Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Wynthyst

Archive of discussion from RfA: Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Wynthyst/archive1

Why are we doing this? Really?

Are we just bored? :/
Wyn's truly a wonderful person, and I believe that she exemplifies the ideal for a sysop on a regular basis.
Okay, so she can be bitchy sometimes (no offense - we can all be bitchy sometimes, myself included); is that a reason for a reconfirmation?
I suggest striking out your requests and saving the admins some time and effort; this RfR is pretty ridiculous, tbh. Raine - talk 04:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ya it is kinda pointless with these RFC requests. While they are somewhat filled with anger, that does not mean she is less of sysop. I guess getting angry is against the law here. Reasons why I can't be a sysop. But seriously, I agree with you Raine we all get pissy, and just because we so it doesn't mean we have to cry foul. Do we get a second chance here? I didn't think so. Dominator Matrix 05:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. She could have been a little nicer, but with the amount of stuff that she is working on and the lack of help mixed with people messing with her is eventually going to get to anybody. This is a good example of her doing her job. This is what he deserved see this for the cause of her reaction. Wyn is one of the best sysops here and she does more for the wiki then just about anybody. DrogoBoffin 05:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wyn can get emotional, but she'd do that anyway whether or not she was a sysop. The things she does as a sysop far outweigh her tantrums. I'd like to see her retain her adminship. ~Shard 05:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The halogod thing was a little much, but he was fucking with her, he should've known doing it enough would piss her off and expected something to happen. And that other "evidence" presented is mostly or entirely BS. --Jette 05:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What lovely opinions, if a reconfirmation starts, those are all excellent reasons to support her. They don't however void the reasons people are requesting reconfirmation. The point Brains specifically is making is that her anger involved threats to use her sysop powers in a way that he considers inappropriate. I don't really know what Brains wants to achieve, removal of sysop status is unlikely considering the support Wyn garners and the fact that she was widely opposed as a bureaucrat because people wanted to see her remain a sysop, but his points are not invalid at all. Misery 08:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wyn is for me a great example that sysops dont need to be a sort of robots who arent allowed to show emotions. Ok, sometimes she have maybe a little strong emotional reaction but I think that it is unneeded to rfr her sysophood.... |Cyan LightLive!| 09:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite what wyn says and what brains thinks, she has never actually blocked anyone for the things that annoy her, though if I were in her shoes, I would sometimes feel like blocking boro. I doubt she ever would issue blocks for those reasons, but if/when she does, then brains' points will be a little more tangible. Until then, I see no reason not to have her continue as a sysop. ~Shard 09:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually disagree, threatening an abuse of power has a similar affect to abusing power, I should know, I use that technique to admin on PvX all the time because it is effective. That aside, I decided to open this RfR after a discussion with Wyn as I believe it will cause things to be resolved with the smallest amount of drama. Happy voting. Misery 10:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think u all have lost your ever loving minds. Wyn was appointed for a reason and i feel she has done a Wonderful job. Yes she can be moody, but we have ALL had our moments. This is why i think people who agree with this Getting Rid of Wyn have lost their minds. She does what she has to do Period. - Kelli 10:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Having emotion is fine. Letting that emotion mess with your judgement is not; when it does, we can't just ignore it and say "well, it happens, so what". It's not supposed to happen.

I've said something similar before, on Salome's first RfA, and most of it applies in this case - troll-feeding, emotions messing with discretion, and the pressure making things worse. I don't believe that these qualities are part of "what she has to do", in fact most of the other sysops seem to manage fine without them, and I don't appreciate equating that opinion to losing my mind. -- Brains12 \ talk 12:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Random wiki user popping in here: As someone who, despite all my intarwebz knowledge, clicked on that rickroll link, I can see why Wyn became irate with Halogod. After visiting that borderline-malicious link, I couldn't even get Firefox to close, even via task manager, and I had to restart my computer. I can VERY much sympathise with Wyn's frustration with Halogod. Wyn's a great person. She was the first person to talk to me on the Wiki, and let me know that I was doing something wrong, without making me feel stupid or noobish. She's a great sysop. I don't know why this is even happening. Elysea 12:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

