Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/People of Antioch

Firstly, good luck with your RfA!
Second, you may want to answer Backsword's GW2W Poll on various aspects of the wiki, if you haven't already.
Third, you may want to take the questions given by Brains and Poke and your answers and post them on this talk in a new section with a note on where they're from.
Calor 17:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What does GW2W have to do with this? — ク Eloc 貢 17:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, just that that's where it's hosted. The idea is to get PoA's thoughts on policy, discipline and whatnot. -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

taken from User talk:People of Antioch

1. What reasons are there for you wanting to be a sysop?
2. Is there anything that makes you stick out from the rest of the crowd, or makes you fit in with what sysops do at the moment?
3. How would you deal with vandals, trolls and policy violators?
4. One that's been an issue for a while - would you stick to every word a policy dictates, or more the spirit and general meaning of it?

-- Brains12 \ Talk 15:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Or: 0. Do you really want to become a sysop? ;) poke | talk 15:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Trick questions like 4. is not something I expected from Brains. Backsword 05:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Brains/Plingggggg. Thank you.

1. I'd like to be a sysop so I can help the wiki carry on. If it doesn't need me to be such an admin, I can accept that. My love for contributing to the wiki, greeting new members I can catch, and tagging images will still go on. As a sysop, I'd try to be more active in issues such as the deletion of images, dealing with vandals, trolls, & policy violators with an even hand. I recognize that all sysops are not very much different from other users. They are just other normal people that the people themselves place on a different (but equal) pedestal.
2. I have the general cool temper and knowledge of the wiki code and policies that sysops should have. I have a great deal of patience, and I don't like to leave a job unfinished. I believe (and hope) that I am on good terms with most of the regular users and sysops, so if I am to be accepted into their group it would be with welcoming arms. I would not brandish my adminship like a badge, however. Like I said earlier, sysops are really not to different from normal users, though those same users sometimes fear us and our "banhammers".
3. With a clear and level head. I understand if I were a sysop and am actively involved in a conflict, I would defer to another sysop to intervene while stopping myself as well. If I am the one called upon to settle a dispute or other issue, I would gather evidence just like in a real life crime. This would include logs, pages and other various measures. I would compare it to policy, and make a decision from there with careful thought and deliberation.
4. Hmm, just like in Guild Wars there has to be a balance between literal and spiritual policy. Like in America's very own documents that keep the government together there is both a spiritual and literal meaning to all. There is a line to how far you can stretch either one, but in the end there will be a balance. As for myself, I would lean on literal when it comes to naming issues (like images), but also take a more balanced approach on user conflict matters.

Oh Poke, yes I do, I just need to get something arranged. But don't create the page next. I'm actually using the questions to make a persuasive argument. --People of Antioch talk 15:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have my own question: Could you point me to some situation(s) where you have constructively interacted with problematic users? Backsword 05:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's listed in the statement, granted it was only one. Under the line of arguments. Sorry if I wasn't clear. The user showed a curiosity that was not intentionally disruptive, so I gave the user the option of a sandbox after multiple wipes of their own talk page so they could experiment and not be restricted much. Calor and Brains were with me on that little issue I believe, and after a little while, Brains thought it was best to leave the user alone to their devices, and I did.--People of Antioch talk 23:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Learning

Thanks for Calor and Shadowphoenix for the support. Thanks for Poke, Eloc, and Prophet Ascension for giving their well reasoned opposition. As what Calor said in his statement:

He's not the type of person who will jump the gun and make an overzealous ban or deletion without discussing. He definitely can't hurt the wiki being a sysop, and would learn fast.

Honestly, I try not to step on anyone's shoes if I can help it. I am eager to learn, if the community wants to have me. I also don't believe in just plain time as a measurement of experience. If things like the age of a driver were dependent on maturity rather than age to get a license, there would be a lot less accidents. I admit, I don't have as much coding experience as Brains, Poke (especially Poke), Calor, or others. Though, isn't a wiki more than just code? It's about the people. Sure, the wiki itself is all code, but what made the code? People. If I need to know code to be a sysop because the community of people believe I need to know it, then I will learn it.--People of Antioch talk 02:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Participation in wiki discussions

I just feel I've got the urge to ask this, since it's always puzzled me when someone says a person needs to post in wiki-related discussions more before being promoted to sysop. IMO (and more people with me), talking about a policy and making sure users follow said policy are two entirely different things and should not be confused with each other. Compare it to the management and the guy in charge of personell on a company if you will (note: I haven't worked at a big company so I'm just guessing here). The management (or boss) decides what personell policies should apply and the guy/girl in charge of personell make sure the personell follow these. If this person feels like he/she doesn't have anything to say in policies simply cause everything has been said or cause he/she doesn't feel too strongly about it, it doesn't make him/her any worse at making sure people follow the policies.

