Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Karlos

Oppose

I do not believe this user should be a Sysop, and I would like to detail why. The description of this position states that “Sysops are granted reasonable discretion, but they are expected to apply policy rigorously and respect consensus” – Karlos has failed at the former (applying policies rigorously), but more troubling to me is how the ignored, and ignores, consensus. The Wiki is held by its community – important decisions here should be made through discussions within the community, and not be imposed from a member who ignored both the community and its discussions. Yet Karlos clearly states, in his talk page, how his very first act on the Wiki was the removal of a controversial tag ignoring the discussion about it – he stated how he didn’t even read said discussions. In other words, Karlos acted following his opinion and his opinion only, failing completely to respect (or even see) the consensus, assuming that he knew better than those involved with the issue at the time.

Now we have a similar situation. Karlos chose to ignore a policy because he decided it’s a flawed one – and by doing so, again he ignored the consensus the community had obtained when creating the policy in the first place. Again, he decided he simply knew better than the community. Even worse, he tried to quench the following discussion with statements such as “I am appalled with the few people who have protrayed this as being a fight between two reasonable points of view” and through breaches of NPA such as deeming that those who have a different opinion from him are “totalitarian dictators”.

It is clear to me that this user is not working for the community. He is not concerned about what the users think the Wiki should be – he’s concerned about what he, and only he, thinks the Wiki should be, and is willing to reach his ideals through policy breaches, intimidation and insults, while placing himself in the position of a martyr fighting for “freedom”. This is the very opposite of what an administrator should be – someone willing to work for the community, to listen to what it says, aiming to reach some sort of compromise instead of aggressively dismissing those he does not agree with.Erasculio 22:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to interpret my intentions as you like but I do respect consensus. I have been wikis long enough, however, to know that the vocal postings of 6 users do NOT constitute consensus. As an admin you have a moral obligation not to bowdown to a Vocal Minority when you see the interests of the wiki itself at stake. This is how I see my actions in both incidents. The fact that the changes I stood up for prevailed in both cases hints that while my methods maybe questionable... My intents are not. --Karlos 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The first to paragraphs of your message hold more or less intelligent stuff, but "It is clear to me that this user is not working for the community. He is not concerned about what the users think the Wiki should be – he’s concerned about what he, and only he, thinks the Wiki should be, ..." and everything after it was utter crap if you'd seen him on GuildWiki and the official wiki from the beginning. -- (gem / talk) 04:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But I haven't, and all I continue to see here are attempts to disqualify those who don't agree with him. First "totalitarian dictators", now "vocal minority" - an administrator should have the decency of attacking opinions, not people, as well as realizing he's in no position to judge those who are contributors just like him (or better than him in this case, given how those who disagree with Karlos did not resort to breaching a policy or insulting him to make their point). Erasculio 10:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"An administrator should have the decency of attacking opinions, not people, as well as realizing he's in no position to judge those who are contributors just like him." I take it you're assuming the world goes by your views of morality here? I judge people all the time. It isn't bad or evil, it's merely how I keep track of people.

In that vein... Calling someone a totalitarian dictator isn't nice, but that doesn't make it wrong. If you're complaining about Karlos' lack of sugar-coating the truth, you're wasting time and energy; if his accusations are incorrect, make an argument on that, but don't bitch about him not being nice. C'mon now, srsly. Being nice has nothing to do with how well one can use sysop tools. -Auron 11:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Very ironic comment, given how Karlos should have replied to the "dictator's" arguments instead of insulting them or trying to disqualify their opinions. And frankly, if you don't see anything wrong on insulting people, I think you lack morality, and so you are not fit to be in a position of power (not to mention how that's a policy breach on itself, thanks to NPA). A sysop who thinks he knows better, who's not willing to even listen to a different opinion and replies to arguments with insults is, to me, someone who's obviously not fit for that position. Erasculio 11:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your views on what is insulting are skewed, and that's my point. If I called you a "totalitarian dictator," and you were indeed a totalitarian dictator, what the hell are you complaining about? It's no longer an insult, it's the plain truth. -Auron 11:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Even ignoring the arrogance in assuming you are capable of jugding someone else and then assuming said judgment is a fact, not only a opinion, and how contributors are supposed to reply to arguments with arguments (as opposed to ad hominem attacks), NPA here pretty much states that you are wrong ("It is as unacceptable for anyone to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action as it is to attack any other user"). While I'm sure you could just state that breaching a policy doesn't matter as long as you are "right" (Karlos has created this precedent), I would rather stay on the side of decency and try to follow a policy that restrains unecessary hostility. The fact Karlos ignores this policy when using his position as a Sysop to reinforce his points, while a Sysop here is described as "administrators who perform cleanup tasks" (and not a moderator or someone more reasonable than the average contributor) makes it clear how he's not actually being a Sysop - he's being a bully. Erasculio 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"... when using his position as a Sysop to reinforce his points, ..." Karlos has never done that as far as I know. :) Please point me to a case where he's done so. -- (gem / talk) 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

From his statement: "I believe the idea of an admin being a regular user with a few more buttons is naive as they hold power and sway over discussions". Also check his words bellow about "Different View on adminship...". In both, he's stating that an admin (himself included) has power over a discussion thanks to his position as an authority, and that he wants to continue in his position to be able to keep said power. In fact, he has not mentioned the "sysop tools" that Auron mentioned; he only did so to defend himself after it was said that he scarcely uses them. Erasculio 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not doing enough Sysopping

Pepe says that he opposes my adminship because I do not sysop enough. It has to be one of the weirdest reasons I have seen, however, I will say that I check the "Pages marked for deletion" category but I see lots of other people doing that (Gem, Barek, Xasxas formerly, now Aiiane and Anja seem to be enjoying it too), so I seldom have to do anything there. If I felt there was a need there or a backlog, I would have helped there.

