Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Kakarot

Questions

 * 1) What reasons are there for you wanting to be a sysop?
 * 2) Is there anything that makes you stick out from the rest of the crowd, or makes you fit in with what sysops do at the moment?
 * 3) How would you deal with vandals, trolls and policy violators?
 * 4) How would you have dealt with the current J.Kougar situation?
 * 5) Could you point me to some situation(s) where you have constructively interacted with problematic users?

Some questions taken from other RfAs. -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the questions, Brains. I will do my best to answer them

Hopefully I have answered your questions, feel free to post any further questions on this talk page and I will again do my best to answer them :) -- 72.138.182.104 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Kakarot   18:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) First and probably the main reason is that I would like to help the wiki and community more than I currently do. I feel I am fairly level-headed and rarely if ever get angry. As I said in my candidate statement, I also think I have a fair understanding of the wiki policies and coding to be fair with the extra tools I would have access to.
 * 2) While my location isn't one that we don't already have a sysop, I have found that sometimes at the times I am online and vandalism is happening or situations that require sysop intervention there doesn't appear to be a sysop online for a while allowing further vandalism which ends up clogging up the recent changes and also detracts other positive contributors from adding to or editing the wiki; both game related sections and other. While I do know there may be other suitable people I would like the opportunity to help out with the more administrative side of wiki editing.
 * 3) When it comes to vandals, if it's a first offense and it could possibly be just a new user who doesn't understand wiki editing, I feel a warning is all that is needed.  If it's a persistent vandal who has already been warned, a short block in required but if after being unblocked they return and continue to vandalize then the length of block should be lengthened each time in line with what policy states is an acceptable length. A similar situation can be said with policy violators, I've noticed that a friendly message on the persons user talk can sometimes be all that is needed since those users were not aware that they were actually doing anything wrong. When it comes to trolls again a warning on the first time, further trolling would result in blocks.  If I am unsure what would be the correct course of action I would go to another sysop. I would prefer not to have to block people for things mentioned but sometimes that is the only way.
 * 4) While I wasn't directly involved with the situation with the J.Kougar incident and considering I don't really know the history regarding this user I would probably have handed the situation to another more experienced sysop. Having said that, I have always felt a short block with a clear reason often helps calm most situations.  Although in this case a block didn't seem to work, there were far better methods Kougar could of used rather than evade a block which I would of posted on his talk page.
 * 5) While there isn't any situation that comes to mind where I have dealt with a problematic user on the wiki in real life I regularly have to deal with less than desirable situations and problematic customers and I have always dealt with them in a proper manner. Although this doesn't necessarily mean I would make a good sysop nor is there any way I can provide proof of this it is the only thing that I can currently think of that comes close to what you mentioned. If the situation ever came up on the wiki I would do my best to stay objective and if necessary let another more experienced sysop take over if I felt I could not properly deal with the situation.
 * Regarding your answer on #2: In what timezone do you live? poke | talk 17:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * EST (or EDT depending on the time of year). Although according to the Guild Wars Wiki:Administrators, Gordon Ecker is in PST and Tanetris is also in EST, I have found that at times I have been editing there appears to have been no sysop available (could be partly due to the odd times I sometimes edit). Also out of the two Tanetris is the closest but with the current Adminship policy if Tanetris did become a Bureaucrat there would be none although I seem to remember there being a proposal to change that I can't remember where it was. -- Kakarot  [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 17:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While this is important to note, I don't find it incredibly important with regards to the election. The Wiki has many serious editors, or casual editors, or whatever, that will tag for deletion/move pages/post things for the sysops to deal with.  I think more important is the way you'd deal with problematic users.  While yes, you may have to deal with these things in real life (I'm a restaurant manager, so I feel ya!), I think it's important that you know situations on the wiki (such as J. Kougar) and it worries me that you'd hand the situation over to another Sysop.  Just say they ALL went on vacation/honeymoon/AFK/whatever for a week and you HAD to deal with it - even in your current state, where you don't know what's going on (worriful).  What would you do?   