Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Defiant Elements/Archive 1

I've always been of the opinion that votes independent of reasons have very little value (for the bureaucrats making the decision, as well as the candidate), so if Scourge and Riceball would be so kind, I'd prefer that they elaborate beyond simple Support or Oppose. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

*insert drama here* -- Brains12 \ Talk 23:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Discussion page + DE nomination :/ oh noes! poke | talk 23:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Same deal with Cursed Angel's vote: can I get some clarification? *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Same deal with Lemming64 *Shakes fist at Lemming.* *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I reserve my right to remain silent, thus no comment :p --Lemming 22:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I reserve my right to use proxy sockbots to harass you until you give up that right! :P *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues

• On a somewhat serious, somewhat amusing note, I also have some limited ability to reign in malignant PvXers, which is clearly an important thing to consider.

If you have any ability in this area, you should do so whether or not you are an admin, and to suggest you will only do this if you become an admin reflects poorly on you, even if its hedged with jest.

• someone who is (yes) willing to shoot first, ask question later.

Very anti-good admin behavior, contradicts valid reasoning in my opinion.

Since you yourself admit you dont really contribute here much, why do you even need to be an admin in the first place? I slightly contribute here, should I now try to become an admin? Hell no. Plenty of people who contribute more here would deserve it over you, considering most average people are also relatively level headed. I see no reason that elevates you over anyone else to get this. PvX people seem to like you, and thats fine. But considering how many of those people talk, I wouldn't feel proud of that.--riceball 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, DE is on the IRC every single day helping people out. He's active regarding the wiki, just not on the wiki. Mcgrinshpon 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this person supposed to be banned? Never understood the need to make accounts on top of accounts to avoid a simple ban on a wiki. Don't you have a social life? But you will no doubt zing me with your greatness again anyways.--riceball 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Riceball I think you're thinking of the wrong person, DE doesn't have any socks that I know of... I hope you're not thinking of that Mcgrinshpon character... -- scourge 00:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as far as the first part of your comment goes, yes I was joking, but, yes, I do have some ability in that area, and, in fact, I've attempted to exercise it on at least a couple of occasions, most recently last night when I told Shadowsin on the PvX IRC to cool it and stop posting. My suggestion was not that I would only do so if I were an Admin, my suggestion was that I had the ability to do it. As far as the second part of your comment goes, that's a simple difference of opinion (I think it's a perfectly legitimate admin style) so I have no interest in debating the point. And as to whether or not my number of contributions qualify me to be a sysop... well... personally I don't think that quantity means very much at all, and I think that has been verified by this community on a number of occasions (see Eloc's most recent RfA for instance). And as to whether or not I should be proud of my involvement in PvX... I in no way support the inane elitism that goes on on PvX (see my annoyed rant on my PvX user page), but yeah, I'm proud that I've played a role in building the site and fostering its growth from the beginning, so I don't see a reason for that snide little comment you snuck in at the end there. I do however appreciate the fact that you took the time to comment, so, thank you. *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He is largely the reason i stopped. Although none of you can seem to take the hint? ._.--Shadowsin 00:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it curious how anyone would relate "shooting first, asking questions later" as a good thing. Ever. Well, maybe if its life or death. I believe you feel the admins are a tad soft, and sometimes in fear of acting as they should. I agree with this. I think admins should act more strongly, more often. But that is a totally different concept from "shooting first, asking questions later" in my opinion. To me, that concept makes a mockery of calm decision making, and is all about making hasty judgements (which is what the expression is about).--riceball 00:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeese, I think what he ment was that he will act to stop a disruptive situation fast, w/o taking the time to sit there and mull it over while it is stil disruptive and decide what to do. Then make decisions on punishments, warnings, and what really happened later. <-Which is good in my opinion. Mr. Riceball stop taking everything so literally --Shadowsin 00:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you stop a disruptive situation fast without a warning or punishment? It requires some form of intervention, no? Whether its a couple posts to shut up, a brief block to get the point across, its all action. Then again, this is my taking things literally. - THARKUN 01:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i wasnt clear. Temporary blocks.--Shadowsin 01:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Geez... I think you misunderstand my intent when I say "Shoot first, ask questions later." It's not meant to imply action that is taken without thought... it just means... well... here's a simple example. If I see a vandal, do I ask him why he's vandalizing or do I warn/ban him? It's not a great example, I know, because how many Admins (or users for that matter) are going to stop to ask why a user is vandalizing, but hopefully it demonstrates my point. And you can apply this to just about any Sysop action. For instance, if people are yelling at each other and repeatedly committing borderline NPA violations and things are rapidly getting out of hand, and you've asked/told them to calm down and they don't, do you wait for a resolution or a consensus or sit and consider all the possible implications of a short (say one day) ban to get people to calm down? Of course, it all depends on the situation, but just using that as a general example, the theory of "Shoot first, ask questions later" dictates that you issue the ban, not necessarily worrying about all those implications, and then sort it out after everyone's had a chance to calm down. That's all I'm saying. An expression like... "Shoot from the hip," that implies hasty judgment. "Shoot first, ask questions later" actually refers to a decision making process where one weighs all the available information and makes a decisive decision. That decision can, at times, prove to be hasty (by which I mean that yes, mistakes are made), but it's certainly not the meaning of the expression. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting you actually think the expression means that. I was thinking you simply misused it and that I was being an ass about it.--riceball 03:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I thought that you and I both implicitly agreed about the definition but you simply didn't like the potential mishaps that could occur. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