I tend to prefer to be involved in disputes and conflicts and regularly check the admin noticeboard. I even have more blocks than Tanaric, and he buffed his stats by blocking Biro, who's unblockable. --Karlos 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I also feel that you didn't handle the GWW:USER situation well, I've seen a few things that go pretty deep into NPA territory, a couple of ironic/hypocritical comments and actions, as well as general inactivity as an admin (I mean, I'm a newbie admin, and I still did almost 200 deletions and 6 blocks in my first day as a sysop). I didn't really want to go into things that I had already covered on a different talk page, though.

I also disagree with your view of sysophood, which seems to have carried over from GuildWiki. GWiki sysops are basically moderators, but we've designed the position to be a glorified janitor. Many of your actions seem (to me) to stem from attempting to change policy or deal with something in a manner that goes against accepted rules and/or consensus, which is imposing a level of judgement that does not fall to the Sysops here. While you may have good intentions, I very much disagree with the way that you deal with issues that crop up.

More importantly, my vote is my own, and I have no desire to change it. MisterPepe talk 22:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not seeking to change your vote. I am seeking to dispel the notion that I am an inactive admin. I see heaps of people deleting pages on the candidates for deletion every day and the backlog is not overwhelming everytime I have checked it. 200 deletions in one day is actually not a good thing because it can show you exercised little judgement in examining each case. I make no judgement on your deletions though, have not even looked at them. But yo umight wanna consider slowing down a bit, for your next full day as admin. --Karlos 22:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't delete anything controversial (everything was either AfD or had a speedy reason), and I even skipped over a decent number of AfD guild articles because they were on the line (and I didn't want to do anything wrong that would merit being shanked by Dirigible on said first day).

To me, if it's possible to do that much in one day, it sure seems like inactivity do do a quarter of that over the course of five months. But yeah, I'm not trying to persuade anyone here. That's why I voted, everyone else should make up their own minds. MisterPepe talk 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

People who think edit counts and deletion/blocking counts mean anything have no idea what they're talking about. -Auron 02:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would say that they do on this wiki, where we have Anet staff specifically saying they do not want people to remain in positions of power indefinitely. That's why we have rotations for the bureaucrats and the reconfirmations. To ensure that inactive or less active people give way to others (not that I'm implying that Karlos is inactive). -- ab.er.rant 06:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I do state categorically that I am against having dormant sysops who retain their status simply because of who they were a year ago. I was not under the impression that I am dormant or inactive. I was never very fond of doing the deletion stuff. I am pretty sharp on delaing with vandalism/conflict issues, but people here have been on top of things so I have had to block/look at fewer cases. --Karlos 07:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would add that I actually find the general statement you make, Aberrant, a VERY dangerous precedent. It means that at the end of each admin's review cycle or reconfrimation term or whatever, users should look to see how many pages this guy deleted compared to the leading page deletzor and how many IPs he has blocked. This is an EXTREMELY bad way of inticing activity by admins. ZOMG! Review time is a month away, better start scouring that Candidates for Deletion list and deleting quick so I can amass more deletes than the others. I don't think it should be a factor except if there was a huge backlog and the admin did nothing to help alleviate it. --Karlos 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeh. If you look at a sysop's deletion count to decide whether you should support him or not, you are in no position to cast a vote on his RfA period. Even taken in conjunction with a review of that sysop's individual edits, delete/block counts are utterly worthless, as they add absolutely no understanding of that sysop or how he carried out his duty. -Auron 09:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you guys are misunderstanding me. And I suppose I may have used the wrong words. Auron said "People who think edit counts and deletion/blocking counts mean anything have no idea what they're talking about." Which I have taken to imply that he believes that having very little edits and very little activity with cleanup does not matter when it comes to sysophood. You two are taking my response to refer to "deletion/blocking counts" whereas my response was also meant to include "edit counts". I am saying that here on this wiki, edit counts (and by extension, general activity) does matter. I am not saying that a sysop should only be retained if he/she has a certain number of activity per a certain period. I was trying to say that a sysop with very little activity does reflect poorly for that sysop if when a comparison is required. The same with me. If, in the future, someone deems that I have performed very little "sysops-ty" activity for the past, say 3 months, then they are entitled to request a reconfirmation. Either I misrepresented myself or I have a very different understanding of this reconfirmation rule. -- ab.er.rant 10:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying: No dormant Sysops. Then I agree. I don't speak very good Aberrantish though. :P --Karlos 10:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I use "aberrant" for a reason ;) Anyway, yes, part of what I'm saying is no dormant sysops. But I'm also saying no hibernating sysops, such as sysops who show up only a couple of times a year (hence my misunderstood mention that edit counts do count). I guess linking my point to edit counts and such wasn't a particularly bright idea... -- ab.er.rant 10:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Suppose that you were making sysop-only actions that were not abusive, but were still much too strong (protect too quickly, delete too much, block too long) for my personal tastes. What would/should I, as a user, have to do to get that pattern to change? --Rezyk 06:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, personal taste is not really something I can: a) understand the rationale behind, b) find common ground with among other users and c) use as a standard because it is subject to change.