People are doing it because of requests. They're all, Wyn's too emotional for the wiki, she's raise the wiki drama and stuff. So this started. But most likely it'll do nothing. -- Halogod35 12:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Elysea; learn to use firefox. Inability to use noscript does not warrant becoming pissed off at a rickroll, especially to a point where you threaten a user with a ban. -Auron 12:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've used Firefox since 2005 (my anecdotes, let me show you them). I worked at a computer company for a while. This is the first time I've ever heard of this noscript. And yes, it does warrant being pissed off. Would you blame someone for getting upset when they click on a link, not realising that it's malicious and end up with a virus? I don't know a single Firefox user who uses this noscript thing. And noscript or not, the link shouldn't have been posted to begin with, nor should the 'interview' have been conducted without Wyn's knowledge or consent (I mean, seriously. Would you go up to someone, start a conversation with a tape recorder on you that they don't know about, and not expect them to get angry if they found out?). Saying that Wyn is overemotional for getting upset over justifiably-upsetting infractions is ridiculous.

And if what Wyn did on Brains' talk page is a ragequit, the ones I've seen in PvP must be epic-level ragequits if one so minor is the norm. Elysea 13:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The rickroll thing is not a virus.

I realize that this RfR is going to do nothing at all thanks to her humongous fanclub, but maybe she realizes that she has to change the way she handles some situations. Emotion is fine, but letting your emotions take over and threatening to ban someone in the way she did is not. Mini Me 14:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Having a fanclub isn't always a positive, in fact that can make things worse. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 14:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Having a fanclub that are zealous enough to ignore every transgression you make and treat you with reverence is usually a positive thing, especially in "votes." Luckily, the bureaucrats can look at the reasoning each party gives and make their decision on that and not on pure numbers. -Auron 15:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

/agreed. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

@Mini Me. The funny thing is, Wyn could have just banned Halo for "disruption" (and remove the RR link as per GWW:TALK... i mean, some of us use IE, you know), and we would have avoided all this issue probably. Instead, she decided to threat users with the use of his admin powers. Right or wrong, a sysop cannot "threat", only "warn".--Fighterdoken 19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha?

When did this start? Did you handle it off wiki? I'd strongly prefer it being done on wiki, so that everyone can see the dealings involved. Backsword 13:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is "you" and what are you talking about? poke | talk 14:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mis and Wyn, presumably, since it was Mis who set it up. Backsword 14:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Since Mis is a bcrat, I guess he just used something called discretion? - anja 14:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Also since bcrats alone decide about how request of reconfirmations end, I think there is no reason to object this decision. poke | talk 14:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bcrats don't have the discretion to change policies, if that's what you are claiming. The wiki is still supposed to be community run. Backsword 14:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, where did he change the policy? poke | talk 15:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Me responding to ANjas claim doesn't mean that I support it. Understand my response as if it was prefixed with 'If this is correct, then this is relevant:' Backsword 15:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

She had three recent requests for confirmation, one with links to diffs and good reasoning. She has been a sysop for 11 months. At 12 months, only one request is required to start a reconfirmation. The only thing I asked her was whether she would prefer it to start today, or wait until it definately should start. If you check Auron's archive you will see Gordon asked him the exact same thing, although he asked on wiki. I don't see my method being considerably less transparent. Misery 17:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the reasoning. I do have a problem with the trasparity. I have a strong preference for wiki business to be handled on wiki. Backsword 15:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a strong preference to handle things quickly and efficiently, so I did that. Misery 15:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ip's

Are they even allowed? -- Halogod35 15:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

By policy they are not prohibited. poke | talk 16:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying someone can make like 7 ips and totally win? -- Halogod35 17:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If all the IP's only have 1 contribution to this page....I think they'd get suspicious. >< -- Wandering Traveler 17:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) If this were a simple tally, that would be possible. Given how it isn't... Erasculio 17:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to some of the comments

I get the feeling that some of you think that we will lose Wyn as a person and contributor if this RfA fails; however this is not really the case. So please comment based on sysop actions, and not normal user contributions. poke | talk 18:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Auron's RFA

