs and perform user group changes, and participating in arbcoms. If the latter falls out, due to administrators having more discretion in general (which seems to be the general trend here), and with bureaucracy (in terms of policies and such) is avoided as well, then bureaucrats are nothing more than normal sysops with the right to change user rights. As such I don’t see a need to limit the number in any way, for the same reason we don’t really limit the sysop count. poke | talk 20:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to think Bcrats as people who are even more trusted to use the tools fairly and rationally. If we have that many (more than 5 people) that can be trusted to that level... then I don't mind having more. But somehow I doubt that will happen. But even if it does, sysops should still outnumber bcrats by a healthy amount. The other option is to just eliminate the distinction between sysop and bcrats, and just give every "admin" sysop tool + user group change rights, but I can imagine all kinds of drama and nastiness resulting from that. --Lania 21:23, 09 April 2012 (UTC)

Sysops

Will the current sysops also get RFA'd? Looking at the list on the admin noticeboard there seems to be a lot more inactive sysops than bcrats. 83.131.52.189 00:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. - Tanetris 00:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless there are personality conflicts among the current 5 bureaucrats can we just keep all 5 and go on to fixing the sysop pool i agree there appears to be more of an pressing issue there than with the current 5 bureaucrats Please Rudhraighe 12:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

All the admins are being reconfirmed, but the current 5 bureaucrats are not all equally desired to stay at this time. Therefore we can't ignore the community and thus have to continue the reconfirmations for all the bureaucrats. - Infinite - talk 12:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Rud; the sysop pool has been "broken" for 3-4 years now... but it is about as far from "pressing" as it is possible to be. The wiki isn't going to crash and burn because of it; it's something we can tackle at our collective leisure. It's best to be thorough, and starting with the bureaucrats makes the most sense. Once they're finished, sysops will be worked on. -Auron 13:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Finishing the current requests for adminship

When are the current request for adminship for the five existing bureaucrats going to be finished? Where are the other bureaucrats going to discuss the results among themselves? Erasculio 13:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think as this is the first set of RfA's and it's for the bcrats that it would be fine to go a full 2 weeks for each. --JonTheMon 14:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

2 weeks are over for the first one, but, if you want the full 2 weeks, I suggest waiting till the 2 weeks are over on my RfA (the last one). It might very well be that the position on one person depends on how the overall picture in all RfAs looks like. --Xeeron 17:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just like old times

Wow, just like old times. The Bureaucrat names never change. ;P lol — ク Eloc 貢 23:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, even you? o.O poke | talk 08:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't help but raise one eyebrow on seeing people jumping in with opinions, but whose last contributions were 4 years ago. And here's me thinking i have no place in this discussion. Dang. Did i just post my opinion? Never mind, carry on! --Ee 10:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally I value the opinion of recent, active users a lot more than inactive, previous-wiki users. We're attempting to generate a GW2W community-oriented administrators list, after all. The more opinions, the better, especially ones that can't/don't look to the past for reasoning. - Infinite - talk 10:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

^ That. Aqua (T|C) 02:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no history with any of you, i don't know any of you. How can i know if anyone of you would do his/her job well or not in the future? - maybe i have an opinion for you in another year, but i can truely not say whether i'll be around here still. This entire wiki is about volunteering, but somehow i also think for some of you (i hope not too many) this is about getting your name out there more than adding to a common project. Should i judge from the sudden appearance of several names on one of my talk pages? How can i know if that's normal, or not? When i see on the rfa page "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", as a first sentence, what do you expect me to think of you? So, i can only judge from the logs. When i check those and all i see are lists of what has been said to THIS page, and none of recent changes on the wiki, out with you (and i don't count those sudden bouts of activity because this rfa started). People that have been proactive for a good and steady while now, in with you. --Ee 09:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I’m not really sure how it turned out into this, but all Eloc did – the way I saw it – was to state an observation based on his knowledge from his past. So I don’t really get why you all are randomly discussing this now in this section.