If personally you dislike the way I do my job but provide me with no other rationale other than your personal taste, I would weight that against the vision of the wiki, the vision I have of the wiki and my own personal regard of your character as a fellow contributor. So, if you told me, you blocked J.Kougar too quickly for my taste. I would ask, why do you believe that. And you say, I don't know, I just feel that way. I would say: "Hmmm, ok" and leave it at that. Now if you provide insight as to what would have been better or why you think the block was too quick, then we can carry that further.

Overall, if the policies allow it, and the admin does it in good faith, then I don't think you can fault the admin. How you proceed to diagree with an admin is to bring it to his attention in his talk page and move on from there. I feel I am missing your question though... Aren't I? --Karlos 08:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah..I wish I could word it more clearly.

It's definitely a good first step to talk with the admin in that situation, but I'm not looking to take that step or fault you for whatever cases -- I'm just trying to understand your overall picture of admin discretion in relation to what's-the-end-result-when-people-reasonably-disagree. What's the overall step that the disagreeing user (let's say it's not me) has to achieve, to successfully get your actions to change? (He has to get you to change your opinion? Or he just has to convince any sysop? etc..) Sure, if he convinces you (or you convince him) then it generally works out easily, but what if that doesn't happen? --Rezyk 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I see what you mean.

Let's say user A and B were arguing over a page, they started a revert war and I felt the best course of action was to protect the X article. A regular user takes exception to that. I would think they would first try and change my mind. If they are unable to, then they should indeed contact another admin if they feel strongly enough (I know I would if I was not an admin) and try to get them to override me. How that admin chooses to deal with it is really open right now. But if I was contacted in the inverse role (i.e. Gem was the one who protected the page and Gordon Ecker contacted me because he failed to get Gem to change his mind), I would look into it and I would try to make sure that I do the right thing for the wiki but be tactful about it. Overall, the "default status" of those three example you mentioned is:

• The default status of users is that they are unblocked.
• The default status of articles is that they are unprotected.
• The default status of articles is that they are not deleted.

This default would be the standard between us. So, assuming we (all in this wiki) agree to this convention, I would restore the article/users in question, then we would talk about it and we can raise the dialog as far up in the hierarchy as we want to go to reach a resolution.

Ideally, I'd like to say that the admin himself (in this case me) should just revert the article to the "default" state I mentioned, but in reality, the admin will likely be in favor of his/her own actions. So, I guess, if the non-admin user can't get the admin to revert the article/user to this default state, he can go to another admin and inform him/her that there is a dispute over this administrative action, and this other admin's DUTY (in my opinion) would be to restore the article/user to the default state. He/she can be as tactful as they want about it, but if the action is in dispute, then it should be momentarily suspended, not upheld. --Karlos 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Different View on adminship...

This issue was mentioned by a number of people, and I want to explain where my different view comes from and what it actually mean.

What I have learned over my long tenure on GuildWiki is that, the elite on wikis are not that much different from the elite in any democratically elect system. This doesn't mean they are all fat, bald, white men... It means they are very susceptible to forgetting whom they were representing.

I'll give an example from GuildWiki:

Some time ago, a group of really good users (some admins, some not) went about changing the skill information box that appears on the right. Whereas the old box was fine and dandy in terms of displaying the basic info on the right side of the page, it bothered more "experienced" contributors. Why? Because they were trying to compile all these (very useful) skill lists (like List of interruption skills) and the problem they faced was that they would have to fill in the skill's info there too. Then ANet would nerf the skill, then they would have to fix it in the skill's page and in ALL the lists that included the skill.

So, they came up with an ingenius idea, developed by some of the best and brightest GWiki had to offer (some of them reading this right now)... They created this system where the skill info was placed in a template and thus mutiple pages could show it (in different ways even) and yet, when it was nerf time, you'd just change the template and the change would propagate through the whole wiki. Simply brilliant.

This had one side-effect though... It made the page for Mystic Sweep look like this. Note that you can't edit the skill info. Instead, you have to click on the contrived link in the top right corner.

Everyone was happy with this idea at first, except for one guy... Me. I lobbied and lobbied against... I explained over and over that it was arcane and simply wrong to change the way the wiki behaves to the user simply to make things easier for contributors. The user on ANY other page clicks "Edit" at the top to edit the page, if he did that with a skill page, poof! The skill details are all gone! I felt that was a breaking change that should not have been implemented. I whined and harped and tried to get them to change their mind. I was overruled. :(

Lo and behold, GWWiki is starting to form, and here is the result of my work. (And yes, I can be very patient at times.) :P

The moral of this story is very simple: I believe the active minority on a wiki to not always be representative of the average user. Most of the people who are active in policy making tend to post on talk pages, they tend to dabble in PhP, HTML and CSS and they tend to stare at Recent Changes for hours every day. Most of the time, this active minority does very common sense things that are in-line with what average simple users like and do. Sometimes, however, they need to have their eyes opened to the simple fact that not everyone in the world knows C++ and has a pet snail named "Gary." See this example here, where everyone up to that point was assuming (implicitly) that all GW users are power users who run firewalls on their computers. The truth of the matter is that the average age of players in the game is like 17 or something and that the majority of 14-18 year olds are very bad in terms of computer security. This is a simple example of exactly the kind of thing I represent and the kind of vision I bring to the table.

