Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Erasculio

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Info-Logo.png Note: This RFA has been resolved. Please do not add further support/oppose opinions.

Erasculio[edit]

This request is for the sysophood of Erasculio (talk • contribs • logs • block log).
Created by Erasculio 00:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC), nominated by Tanaric.

Status[edit]

Failed. 04:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidate statement[edit]

I have mentioned, in Tanaric's RfA, that I believe a sysop has to follow the community, or state how he/she wishes the community to change. I have been proposing a few changes to the community, with little to no results so far; if that's thanks to disagreement, apathy or just inertia, I don't know. Being a sysop would allow me to act instead of talk, which is why I'm willing to accept this nomination. That's, of course, the caveat: if I were a sysop, my beliefs would define my actions, and they are slightly (to say the least) controversial:

I don't believe all users are equal. The wiki exists to document the game; I believe users who help to do so, either directly by valid contributions to the mainspace or indirectly by molding the policies which make the wiki more efficient, are more valuable assets than users who behave as if the wiki were only an internet forum or a personal hosting site. Thus, I don't think an user who's a valuable contributor and makes a small disruption should be treated equally to an user who has no contributions outside his own talk page and makes the same disruption; not in the meaning that the former should be ignored, but rather in the meaning that the latter should be dealt with far harsher than what is done today.

Likewise, I believe the sysops are too soft on some users. Whether due to the idea that “trolls” are part of any online community, that no user should be punished unless it's extremely necessary, or due to unwillingness to act as an enforcer, I believe most of the current sysops are not dealing with disruptive users as preemptively or as decisively as they should. One of the things that impressed me the most regarding a sysop's behavior (by someone who unfortunately is not a sysop anymore) was when said sysop told one disruptive user how his contributions were simply not wanted on the wiki – and that statement was true, as some users and their contributions are simply not wanted here. Those interested only in spamming all available talk pages with how they think skill X should or not be nerfed have proper places in which to do so, places that are not the wiki; the same applies to users whose only interest is pressing F5 on Linsey's talk page in order to reply to every existing section.

And speaking about Arena Net staff members, I also don't agree with how the wiki is handling the talk pages of Arena Net employers. They are valued contributors, true, and thus have been given the right of making extra rules for their own pages, but I don't believe those talk pages should be above existing wiki rules. It has been stated how an Arena Net employer asked the community to not block users due to their behavior on her talk page; but I don't think that's Arena Net's decision to make. We cannot allow disruption in such a visible part of the wiki without expecting it to leak to other talk pages, considering how empowering it is to just be disruptive and learn that nothing happens as a punishment; this lack of action also explains why, after many pleas to not fill the Arena Net talk pages with discussions between users, Linsey's page is again locked with impossibly huge wall of texts made by contributors bickering among themselves.

I don't expect to be made a sysop; I mentioned to Tanaric how I expect a new record for Oppose:Support ratio here. But if I were made a sysop, I would act incisively against disruptive users, especially those who do not act to improve the wiki; I would be harsher in the control of Arena Net employers' talk pages; and when doing both, I would make it clear how the mentality that this site is just a big Guild Wars discussion forum does not belong here.

Support[edit]