So I'm assuming we'll be starting Auron's RFA then as well just to get them all out of the way? Otherwise this seems a bit odd that 3 claims for recon compared to 10+ can result in immediate recon. Just saying. -- Salome 21:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bcrat discretion, I guess. I'm not sure how RfR's are worked, but it does seem a bit odd. -- Wandering Traveler 21:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As said above, it was started by support of Wyn herself. poke | talk 21:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats not really what was said above poke. Seems Mis gave wyn the choice of now or when it HAS to in a month. By the votes on Auron's page it HAD to start a wee while ago. -- Salome 21:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, even if you used a straight linear scale Auron had exactly the right number if you considered every request valid. The two situations are very different. Using such a model Wyn needed two people to request confirmation, she had four. I was not a bureaucrat during Auron receiving the requests, I'm not going to come in and on "my first day" so to speak overturn the decision of all the other bureaucrats, so who exactly are you claiming is being inconsistent? Gordon has suggested that a reconfirmation for Auron is an inevitability, the fact that it hasn't started suggests he doesn't feel the threshold of people, or time, has been met yet. Misery 21:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"or when it HAS to in a month" There is no ruling, when or even if a request of reconfirmation is a success or not. Similar to the actual "votes" on RfAs the bcrats evaluate each comment by once and based on that a decision is made. poke | talk 21:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"She had three recent requests for confirmation, one with links to diffs and good reasoning. She has been a sysop for 11 months. At 12 months, only one request is required to start a reconfirmation. The only thing I asked her was whether she would prefer it to start today, or wait until it definately should start." That's what Mis said above Poke. Also lets all be honest, I'm against reconning Wyn and Auron, but if the above grounds are what are being deemed valid to start a recon for Wyn, then the grounds for starting one for Auron are equally valid too (occasionally being an arse without actually breaking policy or abusing powers). The constant "hes an arse but hes not a bad sysop" line was touted in Auron's recon but the reasons given for Wyn's recon is that sometimes she can be a bit bitchy, but no one actually has shown her abusing her powers at any point. Also Mis if people (including myself) hadn't pestered the initial posters their would have been 15 votes, which is way more than what's needed on a linear scale after a 9 month delay from 27 votes (10 votes being the req number). Faulty logic is faulty! -- Salome 21:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Brb, sinking in irony. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just glad I gave you another opportunity to say something smug, glib and self righteous, while actually lacking the depth to back it up. Please continue. -- Salome 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Easy Salome. We should probably deal with this one RfR at a time. Small steps guys. -- Wandering Traveler 21:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is gonna sound "ghey" but its not fair. On a different note, I fully support Auron and Wyn. DrogoBoffin 21:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Relevant to the topic and the RfR. I thought the line "...descends over time to a minimum of one user supporting after one year" was supposed to be "starting from the the first RfR" instead of "starting from his last succesful RfA", since the paragraph is talking about the votes themselves, and not the time lapse? I mean, 1 vote per RfR for more than 1 year old sysops seems a bit... weird.

And on topic... Since Wyn has not said the opposite yet, i guess she really agreed to this RfR, which hasn't happened to Auron, hence why his RfR is not running. I don't really think it's something to be suspicious over.--Fighterdoken 21:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Salome, Auron will be reconfirmed eventually unless everyone goes and strikes their vote. Also, big difference between being an ass generally and being an ass while threatening administrative action. One has something to do with being a sysop, one does not. I'm not going to say much about the initial situation before pestering as I was not a bureaucrat at that stage. If you wish to see my opinion as a user, I believe I was quite involved in the discussion, feel free to review my comments. The fact that many of the votes disappeared after discussion probably means waiting a while was the correct course of action. That would not have happened in this case. Wynthyst's case is a much easier call for many reasons, one of which is she made it easier by consenting to it starting today. I'd appreciate it if you could avoid using Wynthyst's RfR to play devil's advocate as I know you like to do. If you are truly against either RfR then it makes no sense to say "If one should happen now, both should happen now".

Fighterdoken, my interpretation of the one year rule is that it is since the last RfA, not since the first RfR. It basically means that it has been a year since anyone has even looked at whether someone should be a sysop, in theory. If they haven't done anything wrong in that period it shouldn't matter if one person RfRs them, they will probably pass again. It's not how I would have written the policy if I were here from the start, but it is how the policy is now. Misery 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I actually missed off the important point. These are two independent issues. If you have an issue with me starting this reconfirmation, that should be taken up with me on my talk page. The reconfirmation has already started, that cannot be undone, but if you have a problem with my conduct, feel free to discuss it with me and I will take your comments into consideration when I act in the future. The second issue is that Auron's reconfirmation has not begun yet. If you have an issue with this, that should be taken up on the talk page for Auron's RfA, decoupled from what has occurred here which actually has no bearing on that situation at all and also involves all three bureaucrats, not just me. I did not consult with Brains or Tanetris before starting this reconfirmation, I did consult with Wynthyst. I will repeat for clarity, if you have issues with this reconfirmation, take them up with me on my talk page. If you have issues with Auron's reconfirmation, take them up on the talk page for his RfA. Misery 22:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