The note on the main page to stop editing till policies are made is another example of a policy that was designed by power-contributors for power-contributors.

I believe it is entirely possible for the community (read the vocal/active minority) to come up with policies that do not serve the average user well, do not serve the average user at all, and sometimes even policies that hurt the average user. That does not mean I mistrust the consensus of the community, nor that I think I know better than everyone else in the community. I simply feel I am very grounded in what is best for the average user, I have refused to learn any advanced wiki programming (even though I am dev by profession), I have refused to use Poke's beautiful WikiTools for the same reason. I want this site to look and feel to me exactly as it would an anonymous user. I also rely on my professional experience as a dev who worked often with customers and was forced to always think of their needs.

Now, it is entirely possible to read all of this as "one big delusional guy" and it is also possible to say "well you don't need to be an admin to do that" and both might be true. In my opinion, there are VERY few admins (here or on GWiki) whom I believe posses that same "simple user" vision (only Rainith off the top of my head and then Xasxas and Tanaric having it every now and then). This is the reasoning behind my vision. --Karlos 10:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to comment, as I said I have different views on the admin role. I agree with most of the things you stated above, just that I don't think any of that has anything to do with admin role. A sysop here is to help delete, undelete, block and unblock stuff, period. He/she should not be relied on to solve disputes or discussions and find consensus, any user can do that just as well. I do not agree with your view that an admin "hold power and sway over discussions", I definitely think an admin should be a regular user with just a few more buttons and a documented will to follow policies and consensus, because that's what I've read and been told an admin really is meant to be in here.
Lastly, I admit I lost the "simple user" view months ago, maybe even a year, but I do hope I can still benefit the community in some way. - anja 11:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Lots of text with lots of wise stuff, but I can't read anything about the admin roles on this wiki. -- (gem / talk) 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I can give you many examples of how admins DO have power and sway over arguments (whether people choose to acknowledge them or not, and whether they MEANT to have that power or not), however, I want to make it clear that I do NOT believe admins OUGHT to have sway and power, I am saying they NATURALLY do... Whether you acknoeldge it or not. Some examples:

1. MisterPepe being so scared of enforcing policy on my page because "I'm a freaking admin."
2. Gem adding that notice to the main page preventing edits after only hearing an "aye" from Dirigible (this is an example of veteran users holding more power or sway in arguments, basically, Gem saw that a trusted veteran user said yes, and he immediately thought that no harm could come out of it).
3. Gem's own edit becoming canon, even though it was his proposition and all of a sudden all those who opposed it had to deal with it as "facts on the ground" and prove why it should be removed.

Admins exercise these powers on a daily basis and they affect people's views and opinions all the time with the actions they take and even the opinions they voice in discussion. Ideally, you would like to think that they have zero influence and that the average user is aware of their rights and the limits on admin powers, but it does not always happen that way. Just like the average citizen becomes inexplicably tense when they find out the guy next to them in church works as a policeman or FBI agent. They get these goosebumps, although ideally... Policement and FBI agents are supposed to be "public servants."

Part of it is general internet cultures... Most wiki users are average internet users, very used to chat rooms and BB forums where admins actually hold sway and power.

As admins, we do our best to alleviate this concern (this is why I think admins should NEVER designate their signatures with special marks that say they are admins, because not only is it a bit elitist, but it also sends the message that the fact that they are admins is somehow relevant in the discussion), but it would be foolish to pretend it does not exist. In fact, I have often in my discussions tried to make it clear that even thogh I vehemently disagree with someone, my position as admin has no weight in the discussion (see Tetris).