DE, would you ban people for never ending discussions on the Admin noticeboard? Or especially when looking at the recent discussions (as visible in archive #13 and on the talk page). poke | talk 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well... I probably would have told people to shut up/take it elsewhere, and if they didn't, I'd probably ban them for a day or so just so everyone could calm down. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What would you say you greatest wiki achievement (this wiki) would be? Outside of the wiki, but still relate what would that be? --People of Antioch talk 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I'm sure most anybody who's seen me contribute on this site has seen, my major issue has been the Admin policy, and I've done my best to bring up the debate time and again (eg. my RfB's and my policy proposal). I haven't been terrible successful, but I guess I'd still count that as my greatest "achievement" on this wiki. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So using your own questions against you, I have to ask:

1. Why do you want to be an Admin?
2. What do you think you could accomplish as an Admin that you couldn't accomplish without the Admin tools?
3. What do you think distinguishes you from equally active, etc., users so much so that you deserve to be promoted?
4. I'm also curious what gap you believe you're filling. Is this a matter of insufficient activity? Excessive laxity? I know you got at some of these to an extent in your statement, and I apologize for the repetition, but I like lists.
5. If you were, say, up for reconfirmation and immediately elicited support from most of the community heavyweights and then some random dude started peppering you with questions, would you: 1. answer them respectfully, 2. answer them sarcastically, 3. ban the whelp?
6. Star Wars or Star Trek?
7. Do you hold grudges against those with long lists of questions?

Bugger, forgot to sign. Thanks PoA. - THARKUN 02:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, questions 1 and 4 are intrinsically linked. I want to be an Admin because I believe I can fill a specific gap. And it's not that the Admins are lax or even that they're not doing enough, but rather that more often than not (from what I've seen) they shy away from taking a hard line. I don't know if they're afraid (worried about possible aftershocks) or what, but that's my assessment. And I don't know whether I'm the best candidate to fill that gap, but having taken stock of my general administrative philosophy, I think I can fill that gap. And the second question really stems from my reason for wanting to be an Admin. Quite simply, unless someone else is promoted who takes a similar view, if I'm not promoted, than that view will remain (essentially) unrepresented among the Admins. My answer to the third question is simple: not much (other than perhaps sheer experience). Anyone (aside from those who would abuse the position) is essentially qualified to perform the duties of an Admin. My question would be among those equally qualified users, how many are willing to take the stance that I espouse. If there's someone who's more active, equally qualified, and equally mature/level-headed, than by all means, promote them. As to your 5th question, I almost certainly wouldn't "ban the whelp" (unless he was committing NPA or something, in which case I'd ask one of the other sysops to look into it), I'd like to think that I'd only answer sarcastically if I'd answered his questions several times and he was repeating them merely to annoy me or some such. More likely than not (and if you've seen some of my RfBs or somesuch where I had to do a lot of that kinda thing -- though it's a slightly different situation) I'd just answer his questions. In answer to your 6th question, Star Wars has more immediate appeal, but Star Trek has greater longevity, and in answer to your 7th question, yes, because walls of text are much more appealing. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Question for Backsword