Ee, usually I wouldn’t expect users that have only been on the wiki for a month to participate in adminship discussions. Of course, you are more welcome to do so, but from my own experience users usually take a while to get involved with the wiki community. As such I’m sorry that you do not know me and that my candidate statement wasn’t enough for you to get some information about me (although the other’s are then even more useless to you). If you want more information you are more than welcome to ask me about things – either on my talk page, or on the talk page of the RfA. poke | talk 10:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been invited to give my opinion by the header on every single page, including my users' page. As such, i gave it, and i think i'll leave it at that. --Ee 12:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

@Poke, it doesn't really matter how long a user has been here when he or she enters a discussion; judge the contribution, not the contributor. In this case Ee has a valid point- we started the reconfirmations with the intent of having administrators who are recognized and trusted by the GW2W community, but so far the majority of opinions have come from old-wiki users saying "They were effective on GW/GWW, keep."

@Everyone else, don't jump down Eloc's throat. Neutral observation was neutral (and accurate). 21:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If my comment (which was in reply to Ee) came off as targeted at Eloc, I have to apologise; it was certainly not intended to target Eloc. I merely wanted to address Ee's point. - Infinite - talk 21:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Felix, as I said, I don’t have a problem with newer users participating, absolutely not. It’s just that, from my experience, it usually does not happen. poke | talk 06:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems like everyone needs GW2 to hurry up & come out so everyone can mellow out. ;) Also, didn't take any of it to target me for thos who're thinking it. Merely making an ab observation to start a conversation with those who I knew back when I was more active. — ク Eloc 貢 06:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Format

For these bcrat reconfirmations, we've been using an AfD format, but I wonder if it might need to be modified. One thing that struck me was that it currently is a mix of opinions and discussion, which makes it a little harder to sort through. Another thing about it is that not many questions were asked of the candidates; it was mostly a lot of "here's what I think" and back-and-forths. I wonder if a greater emphasis on the talk page and/or a Q&A section for the candidate would be good things to emphasize in future discussions. --JonTheMon 13:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually like that the discussion and opinions are on one page (though the side-discussions that people take to individual user talk pages should really be taken to the RfA talk page instead, if they have to be taken elsewhere at all). Having them together encourages discussion of individual points of view, and it allows any extra information or elaboration in the discussion to be seen alongside the original comment. Perhaps we could introduce individual section headers for comments with discussion to make it easier to comment and follow?

A separate Q&A section above the discussion section would be useful, yeah. pling 15:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I, too, like the idea of a separate Q&A section, but I feel it should be designed in some fashion that prevents it from becoming just another discussion section where the second comment in any thread is a response from the candidate.

On a different note, I feel like a summary of a given person's opinion (i.e. "support sysop, neutral bureaucrat", or "oppose sysop and bureaucrat") should be stated at the beginning. There would need to be reasoning accompanying it, but I think it would make the overall community message clearer. I think that the discussion occasionally jumbles the meaning of individual comments. Aqua (T|C) 21:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons we're doing this in stages is to get a sense of what works and what doesn't work about the format, so yeah, thoughts on modifications are welcome.

I will note that I, too, support including some sort of bolded "conclusion" on a preferred course of action (or explicitly pointing out that you're neutral or that you're just commenting) similar to the AfD's we're modeling after (see original revision of my RfA for reference), but someone edited it out and I didn't want to push if people preferred to try it this way. Every day is another experiment, after all.

Q&A I would expect to show up on the RfA talk page if not included in the general discussion, but if you guys think it warrants an explicit section (are questions not being asked because people don't know where to put them, or because people don't have questions?), either way. - Tanetris 22:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Time to wrap it up?

There hasn't been any meaningful progression in the discussion for over a week now. As per this... pling rfa talk I think it's time to resolve the rfa's and start moving on to sysop reconfirmations, and maybe nominate some new blood. --Lania 20:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)