I hope this clarifies what I mean. I am in NO way advocating that an admin's input on whether Carven Effigies are Undead is worth any more than a regular user's... I am saying that often times their opinions will hold more weight in the eyes of regular users reading their opinions (deservedly or not). This is why, as an admin if you feel people are taking your words as to what ought to happen as policy or edicts, that you make it clear they are just the suggestions of a fellow user. It's not because of lack of clarity in terms of our own admin policy, it's because users are just used to that from real life and other internet sites. --Karlos 22:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words, none of the things stated on "Different View on adminship..." are within the realm of what a Sysop has to do (as stated above, "sysop here is to help delete, undelete, block and unblock stuff, period"). If you assume that you "naturally" have "sway and power" thanks to being an admin, and you would like to avoid such connotation when you make a contribution, and yet your examples of what an administrator should do are basically holding "sway and power" over different discussions...The logical approach would be to not be an admin. Then you would not have to worry about your position to overinfluence others, while still doing the same things you described on "Different View on adminship...". Erasculio 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And how does that address the fact that all the others admins have it? How does my own withdrawal from adminship alleviate the issue? I'd rather have someone among the admins who has a different view on things with that same sway at least until we discover a miraculous way to remove that sway. --Karlos 23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The other admins are more concerned with the relevant roles of being a Sysop (in other words, actually delete, undelete, block and unblock things) than with being the voice of some opressed group. You, by your statements above, think the opposite way. If we had someone else trying to use his position as a Sysop to further his arguments, I assure you I would be doing the same opposition - but right now, all you are trying to do is to use two wrongs to make a right (again - the previous example of this was seen on the policy breach about the User Page policy), and that doesn't really work. Erasculio 23:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I NEVER said I am "more" (or less) concerned with admin duties than I am with representing average users. Why are the two at odds even? I am an admin who is concerned with adminship, deleting, blocking, ... however, when I do practice it, I have this background to fall on, not the typical wiki-power-contributor background. That's all there is. Read what I said in response to Pepe... I am fully aware of my admin duties and I carry them out all the times, I never described discussion as an admin duty or advocating a policy. I was using my position in certain discussion to show my different point of view. I NEVER said pushing for certain views is an admin role. --Karlos 00:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Different View on adminship..." text pretty much goes against the theory that you have "NEVER" said pushing for certain views is an admin role - in fact, the main difference in said views is how you think an admin is (and should be, from your own example) responsible for pushing some issues, something I (obviously) disagree with, and that you also reinforced when claiming that you "prefer to be involved in disputes and conflicts". And if, when checking on actual Sysop issues such as the "Pages markef for deletion", you "seldom have to do anything there", I believe we don't really need you as a Sysop - it appears the current ones are are already handling the things they have to (again, block, unblock, delete, undelete) very well without you. Erasculio 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but those points concern all super active contributors, not just sysops. I still don't see how being a sysop in those situations would change anything. For example I would have done the same thing with the notice without being a sysop. -- (gem / talk) 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Karlos has a point regarding sysops being naturally more influential than normal users. If you weren't a sysop when you tagged the notice, other people might've quickly revert you. If Karlos hadn't been a sysop when he removed that notice, again, others might've just quickly reverted him. So in the end, whether you wanted to have that effect or not, the effect will be there. -- ab.er.rant 05:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Like Xeeron said in his "Oppose" vote, being that outspoken is great for common users, but it's not benefitial in an admin. And when we have someone who believes the main role of an admin is to be outpspoken (as mentioned above and in the request page), knowningly having and using that "same sway" to reinforce his opinions (not to mention relying on insults, policy breaches and etc), IMO it becomes clear that someone should not be an admin. Erasculio 12:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's not the adminship that is the deciding factor, it's just how other users think of this user. I don't think that removing my sysop powers, for example, has any effect on how people react to stuff that I do and say. -- (gem / talk) 21:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion > unilateral action

The above paragraph reads like a glorification of unilateral action, something I do not want to let stand unopposed.

• Guildwiki has those skill lists. Whenever I try to look up new skills and find myself going there instead of using this wiki, I am reminded of how useful they are. However I also clearly remember that my stance regarding them was the same as the one here: There are advantages and disadvantages of using templates and it needs to be well thought through whether or not we want to use them. Far from being the result of your work, the current system here is the result of several active editor's discussion, you notably being not among them.
• Likewise, the main page template was far from unopposed. Except, those people previously opposed to it chose to discuss the issue instead of imposing their own will on the whole wiki.
• Regarding the user page policy, again, discussion brought up all the points you disagreed with long, long ago. I point you to my very first edit on this wiki. Since the policy was first proposed, it has already become far less restrictive through discussion. Had you been more active back then and backed up those arguing against the policy, maybe it would never have become policy in the first place.

You make it sound like you are the "one guy" to bring reason to a crazy wiki; far from it. All your points have been raised long ago - but not by you. You choose to ignore the whole discussion, not contributing once, only to ride in several months late to declare that the consensus found is bogus. That is not a sensible way to govern a wiki. --Xeeron 14:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, here goes:

The above paragraph reads like a glorification of unilateral action, something I do not want to let stand unopposed.

No, it's a detailed explanation of why I think I have a different view on issues than most admins here. This differnet view does not necessarily always result in a different opinion, not in the correct opinion... It is however, a fundamentally different view. We'll talk more about unilateral action in a bit.

Far from being the result of your work, the current system here is the result of several active editor's discussion, you notably being not among them.

Call me delusional if you like. However, I believe that Fyren AND LordBiro were big fans of that stupid skill template, and it were my efforts that made Biro post that request, that the skill box NOT be made in the manner it was made in GWiki. I read that thread, saw that there was consensus on not doing that and moved on. I had no reason to lobby, and I am not a big formatting expert. If you're saying that I did not have an influence on Fyern's and Biro's views, that's entirely your right, but I question your statement. I guess we'd have to ask Biro and Fyren if we wanted to, but like I said, assuming I am highly delusional is also an option.

What I want to point out, is I don't know how you can paint my efforts THERE as unilateral action. I proteted and protested and argued and debated... But I never rolled back the skill templates, never stopped Fyren from transmogrifying all the skills, what unilateral action did I take that. I would think you'd be happy with my efforts there. Unless, of course, you believe my efforts there had no effect here. Which you are entitled to (I am honestly shocked by that interpretation on your part).