  1. Strong support. I came to this RfA expecting to write something like "Erasculio disagrees with me enough to keep me honest, and that's a good thing." However, upon reading his excellent candidate statement, I'm going to revise -- though it's certainly true, it's vastly understating the credentials of a very impressive candidate. Instead, I'd like to say that it's nice to have a sysop who disagrees with the status quo enough to risk his own position without being a troll or a vandal. Pushing to change the community in a constructive and civil manner is a rare skill, doubly so on the Internet, and triply so on this wiki infused with the trollish behavior that's leaked over from other, failed community sites. In short, Erasculio is going to use the sysop tools within policy and correctly, but in a way others aren't, and that's a very, very good thing. —Tanaric 00:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support I like your attitude and your energy regarding your statement and I believe you will become a sysop with that vigor, your contributions, and your positive ideas. In addition, you bring up valid points in regards that some sysops being too soft and the wiki = game documentation and != a forum for trolls to infest. It will be nice to have another level-headed hardass on the team. — Gares 01:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support I would like to see him being able to uphold his statement.--Fighterdoken 01:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support. I was leaning to oppose, but I'm struck by your candidate statement. If you can maintain that "bad cop" sort of mentality without breaking any policies or otherwise going overboard, as you have admittedly toed the line in the past, I would be glad to see you join the sysop team. calor (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support. At this state, I believe that Erasculio can keep the wiki up and like everyone above me says, I like his attitude and etc. You have my support sir. →[ »Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png (talk)« ]← 02:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  6. As per halo--/u/nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Crane eats peanut.jpg 02:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  7. I think that Erasculio is a positive influence here and agree that the wiki is used a bit too much as a forum. Manifold User Manifold Jupiter.jpg 02:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  8. Support. Row row, fight da trolls. Also, when you're grandfathered in on GW2W, I won't have to delete your screenshots ever again. :D User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 03:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  9. Support. Finally. -- Cyan User Cyan Light sig.jpg 12:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  10. Support Although I have often been on the opposing side in debates with Eras, I will admit that he does tend to approach things from a pragmatic viewpoint which I appreciate and I think he would make a fine Admin. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 20:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  11. Support. I bounced between support and oppose until finally deciding that you're pretty hawt. NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 12:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  12. Support. He gets a little hot headed at times, but I'd still support him. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 12:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose. Meh User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 00:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. Oppose He may have some good opinions in the wiki, like Tanaric's RfA, but I haven't see him participate that much in discussions as of the past 6 months and therefore I hardly know him. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen ♥ 01:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Don't admins have to be able to resolve conflicts? Karate User Karate Jesus KJ for sig.png Jesus 02:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. ^that. King Neoterikos 04:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  5. Erasculio has often been a part (if not the cause) of a multitude of heated conflicts during his time on GWW- even his candidate statement strikes me as confrontational. Furthermore, his candidate statement seems very similar to an (ancient) quote of Erasculio's pulled from his archives- "This wiki is running fine without empowering zealots who have the audacity of assuming they know better than the community". Well intentioned though Eras may be (and probably also short of being an empowering zealot), I feel that he is going about trying to change the wiki in the wrong way. Arguing for change is all well fine and good; using sysop tools as you and only you see fit?... not so much. – Emmett 04:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  6. Stepping back and forth between oppose and neutral, but in the oppose zone a little longer. I agree with some of what Emmett and Tanaric have said. Yeah, having sysops crack down on trolls and disruption is a good thing, but he has a touch of zealousness that might result in disruptive situations or less-than-ideal conclusions (note that I'm not just talking about drama, I'm talking about discussions or situations which cause disruption; arguably, not all drama is bad). When a discussion is heated and people disagree with him, he can often get aggressive or overly frustrated that it almost seems like trolling - gw2:File talk:2009 august trailer Kodan Iceberg screenshot.jpg is a recent example. Mix that in with the kind of people that edit, for example, User talk:Linsey Murdock, User talk:Regina Buenaobra, and their respective journals, and I'm not really comfortable; in some cases, there are better ways to deal with them than the way Erasculio would deem fit. -- pling User Pling sig.png 14:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  7. While I usually enjoy Erasculio's contributions to discussions, he's an acquired taste that can easily be misinterpreted. --Emkyooess 17:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  8. Weak Oppose. Per Pling. Though I feel fairly neutral about this, the whole "aggression" thing keeps me on the other side of the fence for the moment. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Wandering Traveler 05:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  9. STRONGLY Opposed: His own statement about changes he wants to make is a blueprint for disaster, and he can regularly be seen Escalating arguments about small things to massive proportions as well as attacking people personally. And No, this is not hyperbole. This is 100% from experience in dealing with him all this year. --ilrUser ilr deprav.png 07:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  10. Strongly opposed per here. Whether I was right or wrong in that discussion, Erasculio was extremely rude to me. I actually left the discussion to avoid a confrontation and have avoided him since, although it seems he has now taken to putting sarcastic little messages on my talk page. (I'm hoping this was a one-off incident, although if it continues I'll treat it as harassment). Erasculio has no idea how to deal with people, and will become extremely aggressive or even ignore due process altogether in the name of "getting things done". Definitely not someone I would personally like to see in a position of power. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  11. Erasculio has strong opinions and is very willing to argue for them. I think I would favour his application if he could show greater willingness to step back, listen and compromise. I do not believe Erasculio represents the calm, neutral point of view necessary to fairly be a firm hand for the guild wars wikis. --Aspectacle 01:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  12. Opposed As per Pling. --*Yasmin Parvaneh* User yasmin parvaneh sig.png 00:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  13. Opposed --adrin User Adrin mysig.jpg 02:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  14. Opposed --Ceru talk contribs 19:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  15. Opposed. Drama. That is all. EDIT: Well I guess I should expand: I can see the same things that happened with Wynthyst happen with Erasculio, and I really do not want that. He is not able to resolve conflicts, instead he will only enlarge them. - Mini Me talk 19:47, 5 January 2010