block of Jon Lupen

I can't really be sure, since I'm not Wyn and I wasn't here when it happened, but that seems like more of a joke than an actual srs use of the ban tool. It was for 60 seconds- in the time it took you to load this page and read this paragraph the block would have been pretty close to expiring. (Why didn't we start a reconfirmation when Pling blocked Poke?) If she blocked him for anything more than a minute or two I could see where you're coming from, but I don't think this block is anything you can hold against her. – Emmett 16:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The purpose was just to stop me and get my attention. If any sysop did it to anyone else, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Given me, pinging my talk page is enough, but I don't know if she knew that. The block was more superfluous than an abuse. But this is me talking, I don't speak for more than myself. I'm more baffled than pissed/offended, given the only way I knew I was blocked was because it pinged my watchlist. — Jon Lupen 16:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I was on RC at the time that happened. It was an attention grab for Jon, no real harm done. --Antioch 16:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I only question her order. I would have applied the block then pinged my talk page. — Jon Lupen 16:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

1 minute blocks are used to get someone's attention, like pinging a talk page. However, a block forces a user to pay attention instead of that user saying, "Let me finish this up and take a gander on the ol' talk page." —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 16:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re support 5,9, 15 and 22

All of these seem to misunderstand what a RfA is about. Some go on at lenght about unrelated issue one can do perfectly well as a normal users. How would others tend to look at such votes? Esp. asking past and prsent bcrats. Backsword 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I went back and clarified mine, so... Elysea 18:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting conclusion

Not what I was expecting, but I'm glad you counted the votes in the way you did. --Freedom Bound 21:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

An explanation and epilogue

I don't think I ever made my opinion clear, so I am going to do so now. Tanetris and Brains made their opinions known, but I never really did. People seem to think that my opening this was an indication that I wanted Wyn to lose her sysop rights, this is not accurate. I felt that the concerns being raised were completely valid and that enough time had passed for the threshold to have passed. I suspected that there would be a flood of inconherent support, some inconherent opposition and then walls of text in oppose with reasonable support votes. I suspected the support would outweigh the opposition. All my suspicions appear to have been well-founded. I think that opening the RfA was the correct action and I stand by it, I think it could have been handled another way before the requests for reconfirmation ever opened, but I think the oppose and neutral sections speak for themselves and even some of the support votes acknowledge there is a problem. If I had cast a vote it would have been something like slight-support neutral. I feel valid concerns were raised and Wyn would do well to take the criticism on board, although it could have been done through a much friendlier medium. The concerns are valid, but I do not feel things have progressed far enough to remove Wynthyst's sysop tools. If things continue or get worse, another reconfirmation can be called for, I am hoping that they are not going to continue. Wynthyst, please, take on board some of what has been said, try reading posts aloud when you are getting a bit involved and see if they still sound right. Sometimes just walking away for a while can greatly improve a response. If you need to take a break it's much better that you do it yourself than have it forced upon you by the community. I think the neutral section of this RfA was very telling, the names there and their reasoning, I hope we can all move forwards positively past this now with rainbows and happy sunshine forever, so let's try that for a while ok? Misery 21:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Reconfirmation

While she may be a good person at heart, sometimes she can be too headstrong and not giving enough agf or actually looking into situations before judging so quickly. I don't think this Reconfirmation is necessary either. She just needed to cool a little. -- riyen ♥ 20:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I too feel that she can be a little emotional. While I do not think that this affects her use of the sysop tools, I think that she could be less emotional about things and perhaps just let some discussions go to avoid further drama. I feel that she is doing a great job as a sysop and is deserving of the tools, but she needs to cool down before her emotions lead her actions.