Likewise, the main page template was far from unopposed. Except, those people previously opposed to it chose to discuss the issue instead of imposing their own will on the whole wiki

If there is no such thing as "unilateral action" then how come Gem was allowed to place that note that says "no more editing in the wiki" basically after proposing it HIMSELF and only hearing an "Aye" from Dirigible?

My view there was that there was NO way such a destructive notice should have been placed on the main page with SO little debate to begin with. The people involved acted as if it's their wiki (you know, Gem's and Dirigible's and Gares') and not the average user's wiki. I was absolutely right, removal of the note was the right thing to do, placement of the note required a great amount of debate and deliberation and everyone who commented knew I was right. There only complaint was the "way" I said it. The blunt way of stating the obvious. This is my M.O. I am not proud of it, but I will be perfectly blunt at times, yes.

I winder why you find it okay to place the note with little deliberations, but not okay to remove it with little deliberations. I also wonder why you cannot see how damaging it was to have that note up there WHILE we deliberate over removing it or not. This is what I mean when I say my loyalty is to the wiki, not the elite wikians. The note was killing the wiki and the average users trying to add content or find content, the project had a limited window of opportunity to make a spark and grow quick in content (I have seen aenough game wikis fizzle over the past 2-3 years) and I was not going to stand by and waste another week arguing, debating, submitting RFCs and RFAs and CFBs (no idea what those are)... I was not going to do that. If this is defined as a "bad" mindset. Then I am guilty as charged.

Regarding the user page policy, again, discussion brought up all the points you disagreed with long, long ago. I point you to my very first edit on this wiki. Since the policy was first proposed, it has already become far less restrictive through discussion. Had you been more active back then and backed up those arguing against the policy, maybe it would never have become policy in the first place.

True, and I have stated from the beginning of the user policy conflict that it's mainly my fault that this different vision I was proposing was not present at the start. The issue was never strictness though, Xeeron, the issue is a diametrically opposed view of who's taste and view matters. Power-contributors regulating for power-contributors. a 70 year old dean of a university setting the guidelines for what the Facebook entries of students in his college will look like. Arcane and archaic.

You make it sound like you are the "one guy" to bring reason to a crazy wiki; far from it. All your points have been raised long ago - but not by you. You choose to ignore the whole discussion, not contributing once, only to ride in several months late to declare that the consensus found is bogus. That is not a sensible way to govern a wiki.

I bring a differnt logic, not the the only logic. Each and every admin (and active controbutor) on this wiki is extremely good at reasoning and logic. I make no attempt at saying I am more logical/reasonable/wiser than others. All I said was, I look at things differently from the dominant types in the wiki. The prevailing types here have a view, and I have a different one (sometimes slightly different, sometimes vastly different). You have every right to believe that in the end I have the same mind set as all the other people with just an over-heightened sense of self-worth.

It is true that on this wiki, I have missed certain discussions was susrprised by certain policies and then came back with "How the heck did you guys ever come up with this policy?" And I only have myself to blame. However, I do not make it a habit to claim credit for myself where there is none. And on those incidents I listed (the main page and the skill box), I take full credit (and responsibility) for making those changes. I'll ask Biro to weigh in on the skill box issue, because I feel you're painting me as this self-advertizing bozo who comes in late and claims all the credit when he's done none of the work. --Karlos 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"I make no attempt at saying I am more logical/reasonable/wiser than others". No? Because when you claim that those who don't agree with you are “totalitarian dictators”, you really do not sound like someone who respects others. When you claim to be surprised by how a discussion is been portraied as something "between two reasonable points of view", you definitely do not sound like someone who's not saying he's more reasonable than others. When you say that "I believe the idea of an admin being a regular user with a few more buttons is naive as they hold power and sway over discussions", with you being an admin yourself, you make very clear that you think you hold more power than others. So while I definitely agree on the "over-heightened sense of self-worth" (especially given how you claim to be the self appointed champion of average users, despite how I doubt an average user has asked for you to fulfill that role and, as an average user myself, I do not want you in that role), I'm somewhat unsure of where your true opinions lie. Erasculio 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I pull back no punches, I speak my mind bluntly and I am not all too proud of how I phrase myself all the time. And yes, I still believe that policy is an authoritarian totalitarian document. And yes, admins do have power and sway over discussions whether they choose to or not and you can scroll up and read more about it.

I personally feel I have no shot with you Erasculio as you portray and overabundant amount of hostility towards someone you hardly ever dealt with, however, I'll try to explain myself again:

Here's a simple example from real life: In all big software companies (and even smaller ones like ANet), there is a bunch of people who are extremely smart, extremely talented and very confident... They are known as developers. They are the magicians who make miracles happen. They are the brain power and true strength of a software company. A few senior developers leaving a company could be a serious blow to its brain power and it's ability to atract new talent. However, all companies to a T do not let developers design their products in a vacuum. There is always this annoying "Program Manager" (in Microsoft), "Requirement Analysis" guy (in the old days) or "Community Relations Manager" (in ANet) whose main fucntion is to sit down with the customers (the technologically challenged users who need help finding their Inbox) to get a feel for what THEY want in the product and relay it to the developers. I see mself as this guy (and feel free to question that and question my credentials for that position).