So then, how do you relate someone posting alot in said discussions to being someone who'd make a good sysop? Granted it would probably help with understanding how the user in question sees things and how he/she would respond to certain issues that might arise, but questions would do equally well. I'm assuming there's a reason we've got one full week to vote on these things after all. — Galil 04:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition (since it's 5:50 am): Sysops don't have an additional say in policy discussions compared to a mortal™ and as such I don't see how their involvement should be required before gaining the sysop permissions. They don't need to be active in discussions after obtaining the sysop flag, why should they be required to do so before obtaining them? — Galil 04:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I have looked at some of the discussion, and I thought they were very through and sometimes even heated (the likes of which sometimes make it seem like it's Izzy's page). Though, as I read them, any ideas I had were already covered, and I would rather be more constructive than add "I dis/agree." (unless it's a smaller matter).

Like Galil said, and I mentioned before, there isn't a great difference between who's say is right in a discussion. Sysops just have a few additional tools that would not be productive in the wrong hands. If you believe I am not ready or I am apart of the "wrong hands" group, then by all means, vote oppose. I like how a collaborative wiki can make motions like this. I would be far more disappointed if this RfA were ignored mostly rather than it failing. --People of Antioch talk 23:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To Galil, I personally ask for involvement in policy discussion as a means to show that you are aware of how they work. Not so much to actually be involved in the policy making, that's not the main idea. I think it's a good way to see if a user would handle the tools well if you do not already know him/her, and it's really hard to know if a person has a good grasp of the policies if they don't tal about them. Also, I can never find the right questions when I should ask them, so that's why I need old posts to form my opinion. One week is definitely not enough for me to form an opinion "from scratch", with questions. - anja 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Anja, it would not be enough to do that in a week, and I can accept that. But if you do have questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them — RfA or not. --People of Antioch talk 01:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tools

Thanks Ab.er.rant. Well, perhaps I can help by deleting the various images I've been known to stack on the candidates for deletion pile. When I tag things, I sometimes wish "Man, I wish I could delete these after the period myself so I don't give someone a long day/night." I also would have a bittersweet feeling of banning people. Both protecting the wiki itself, but restricting what could have been a good contributer. I can respect the Sysop role, and of course, this is only scratching at the surface of the iceberg. I would like to learn more, for my benefit and (more importantly) the benefit of others. --People of Antioch talk 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that feeling :) But my reasons are somewhat similar to what Anja said above. Seeing talk page participation helps build an image or impression of a particular user, so not seeing much talk means a fuzzy image. I would also like to think that sysophood should not be about wiki maintenance (the whole janitor debacle we've had previously). It's a part of it, but should not be a big part of it. -- ab.er.rant 02:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Janitor debacle? I'm not familiar to what you're referring to, I think. --People of Antioch talk 02:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol don't worry about the deleting of mass things, that's what we have poke for ;) --Lemming 02:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good thing :) -- ab.er.rant 03:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That I don't know? Oh, why? --People of Antioch talk 03:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As we wind down...

As we wind down, I would like those who have voted to recheck their answers to make sure that is the one you have really wanted to stick to. I don't even mind if you go to an opposing vote; I just want to know where I stand from your view. For those who haven't voted, please consider my contributions and qualifications, and voice your opinion. I am thinking right now, a few of you have questions for me, and please don't be afraid to ask. If you want to ask me something privately, I can arrange to give you my e-mail sometime. Thanks for listening/reading. :-) --People of Antioch talk 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User relations

I haven't been in many user disputes as most of them have been trolling. There has been a strange rise in disruptive users (in my view at least) and I have taken measures of not "feeding" them by simply ignoring them. I wish I could take some of the headache away from others by being able to warn/ban with authority. Of course, if I am personally involved, then I will differ to someone else's judgment. Please take this into account as you vote, thanks. --People of Antioch talk 15:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Threatening them usually has little effect. The best thing to do is ignore them and they stop. The particular disruption lately is a couple of people avoiding bans by using sockpuppets. So threatening to ban them again is basically useless. --Lemming 21:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

*nod* Though whatever damage they do to a person's will(ingness to come back) can't be reverted though... Spirit keeps this place going. --People of Antioch talk 23:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)