Maybe I'm just being picky (or good forbid, overly semantic), but would you mind clarifying your vote? I never claim the current sysops aren't competent, in fact, as a general rule, I think they're very good; I just happen to think that they lack a certain quality. Also, how am I inviting more edrama (aside from any edrama that relates from this RfA itself)? As Auron says, shoot first, ask questions later doesn't mean banning too hastily or anything (which would I suppose have a high percentage chance of producing edrama)... so... Well, thanks in advance. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Contribution

I made a point earlier about your lacking any real presence here. You responded to pointing out how someone like Eloc has proven quality is better than quantity. This is easy to agree with, who wouldnt? But it also wasnt really my point. You really dont have a real presense here. So why do you really even need to be an admin?

I see people talking about:

• I dont see how admin tools would benefit this user
• For now, I would prefer to see you as a well contributing user who also takes part in active wiki discussions, which we always have
• While I fully trust you to never misuse the admin tools, I have not (yet?) seen how they would benefit you either. I would not oppose, but I cannot give a full support either :)

with these being reasons to not support other RfAs (I see it time and again). And yet they somehow support you? A person who has a such small footprint compared to others who do actively contribute here. I question the voting of some people, and whether or not this is simply a popularity contest, and not about who is good for the actual job. The votes to me, seem contradictory in nature.

I contributed in some discussions, does that make me someone who should be an admin? Hell no, nor would I ever want to be one. Maybe this IRC Super Friend Club is worthwhile to the wiki and more than just a place for the few to reinforce each others notions and make injokes. And maybe that means you have some hidden footprint I cant appreciate. But I still think an admin should have a much larger presence on the actual wiki than you presently have. And again, I dont mean like Eloc, I mean like the many users who are active here and probably should be given a shot long before you are. You could have fixed the issue of your presence long ago if you even seriously cared about your Bcrat runs or being an actual part of this wiki, since this was an issue then just as I think it remains to be an issue now.

For as straight forward as claim to be, I cant shake the feeling you are a shady person.--riceball 21:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

How would I benefit? Short answer: I wouldn't. Long answer: my RfA isn't predicated on the notion that it would increase my ability to contribute (although as I've said, I'm perfectly happy to fulfill a janitorial role), rather, I've predicated it on what I see as a lack of decisiveness on the part of the current Sysops, and I see myself being able to fill that role. Xeeron thinks there's a better candidate to do so, and as I said in my response to Tharkun, then by all means promote him. I honestly don't see myself as standing to gain a whole lot... and don't take this the wrong way, but I really don't care whether or not I'm a Sysop, 9/10ths of the time, I'll be doing the same thing I would have before I was a Sysop, I am however interested in there being a Sysop willing to shoot first, ask questions later (to re-use an expression being overused on this talk page). *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe it, but I'm slightly at an agreement with Riceball. Slightly. Yes, I think you would be of some help to the wiki. But do I think that you deserve the sysop role on the sole reason of your contributions here? No. Anything I've seen of you is either taking part in a policy discussion or somewhere in between your bureaucrat candidacy talk pages. A few undos of vandalism here of there. On that basis alone, I would go to oppose like I would with any other person on the wiki. What I've seen from you outside the wiki, however - the GW2W, IRC, PvX etc - is what is making me lean to the support side. I haven't even seen you around the admin noticeboards - and, yes, while it's not made for discussion and blah blah, I believe that someone who is so interested with the administrative sides of the wiki would give some comment in one way or another.

I agree that there is some contradictions with the support votes, especially with the RfA of People of Antioch's just below yours -- that one houses multiple reasons for opposition on the grounds that more experience throughout the wiki is necessary. Yet the same people are going to support you, even though, I have to say, your level of contribution and familiarity with this wiki seems to be below that of others'. I obviously can't speak for other people, but I don't think you should be promoted on the ground alone that your name is Defiant Elements, you would be a tough administrator and you probably are elsewhere. If that role is needed, I think it could be done better by someone else - done better because that someone else has more knowledge of being around this wiki. Who knows, Galil might be that someone else.