The average power-contributor is NOT a reflection of the average wiki user just like the average developer is not a reflection of the average computer user. A bunch of super developers CAN sit down in a vacuum and make a really good piece of software that everyone likes. However, more often than not, they seem to miss really simple things because they are not intouch with average users.

This is the best example I can give. If after reading this, you still want to paint this as me saying "requirement analysis guys are smarter than developers" or "more important than developers" or what not... Feel free to do so, but it's not whatI am saying. If you feel I am not qualified for that position, you have every right to think so, however, I feel my history says that I have done a darn good job in doing that. If you're saying such "requirement analysis" guys are not needed here, the User Page policy is evidence to the contrary. --Karlos 23:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

...And the reason why you would have to be a Sysop to do that is? Even ignoring how someone who's speaking for others should actually take care with what he says and how he says, and all other points I could repeat, what really intrigues me is the link between your metaphor above and a position that, here, could be better defined as a technical assignment, not a political one. Erasculio 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Because they DO hold sway (see above)... Cyclical arguemnts ftl. :( --Karlos 23:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I am at a loss of how to reply here and I feel little enthusiasm to write a lengthy response, since it looks like you responded to something that is almost diametrally opposed to what I said. Let me just quote two examples why:

• If there is no such thing as "unilateral action" - I never said there is no unilateral action, I said there IS unilateral action and it is inferior to discussion.
• I winder why you find it okay to place the note with little deliberations - Had you followed the link I provided, you would have seen that I was the first one to disagree with the note. --Xeeron 10:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The unilateral thing seems a bit out of context Xeeron. I believe that Karlos was saying that if you think what he did was unilateral action, he's saying that he's not the only one guilty of it. -- ab.er.rant 10:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Xeeron, I was saying that you're making it sound like I'm the only one taking unilateral action like a wild maverick, and I was trying to show you that the whole incident started with unilateral action by Gem and I took quick corrective steps to remedy that.

I still can't believe you are trying to some how find me at fault in that incident. You mean you would have rather wanted the main page to retain that horrible note for several days (and the number of edits to drop by the hour) while you went back and forth with Gem, Gares and whoever? Is there no place for common sense in the world of policy? I don't understand your "anger" at all. Yes, I acted quick, yes, I did not wait for the discussion to unfold and yes I believe I did this wiki a HUGE favor by doing that.

I can't put it any more bluntly. Nit pick all you want over the specifics. It was a great edit in my view and I am tired of being painted as a criminal for doing it. I won't go around soliciting approval from others. I know in my heart it was a great edit. What you're doing is a mockery of everything policies are supposed to be about.

