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

I disagree with Elviondale's reasoning; it doesn't matter how many admins we have nor how popular one is in order to become an admin. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Brain's statement above. There is no negative effect from having too many "good" sysops, while there is the possibility for positive events when having them anyway - regardless of the need for them or not. --[[Image:User People of Antioch sig.png|Talk]] People of Antioch  21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thirded. I meant to comment earlier, but forgot. Having more quality sysops doesn't diminish the quality of their work, it only makes things more efficient. Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 21:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fourtheded. Wasn't there a discussion about this on the main RfA talk as well? --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|17px|]] Brains12 \ talk 21:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Either there or some related page or IRC. Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 17:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I heartily disagree with Backsword's reason -- this should not be based on numbers and one should not have to "vote" opposite to counter a "vote" you don't like. I'm pretty sure that the bureaucrats can ascertain what's a good reason and what's not, so not only is Backsword's input unnecessary, but it flies in the face of what an RfA is supposed to be. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked him about that on his talk page....I'm really not sure whether its a true "Support" or whether its just a way to disprove Eviondale.... --[[Image:User Wandering Traveler Oie User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png|19px]]  Wandering   Traveler  15:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also have to voice my concerns with Elviondale's reasoning. There is no such thing as enough or too many admins. More hands lighten the load for everyone. I also don't like to count numbers of edits, or participation in policy discussions. I do like to see well thought out reasoning, and objectiveness with the best interest of the wiki always taking center stage. I think WT has potential, just hasn't realized it yet.--[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 07:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

More responses
There are too few responses for even a proper decision to be made, much less confirmation. -- ab.er. rant  01:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye. Only six real votes, as Elviondale's reasoning is very flawed (we've had the "extra sysops" discussion before. A very interesting one, I might add), and Backsword's is in turn. It doesn't appear he would garner enough support for acceptance, but it would definitely be nice to have a few more solid views thrown in before this one is written off. Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 02:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I blame Brains. Since he already said what i thought, i don't feel the need to vote XD.--Fighterdoken 02:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, I think Brains stated what everyone was thinking. XD --[[Image:User Wandering Traveler Oie User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png|19px]]  Wandering  Traveler  03:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm what has me pondering is that even though most of the people opposed believe that having more sysops isn't a bad thing. Yet they make things so personal. Your not opposing new sysops because every time someone try's they get shot down with a million "Umm.......well.....I don't think its a bad thing......but I'll have to say no."? Or the "Umm....maybe later..". I think the reason why no one responds as its been said in every other discussion before. What makes this one different?68.151.16.139 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its mainly all in a matter of trust. Look at people like Brains and Aberrant. Or Poke and Anja. They've made themselves to be trustworthy, yes, but why they're trusted enough to be admins is that they took it above and beyond. Its not just making good edits and reverting, its how you respond with the community. --[[Image:User Wandering Traveler Oie User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png|19px]]  Wandering  Traveler  01:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidates make RfAs different. We have had lack of attention before also, but for some cases like Kakarot, a last call for comments actually attracted enough support as to approve his RfA.
 * People gets involved first if they like (or dislike) a candidate. After that, users supporting or opposing will show themselves only if the tendency of the elections doesn't follow their opinion. As of this RfA, i would think most people that oppose don't vote because they see it as failing anyways, and don't feel the need to bash a candidate that still has potential for runing again.--Fighterdoken 01:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Its not just making good edits and reverting, its how you respond with the community." I failed and got shot for that. Anyways why not call up the site notice that theirs a RFA? It should be there, as well it has the potential to change the wiki, and technically is like an election. Dominator Matrix  01:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe it'd be a good way to dust off RFC.... --[[Image:User Wandering Traveler Oie User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png|19px]]  Wandering  Traveler  01:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I still stand on that WT makes a good sysop. And I fully agree with 68....Dominator Matrix  01:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (sitenotice) I think sitenotice was discussed a little while ago as only really being used for B-Crat seats.  If we had a sitenotice for regular Sysop RfAs we would also have to take in account about anons and the sheer number (not necessarily quality) of their responses.  It would be nice, but we'd have to come up with a way to deal with them. But this talk is for WT's RfA, not for these policies so I will make that note.  I share Fighterdoken's sentiments of how most people vote. --[[Image:User People of Antioch sig.png|Talk]] People of Antioch  02:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I vividly remember that discussion. We concluded that a sitenotice would flood the RfA with a bunch of IP/new user votes who know next to nothing about the candidate, and vote based on the 1337ness of his/her username, signature, and page. And I also agree with Fighterdoken's idea of how people vote. Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 02:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Behavior
I notice a lot of people opposing due to the fact that he use to have a anger issue. Tell me when has this recently been a issue? People change, if you can't trust someone because how they use to be, then you need to trust people more often. Plus most comments are also due to the fact that he hasn't been here for a while... Since when does time matter over trust, or any other reason? Do potential sysops have to be here since the wiki was born to become one, or is 6+ months not good enough? (and when is enough, 11+ years?). Most reasons I've seen in other RFA's is the people who supported then where there friends. That's an unfair balance. And IMO I feel that everyone is discriminating against Wandering Traveler. Plus some people here don't even vote for a better result, they vote for the sheer hell of it. All I see is "I think, YET, someday, not ready, agree....". Point being is that I don't think that its fair to oppose people due to there amount of time here, amount of edits, personality, past, policy know how, or worthiness. Brought to you by the only person who supported him. Dominator Matrix  06:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You know people changed if, when faced to the same issue, they react different as how they used to. He probably just need to have some visible cases of "the same issue" on his favor.


 * About the other issues, sorry, but i have to disagree. From my point of view, some things like personality and past do matter. After all, past is "what has he done before when a issue arised?", and personality is "what would he do if a issue shows up?". I wouldn't want the answer to the last question be "create drama", "do nothing", or even worse, "have fun with the vandal".


 * In any case, you have to keep in mind that some of the people who says "maybe next time" (i want to believe most of them) will actually keep an eye on him and his behavior from this RfA onwards, so if he presents it again, things may change (Tanetris is a good example of it, compare his last RfB with the previous one).--Fighterdoken 07:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Point being is that I don't think that its fair to oppose people due to there amount of time here, amount of edits, personality, past, policy know how, or worthiness." That is the RfA process, and those are some of the qualities which can indicate a good admin. What do you propose we base our vote on? How friendly we are with them? Sorry, but I cannot believe how one can think that being worthy (i.e. showing capability as a potential admin) is not important.
 * Also, discrimination? Of course there will be discrimination (i.e. negative comments) -- one doesn't enter an RfA to see only the people that like them, one enters for feedback from the community that is both positive and negative (and of course acknowledgement that one is interested in the admin position). The potential of negative comments comes with entering an RfA. --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|18px|]] Brains12 \ talk 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your thinking something different. I what im saying is that people think he still might flip out. All people do that, and sysops have. I'm giving him a chance, your thinking that he still might be a problem as your worrying about it -- don't people change and you have to accept that. Dominator Matrix  04:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, they present a point. Ever since that last little warning Auron gave me, I've been a bit less active. Sure, I've toned down significantly, but a lot of that was from inactivity and the severe minority of edits. Some things can't be proven through a few IP reverts and a couple pings on the move log. --[[Image:User Wandering Traveler Oie User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png|19px]]  Wandering   Traveler  04:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)