How does one RfR someone? I don't know very much of GWW bureaucracy. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 19:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sign here and when a bureaucrat deems there are enough votes a new RfA will start. – Emmett 19:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I just found it on Guild_Wars_Wiki:Requests_for_adminship#Reconfirmation :> ---Chaos- (moo) -- 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

However if you feel wyn should retain her sysop powers and that it is an ancillary point which you think needs addressed, such as being emotional, a viable alternative would be that of an arbcomm rather than an RFR. I'm not trying to push either way here, its just from your messages above it seems you wish to Wyn to stay as an admin but have an issue about her admin style addressed and the best vehicle for that is arbcomm. -- Salome 21:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

While I am not a fan of Wyn's admin style at all, she just had a recon for this issue very recently. The majority opinion ("consensus") was that she is able enough to retain her sysop tools, and while I'm still personally opposed to it, it just seems petty to keep spamming recons for the same issue. Arbcomms, as Salome said, are the proper course of action in this case - recon after recon with the same expected result (hordes of fanbois with support votes that say "ILU WYN <3") is just a waste of time. I'm not a bureaucrat, but I would personally ignore requests for recon this soon after the last one unless it was a very pressing issue (and as far as I've seen, this is an issue with Wyn's personality, not her abusing sysop tools). -Auron 22:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what Arbcomm does. All I know is the case where Shard was restricted from commenting on ANet pages. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This should explain. ~ PheNaxKian 23:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

<3 that should solve it. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 23:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This reconfirmation is cool and all, but in the end it won't work since she won't get the message (nor will she be demoted, because of her massive fanclub) - Mini Me talk 17:35, 28 December 2009

Question about RfRs

How many people does it take to start a RfR? Pling was told he had 2 weeks to do his RfR after only 4 requests. Wyn is up to 6 now and hasn't started one. The policy is a bit....vague, so what does it take? Karate Jesus 05:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It also takes into account the time since the last RfA. Wyn had one earlier this year, Pling's was 2 years ago. elix Omni 05:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there's a reason she had one so recently :/ Karate Jesus 05:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

GWW:RFA#Recent reconfirmation requests. It'll be up when it's up. Cress Arvein 05:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking this earlier myself actually. I think I read somewhere something like, you need at least 2/3's of the Support Votes in the RFR section for a RFR...or am I thinking of something else? -- Lacky 06:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To quote the RFA policy on reconfirmation: "The level of required support starts at the amount of support given for sysophood during the latest RFA (direct opposition to either is not counted), and this requirement gradually descends over time to a minimum of one user supporting after one year." Long story short, Pling's only needed 1 because it'd been well over a year (nearly two) since his RFA. Wyn's will need a lot more requests, or a couple more months, before anything'll happen here. - Tanetris 08:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Tanetris. -- Lacky 09:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So, basically the only 'solution' or 'choice' at the moment, is Arbcomm? (Just trying to clarify understanding) -- riyen ♥ 09:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That or more requests, yes. poke | talk 09:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

RfR wouldn't resolve anything anyway. It would just be another popularity contest and Wyn has too much blind support to lose one (even though it's not based on votes but BC discretion and judgment on the support vs oppose arguments). There is an issue with the way she does things, but it doesn't affect the people who will keep her in power so ArbCom is probably the only place anything will be done. 58.110.89.46 10:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that I really care but it seems to me that those who have a grudge against Wynthyst (for a variety of reasons) are trying to use a new RfR as just another means to get her Sysop powers rescinded. The ArbComm is the correct procedure to follow as this is a dispute regarding Wynthyt's alleged misuse of her Sysop powers and alleged abuse of authority. Just look at the policy documents for ArbComm and for RfR and one can see that an RfR is inappropriate - I suspect that some of the people who are seeking to damage Wynthyst are themselves guilty of abuse of their own non-Sysop powers by trying to raise an RfR less than 6 months after the last RfR for Wynthyst. Bearz 10:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think an RfR would be perfect, if we can't trust her as a wiki user, can we trust her as a sysop? And there isn't a secret conspiracy of people trying to "damage" Wyn, I'm thinking people are just kinda fed up. --Short talk to me 11:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbComm can remove her of her Sysop status as well I believe. -- Lacky 11:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, wasn't aware of that, thanks. --Short talk to me 11:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as the ruling goes, ArbComm can pretty mch do anything within their boundaries. -- Lacky 11:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just thought it was about bans ^__^ --Short talk to me 11:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You can read info and find out about ArbComm at GWW:ARBCOMM and learn more on what they do. -- Lacky 12:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I get how they work, just didn't think about removing sysop status as a result. Thanks anyway. --Short talk to me 12:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh alright, well it all helps. ^_^ -- Lacky 12:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)