Do your worst, Xeeron, vote opposed, label me a menace to society, whatever. I don't think I deserve this, especially not from you. --Karlos 10:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Karlos, in your argumentation, you use a bunch of rethorical technics, which I prefer not being used. You make wrong statements about what I try to do, not based on what I typed. You use rethorical questions to set me up. You absurdly overstate my comments. You, while accusing me of labeling you, do exactly that to me. I am perfectly able to use these technics myself, but that would make for a very angry discussion, I dont want that. Neither do I want to start each of my contributes with a half page disclaimer, correcting all the wrong claims you made about me. If this discussion can only be this emotional, I'll rather not have it at all. Suffice to say, I still believe in what I stated in my first post under this heading and all this discussion has achieved is convincing me that my vote on the RFA was correct. --Xeeron 13:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Karlos, you do deserve what Xeeron said. You are at fault for taking unilateral action without even reading the discussion regarding that issue. Saying that you were not "the only one taking unilateral action" is not an excuse - you are (again) trying to use two wrongs to make a right, and that does not work, not for a common user and much less to an admin, who's supposed to be an example for the community. You claim to be using "common sense", while what you effectively enforced was your opinion, and your opinion only, ignoring everything else. And considering how a policy is the result of a discussion within the community, what really is "a mockery of everything policies are supposed to be about" is claiming that you do not have to follow a policy since, by your judgment and your judgment alone, completely ignoring what the community has decided, that policy is a bad one. Your aggressive replies to those who don't agree with you, together with how you don't even realize that you did something wrong, are more than enough for me to say you are a very bad option for an admin. Erasculio 13:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Erasculio, I feel his responses are more born of frustration than aggression, whereas yours feel more aggressive because you keep harping on everything he says. You've already made your point and your feelings in your numerous comments and I believe you don't need to keep repeating them. There are two things I would like to clarify about your points: (1) Given all the emphasis that sysops are supposed to be glorified janitors and refutations of any form of leadership role that Karlos defined, I fail to see why sysops are supposed to be good examples to the community. According to GWW:ADMIN, we have to act as per policy dictates, it doesn't say we have to act as good examples. I can be rude and unfriendly but still be an effective sysop by strictly applying policies (but whether I'll remain a sysop because of hurt feelings is another issue). That, I believe, is the issue of contention for what sysop are supposed to be. Role models? or Cleaners? So far, alot of people have been saying the latter. (2) Second is that what he pushed for was not only his opinion; many people did protest, it's just that he decided to push for it in a manner most don't approve of. I would like you to calm down a bit with your responses. -- ab.er.rant 01:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My points are that aggressive out of frustration, as well. To me, this entire situation sounds like something completely unnaceptable on the most basic levels; and while this situation is a very small one (this is just a wiki, not a government), I feel that, if we don't take a stand against this kind of small thing, it would only spread until it hits the big ones as well. I agree with your point that Sysops should be only glorified janitors, acting strickly as policy dictates - but that's IMO where Karlos fails, both by acting like he actually has some kind of leadership and by going directly against a policy. And I also agree that the opinion Karlos enforced didn't only belong to him - but my point is not how he went against one idea, but rather how he went against said idea without even giving a look at the discussion regarding it. So while we know that he wasn't enforcing only his opinion, when he did the change he didn't know that - given how he hadn't read the discussion before acting. Had he read the discussion, considered the different opinions there, then mentioned how he still thought it was wrong to have that noticed there, and said that he decided it was better to remove the notice while the discussion was still happening (replying to the arguments saying otherwise), and then made the change, I would see absolutely nothing to complain about. Unfortunately that's not what happened. Erasculio 02:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm just thinking that you might want to take a break from this talk page to let the frustration level go down a bit. -- ab.er.rant 02:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you're right, I am getting too carried away. Better leave this issue alone (and besides you were right when you said I have been mostly repeating myself; I don't think there's anything more of importance I could add). Thanks for pointing it out : ) Erasculio 02:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(In response to Karlos' original post)
While I would like to stay away from this discussion, my name was mentioned in regards to this and as such, I am apart of this discussion whether I wanted to be or not. Being that the discussion was during a different time where we were unsure of what ANet would allow on the wiki (see my 2nd and 3rd posts on that thread), my approval was to ensure no trouble would be caused content-wise, yet I said any other contributions were fine as it is a wiki and everything can be fixed and formatted. Other than that, it seems it is your assumption that I agreed to the notice whole-heartedly and stretched your view to believe I thought this was my wiki. Although it is surprising that you choose three, as there were four that showed their approval, for whatever reason their approval may have been, and you choose only Dirigible, Gem, and then myself. You recently spoke out here on a conflict of interest. It would also be my assumption that you may have had a conflict of interest mentioning the other user now. However, you did decide to mention him then. So I also have another assumption that you only mentioned three users that recently you have shown a dislike for during this past week. To paraphrase you, you have said you actions revolve around speaking for the regular user. That's a great mission, but my actions are to protect the wiki and the contributions of everyone involved. — Gares 12:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel insulted due to many things said by Karlos in the above discussion, which is quite a new feeling to me in the wiki world. Karlos, you are accusing me and a few others of doing something really really bad (sounds like the most horrible thing on the world when reading your posts), but atleast I did what I thought was right and stand behind my actions. I did think that dozens or hundreds of users could cause so much inappropriately formulated, formatted and categorised content that fixing it would take more time than asking people to slow down with content adding. I don't like it that your 'trying to avoid the angry mob' by blaming me and some others of something that we or some others don't find as drastic and horrible as you do.

Mostly thanks to the above discussion I've decided that I will take a break from the wiki, be it hours, days, weeks, months or for ever. There is a point when I don't want to be a part of a community anymore and we ave gotten past that point with the recent sqabbling and direct insults. -- (gem / talk) 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A minor clarification

Regarding the template system it does seem that Karlos was one of the first opponents to the complexity of the template system on the GuildWiki one year ago (I was not aware of this discussion until trawling through archives today). LordBiro 09:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please add "on the guildwiki one year ago, not here" to that sentence. --Xeeron 10:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Does that alter things considerably? I should point out that I agree that discussion is more useful than unilateral action, but I think implying that Karlos had nothing to do with simplifying the template system here (through his criticism one year ago on a different wiki) is unfair, in my opinion. LordBiro 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Nothing to do" would be unfair indeed and I did not word it this way. But saying "the result of my work" seems to be much to strong, when he only influenced the decision indirectly through his comments one year ago on another wiki, as opposed to those who contributed here and at the time of the discussion. --Xeeron 13:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't really arguing with you Xeeron, just clarifying points. I'd also like to point out that I can't find any instances where I overtly supported the skill template system on GuildWiki, I can only find instances where I disliked it. Perhaps I have been looking in the wrong places. I do believe that Fyren and PanSola were initially fans of it (you would hope so since they wrote it). I could be wrong there, though. LordBiro 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Admin Mailing List and Admin sway

Ok, I waited and waited and waited to see if any of the "Old guard" would say: "Oh yeah, he's right, admins do have sway... They actually decided just a few months ago whether certain content will be added to the wiki and a few weeks ago whether certain content will be removed, and they never got back to you guys about it."

Since it's completely uncool these days to say that admins hold sway and power, I have decided to bring up the issue on the new Sys Op guide's talk page. Just to show people what is really going on. Please read here and then I would like to hear all your thoughts. I am extremely curious in what Aiiane and Erasculio have to say. --Karlos 11:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Items of interest

I would submit this discussion and the additional response as other items of interest to consider in this RfA. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of the policy of redirects changing and that was enitrely my fault. That's about as much as can be said there. I have already admitted to this mistake (stepping away for too long and missing many discussions/decisions) mutiple times. --Karlos 00:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)