I'd like to take a comment from Tanaric on Auron's first RfA on this wiki that I think sums up my point - "I believe Auron would do an admirable job, but I dislike setting the precedent of appointing a sysop based upon positive experiences off-site. —Tanaric 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)"-- Brains12 \ Talk 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate on these positive experiences, as I'd care not to let my mind wander, especially with everything about Spitzer. Calor 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Prophet Ascension

Clearly you know nothing, I'm an oligarchical meritocrat! :P *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you should have picked a better socioeconomic doctrine to accuse me of adhering to, the mere fact that I would create an RfA (thus encouraging a class based wiki) is contradictory to communism ;). *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

People think communism is not class based? What has the world come to ... ;-) --Xeeron 12:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"We all all equal. Some are just more equal than others." A cookie to whoever can get where I adapted that quote from. --People of Antioch talk 14:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ur mom? --Disrupt Shot! 14:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Animal Farm. Great book btw. --Xeeron 15:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A cookie for you. --People of Antioch talk 15:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Am i the only one who thinks animal farm was over rated and just a tad on the mega obvious side? -- Salome 01:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Animal Farm is a great book in my opinion. Not sure whats bad with a message being obvious. Isnt that the point of any book, especially one with the commentary that book has?--riceball 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Obvious? Hmmm to people who graduated about early soviet russian history maybe, but I bet 95% of the people who read the book have no idea whom half the animals are supposed to represent. --Xeeron 09:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I loved Animal Farm! (And I'm glad to say I'm part of the 5% that understood the metaphorical side of it :) ) -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I had an extremely good history teacher who was also our English teacher, thus maybe why i found it a tad on the obvious side. -- Salome 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Animal Farm was great, I have read it twice :o) --Shadowphoenix 15:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm most people I know would not be able to say much more about Trotzki, except that he was murdered with an ice axe. I have to admit, figuring out Stalin is kind of obvious though... --Xeeron 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The only time being obvious isnt good for a story is when its a mystery. Animal Farm is more about a message and a word of caution without stepping on shoes.--riceball 02:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry riceball I generally agree with you, but have to disagree with you on this one. Say a writer wanted to convey the beauty of a rose, To deliver a message through nuance, prose and metaphor could be far more rewarding than simply saying "I saw a flower, it was good!". Taking out the work for the reader, defeats the purpose imho. If the reader has to work to understand the text more fully then imho thats a good thing. A story should always be clear and understandable, it's message should never be obvious. -- Salome 05:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

5 days

I cant remember if the RfA is resolved in 5 or 7 days, I think it is 5. If so, waffle for the Bcrats? --Shadowphoenix 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, one week. Calor 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ah ok so we got 2 more days. No Aiiane, you have to wait until the last day b4 u get waffles! --Shadowphoenix 02:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually im curious to see how this is gonna go, as theirs no clear yay or nay majority in the votes. So should be interesting. -- Salome 05:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Except, from the RfA procedures: An active RFA is to last roughly one week. A bureaucrat should then close it and determine the result. In general, a successful RFA has at least 3 times as much support compared to opposition -- but it is not a simple tally. Bureaucrats are to use their discretion in gauging/interpreting the amount of support/opposition. - THARKUN 05:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks matey. I know the policy but more often that not it does turn into a simple tally, which is why this one should be so interesting. -- Salome 05:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my point was that the guidance is 3x more support than opposition, and while there certainly is some Bureaucratic discretion, personally I find the vote numbers close enough and the opposition reasoning cogent enough that I don't believe any Bcrat will consider it a successful RfA. But that's mostly my perception and opinion; its quite possible that I'm completely misreading the bcrats or overgeneralizing past decisions. - THARKUN 05:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I wish that some of the voters had given more descriptive reasons, I'm inclined to agree with you on what the outcome will be. *Defiant Elements* +talk 13:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all guess on what's to come on the 6th of April :P -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On the 6th? Now you got me curious. ;-) --Xeeron 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, I worked it out. --Xeeron 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm lost :( Calor 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)