MiraLantis 06:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Part of the reason I didn't actually look more into the situation near the beginning is because at the time I felt that it was more of a situation needing actual sysop intervention rather than normal users. Based on what Backsword mentioned in the section below; although he didn't actually address this side of sysoping; the most a normal user can do is give a single warning to the offending user. In situations that users have tried to do more or given more warnings it seems they are asked to refrain from making any further comments in regards to the situation, although this could have more to do with their methods than giving another warning. In regards to J. Kougar, based on what I remember he didn't seem to take as much notice of normal user warnings as he did when a sysop/bureaucrat warned him. Also in that situation based on the alleged history between J. Kougar and Aiiane (I say alleged because I never actually saw any of it (partly because some/most of it happened on other sites) so I can't confirm what he stated with 100% certainty), she wasn't particularly the best person to get involved in the situation but at the time she may of had no choice; for example there may of been no other bureaucrat online at the time. Being in the role of sysop I would of definitely watched the situation a lot more carefully and tried to defuse it as early as possible, if that was even possible considering how long it took for it to calm down. If the situation you described in your last two sentences happened; which I don't think any sysop would want to deal with - sysoping this wiki single-handedly; as I mentioned in my last sentence I would do my best to defuse the situation as quickly as possible. To be honest, I don't think; or at least I seriously seriously hope; J. Kougar would of been evading his ban if he would of had a full discussion with the blocking sysop without any non-sysop comments although if he would of simply waited the original two days (at most April 2nd or 3rd) or gone through the proper channels (for example e-mail) he would of found out what he wanted to know a hell of a lot faster and with a lot less disruption. Although I don't know what happens if you try to log in or edit while blocked; nor do I ever want to find out (even as a joke); since it has never happened to me, had he contacted the blocking sysop through e-mail and stayed off the wiki, the whole situation might of been avoided. -- Kakarot  13:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well People....
"but I'm doubtful as to whether he needs to be a sysop." I have a bit of a problem with this comment being used in almost every RfA, and no one elaborates on it. Also, if you mean it in the sense that I am taking it, a sysops main duties (and most done duties) are deletion, general discussion (level head), and helping out users; which all of the last canidates and this one have exceded in. I understand that those are not what all of a sysops job entails; but my problem is, if you are going to use that comment please elaborate on it; if not on the RfA its self at least the talk page. Thank You! -- Shadowphoenix   05:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the problem with that comment is that nobody NEEDS to be a sysop. People may "want" to be one, or believe they can fulfill the role of one, but seriously, it's obvious that a user doesn't need to be a sysop to keep doing what he does because he doesn't have the tools to do anything else. A simple user can't really moderate because he is told to "STFU" more often than not. Nor can a simple user do maintenance because he lacks of the tools, and will just keep tagging at most. At best, a simple user can actually just go and document the wiki, and we would end saying (like we have said before) "no tools for you, you are too good contributor for it" XD.
 * In any case, part of the responsability is in the user whose RfA is being judged. If he makes clear how he would use the tools available, maybe people would vote against with a better reason like "i don't like him" :).--Fighterdoken 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not using that phrase to show opposition to the appointment of Kakarot as a sysop, that's why I am neutral. Yes, Kakarot probably would make a good sysop, but from what I've seen so far (or, rather, the lack of seeing), I don't think I could support with a "probably would". I haven't noticed Kakarot around enough to know exactly how the sysop tools would benefit him - hence how I don't know how he would need the sysop tools. --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|15px| ]] Brains12 \ Talk 15:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When I first decided to accept this RFA I did have some reservations as to whether I had had the neccessary experience in certain areas; even now I sometimes think that maybe I should of declined this nomination; although it's not as much as it would of been maybe a few months ago when I would of declined right away without a doubt. Back in January when Brains had his RFA I too had a similar vote on whether he would make a good sysop or not I feel he has done a good job in the role.
 * On a slight side note that has nothing to do with this particular RFA and probably could be better placed on a different page altogether (although since I don't have a great amount of time today I wanted to at least get it down somewhere so I don't end up forgetting them entirely), one thing that I have always thought when it came to RFAs and Bureaucrat Elections is providing a reason for your vote. I know that when it comes to RFA's we have always; or at least for as long as I've been here we have; preferred to have people included a reason for their Support/Oppose/Neutral vote but personally I think we should do the same for Bureaucrat Elections as well. -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 16:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

GUESS WHAT, KAKAROT?
I'M HAVING YOU FOR LUNCH! --164.47.99.222 14:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay? &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  02:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