Neutral[edit]

  1. Neutral. Leaning more towards Support at this point in time but cannot fully make up my mind yet. I am conflicted with some things, and fully agree with others. More later. -- My Talk Lacky 06:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. I cannot vote in good faith for Erasculio. Although his "platform" contains many planks that I strongly agree with (especially dev talk pages), I don't think making him a sysop is the right way to champion such causes. In other words I do not feel comfortable lending my support purely on the basis of wanting to throw a monkey wrench in the gears... yeah, *I* believe it would bring about some positive changes, but I would much rather try to achieve such things with less disruptive methods. There are some song lyrics, "Through action wisdom is revealed, too much talk is like a shield" - I like that sort of JUST DO IT attitude, but I do not think it fits GWW very well. It is the same reason I don't think I would ever be / should be a sysop here. Like Erasculio, I'm pretty fed up (jaded?) with how stuff has been handled and I'd love to just get in there and Fix It(TM), policies and consensus be damned. GWW doesn't work like that, though...and I personally think it is far too late to challenge that particular status quo, no matter how much I wish to. Vili 点 User talk:Vili 11:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. I've seen a lot of good stuff come from this user. Unfortunately, I've seen an almost equal amount of bad stuff. He got better since the days of squabbling with Karlos (and everyone else), but he dips back often enough to make me say "ehhhhhh" and not really stamp support on the deal. -Auron 13:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. He can be trusted to bring up really strong foundations and points in discussions (not to mention extreme walls of text ;) but when in comes to actually resolving issues, I'm not sure it's a good mix. -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 14:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  5. While politeness is not needed for sysophood, too much hostility and negative feelings will prevent parties in a discussion from being objective enough to understand each other's viewpoints. Moderation is the key here, and if he shows more of that in practice, I will gladly shift to support. Pika Fan 17:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  6. Neutral While I do not doubt Erasculio's dedication to the wiki and to GW or that he would do a lot of good things, I am not as confident in his conflict handling skills. It is not that he is confrontational (which can actually be very beneficial in a sysop if used correctly), it is that he is overly argumentative and often fall into rudeness when opposed in stead of trying to resolve the issue. Basically a creator of drama. If he just practiced to take a breath in stead of escalating drama I am sure he would make a good sysop though.--Lensor (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. What Vili said, mostly. --User Oneshot O.JPGneshot. 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. Leaning towards oppose. Per Emmett and Pling. --Xeeron 14:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  9. Neutral. I just can't decide... - J.P.User J.P. Christmas sig.pngTalk 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  10. Strong Neutral I fully support Erasculio's platform. However, I would like to see evidence first that he can reduce conflict without the title. (I would revise my support if people can point to examples, major or minor.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  11. Neutral. I just thought it all over, and that made me to reject my support. I decided too fast. For now Im neutral because I need to think some things over. -- Cyan User Cyan Light sig.jpg 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  12. Neutral. I thought very long about this and, and I had many different support, and oppose texts in my mind before. But in the end, I simply can't decide what to weight more, so I'll go neutral for now. Although having seen many different positive and negative things from Erasculion in the past, it is probably better to delay any promotion for now. poke | talk 22:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  13. Neutral Based on recent observation of Eras's communication style, I do not feel he is objective enough in his stance to be a sysop at this time. However I do not feel that this should lead me to oppose either as he does have many positive traits which balance this flaw. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 15:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki:Requests_for_adminship/Erasculio&oldid=1867454"