More votes would be nice
As a bureaucrat, I have a hard time deciding on this. Our policy speaks about a criteria of 3:1, which is just meet by the slightest of margins here. Taken together with the big number of neutral votes, this RFA is right in the middle between positive and negative. RFA's are supposed to be decided after a week, but I would like to keep this open another week to see whether we can get a clearer picture. --Xeeron 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that more votes would have been nice. But changing policy just for this one seems a bit much. Additionally, you're the bcrat, but if I were you, I'd use that discretion about the seriousness about votes to discount the one that is openelly trolling, giving a 1:7 ratio. Backsword 10:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * the problem is not opposition here, but neutrality. an admin should be supported, not only accepted. - Y0_ ich_halt  [[Image:User Y0_ich_halt sig.jpg|18px|Have a look at my page]] 11:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless someone raises a significant issue in the next few hours (beyond simply "we have enough sysops", which I find to be spurious), I see no reason not to grant Kakarot sysop status. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This might sound a bit weird coming from me considering Aiiane's comment but I agree with Xeeron since I too would like to see more people's votes/comments, however at the same time I also agree with Backsword in regards to changing policy just for one RFA. I noticed yesterday that this had gone over a week and figured the reason might be something like this. -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 12:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you think 11 days of voting is long enough? -- Salome [[Image:User_salome_sig.png|19px]] 12:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I do, and although I would prefer to have more people give their views/votes, at this point it's up to the Bureaucrat's to make the decision whether to make a decision either way or to wait. -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 13:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we not only have 1 bureaucrat at the moment and that's Aiiane and didn't she just want to give you the tools of sysopyness? -- Salome [[Image:User_salome_sig.png|19px]] 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We have two Bureaucrats (Xeeron is still a Bureaucrat). And no, Aiiane has not yet promoted Kakarot.  Regarding the policy question, according to the RfA policy, RfAs should last roughly one week.  Personally, given the comparatively large number of neutral votes, I would say that a little more time to flesh out why people are so reluctant to support wouldn't be such a bad thing.  As Y0 points out, Sysops should be supported, we shouldn't promote them merely because there's no reason not to promote them, we should promote them because there's a good reason to promote them.    [[Image:User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|19x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  14:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We're on an 11:2 split. Anybody else with that amount of yay votes outweighing the nay would have already been instated by now. Even adding the neutral votes the yays still outweigh the nays. -- Salome [[Image:User_salome_sig.png|19px]] 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me clear something up: I do not want to change policy here. The RFA is to last "roughly one week". In my personal view, that timespan is up very soon (and 2 weeks is the definite maximum), that is why I prompted for people who might not have noticed this till now (or might have changed their minds) to come forward and vote. Seeing how there was not a single edit in the last 3 days, but 5 so far today, I'd say that indeed some people needed an additional notice. --Xeeron 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Admittedly i didn't notice this rfa due to my focus on other things at the mo like the bureaucrat election etc... and i'm not saying that its not helpful to have extended the voting in this instance as I think it has been. I also know its not a simple case of tallying the vote in regards to if someone gets granted sysop rights, instead after the vote finishes the bureaucrats decide is they think the candidate would be suitable for the role, but from what Aiiane has said it would seem to infer that the bureaucrats are in favor of him getting sysop rights and that it's highly unlikely that their is going to be a huge flux of nay votes at this late stage to swing that opinion, but then your point is taken Xeeron so I'll shush on this one and let you guys work. ;) -- Salome [[Image:User_salome_sig.png|19px]] 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add this to GWW:RFC and hopefully that will draw more users to vote to make it a more clear election. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  06:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Some Reasoning
Regarding my vote: The basic part is that I haven't seen enough of Kakarot to be able to judge him effectively, though I admit I could spend more time here or more actively search out his contributions. I certainly haven't seen anything negative from him, plus the trust given to him, as indicated in their votes, by people I respect, means I don't fear misuse. And the "no huge need" clause simply refers to the fact that since I don't perceive a significant lack of time zone coverage or personality, my "don't fear misuse" attitude is unable to overcome my "don't know him" attitude. That is, if I thought we desperately needed more help, I'd support; if I thought we were chock full of admin coverage, I'd probably weak oppose per y0. As it is, everything pretty much comes out a wash, hence my neutral. ... just in case you were curious or like to parse language as I sometimes do... — T HARKUN  00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)