Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Requests for adminship/Doodleplex

Doodleplex

Doodleplex (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Started 22:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Status

Successful 17:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Candidate statement

• I accept the nomination. - Do_odleplex 06:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• What to say. I think I'll start off with thank you for nominating me Greener, and thank you everybody else from the last go at this. Since then I've have done my best to apply what was said last time, and I'd like to think I've improved since then(pretty sure I have at least at little since it's been helping IRL), since in the end I just want to help make editing the wiki a happy experience like a skritt finding Tarir for both anon and regular users. I'm not really one for long speeches or soliloquies, so I'm just gonna go with, I hope in the time that's passed since the last go around, those who had concerns no longer have them, and that people have seen growth where needed, though I sadly lament that I'm still not the code monkey Alex is. I'll work on that though, because I always work to improve myself. Always have, always will. And that's all I've got to say. - Do_odleplex 17:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Explanation of why the candidate should or should not retain rights/be given additional rights.
• In a previous RFA, I stated that I saw Doodleplex as a contributor with the potential to be an admin on this wiki. I was hoping to see her grow, but more specifically I was looking to see the recognition on her part of what it is we rely on our admins to do. Sure, for the most part we ask them to be glorified janitors, but we also expect them to deal with complex situations in a diplomatic fashion should they ever arise. Over the past few months, I've seen Doodleplex come to this realization, and I believe comprehend far better what is required. It's not just a willingness to learn, but knowledge of what needs to be learned, and I believe Doodleplex has cleared that hurdle. G R E E N E R 22:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Doodle acts in the interests of the wiki, i.e. she makes edits that are constructive. I trust her to do the right thing. Recently she has been more careful with her talk page edits. I don't see any reason why she wouldn't make a good admin. -Chieftain Alex 18:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Still leaning on no. I didn't comment on last RfA but read most of the discussion, so I'd like this to cover where I see Doodle and where I see adminship on the wiki. I haven't seen much need for adminship since Ventriloquist's RfA took the place of Ishmael and Felix being inactive. What I value for adminship is probably different from the admins on the wiki because most of them went inactive or didn't participate on the wiki by the time I started. I feel like I still don't fully understand the expectations for adminship because of that; it would hardly be fair of me to expect Doodle to. I saw this noted previously, but I actually value the fact Doodle has gotten into conflict with other users (primarily Mora?) because I also get to see how Doodle followed up on the issue. In that case, admins only intervened once the issue escalated. I almost never see admins proactively intervene when issues come up, because they prefer users to resolve the issue. Like Tanetris and others have said, admins tend to be impartial to the extreme. Unfortunately, this leads to ghost admins, who show up to make one or two comments on a conflict or RfA and then disappear again. This is also why it seems somewhat poignant in the previous RfA that most of the discussion was about providing specific examples and showing you understand what adminship implies, but there's no examples to work from. That may be the fault that there is little to no conflicts on the wiki in the first place. I've seen plenty of examples of Doodle engage with users and seek resolution on issues i.e. discussing and updating formatting guidelines, participating on talk pages, responding to feedback, the NPC coordinate project. The other thing that happens is where the admins comment on Reddit thread related to the wiki but can't really answer any questions because they don't participate actively. I've seen Alex, Vent, and Doodle actively participate in Reddit threads on behalf of the wiki and could see the impact it had. That all said, I still respect the current expectations for adminship. What I would wish is for Doodle to receive more guidance so she can demonstrate that understanding. I didn't see any follow up from the admins between last RfA and this one, at least not on her talk page or in public discussion.--Relyk ~ talk < 16:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• The only thing that can alleviate the ghost admins issue is more admins. Impartiality just means not to render judgment (especially not with ban/delete tools) if you happen to be involved in a conflict. With more admins active in general, chances are some will be able to give an objective opinion even if a few are embroiled in the debate. Also, admins aren't handed a guidebook on how to admin when they're promoted - it's something each admin figures out as they go along. Some focus on the content, some focus on the users, some do both. Some are helpful, some are more abrasive. I don't think Doodle needs to sit down with a sysop coach to be taught the secrets of sysophood - it's a journey they can take when the community of the wiki thinks they understand what wikis are about, and can act in this project's best interest. -Auron 09:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with forging your own path and am not expecting handholding, but having an established wiki and userbase to draw from is a blessing and a curse. I don't want Doodle or any other user to be dissuaded because they don't feel they can fit in or they don't have anyone to approach when they need suggestions and advice. My impression is that Doodle is motivated but hindered by expectations from the wiki with no reconciliation. Admins are in the best position to offer advice and experience; not drawing on that in the name of figuring out the admin thing on your own is a loss for both Doodle and the wiki.--Relyk ~ talk < 15:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've been thinking about my opinion for a while, and I have to agree with what Greener and Alex both said. I see Doodle as a capable, tireless and keen editor with a great enthusiasm for this wiki. She has proven time and time again that she cares about the projects that go on (she even created some of them - most notably the shared NPC project), which shows she's proactive and serious about her work. She has, after her previous request, improved her communication. Her helpfulness has been shown time and time again on various talk pages - be it a confused IP or a user seeking help with a wiki article. I have to admit, Doodle is a young user (about a year has passed from her first contribution), so while this might be a bit hasty, I feel that she could be a responsible sysop. Of course, there have been a few bumps in the road in the past, such as the issue with Mora, but I don't think that should write her off of the 'potential admin' list forever. After all, we all make mistakes, and we (should) learn from them, and I believe that's exactly what Doodle did. It's a yes from me. —Ventriloquist 22:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Dislaimer: I don't play the game any more. Haven't in years. I'm borderline inactive on this wiki. Mostly only get here thru a link form the original wiki. So weight my opinion whichever way you like. Due to my limited exposure to this wiki, there have been very few users who managed to make a lasting expression on me. Doodle is one of them. My impression (based on a very tiny basis): She needs to be right in the end and edit articles until they satisfy her personal expectation. Kept me from editing a page or two because I couldn't be arsed to be drawn into a potential edit argument/conflict/war/yournamehere. Tireless: I guess. Potential: Dunno. If I'd get a vote on this RfA it be no. Steve1 (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'm new here and am ignorant of the requisites and desired skills and traits of an admin (it would be handy to link to these details at the top of these adminship discussions, info for which I'm not going to hunt yet), but the call-for-help banner keeps asking me to weigh in, so here ya go! I was mostly motivated by Steve1's response, which for me questions whether Doodle could potentially hinder some people's efforts significantly, which has an element of gray-zone opinion to it. For me, her user page was helpful and encouraging to me, and she allowed me to make constructive improvements to her user page without batting an eye (I appreciate constructive feedback, but would likely have batted an eye, and my user page isn't even helpful yet). Her efforts seem extensive and positive and she appears to be receptive to criticism and pro-active in building upon her skilz. I appreciate her humor, her cohesiveness with several of the other active members, and her sig is real purdy. She seems like a significant asset worthy of encouragement, support, shinies, and even adminship (that's a "yes" to adminship from me). Jesself 17:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• I don't feel I have enough experience with the Wiki for my opinion to count for much, but my vote would be no. I think the candidate needs more experience and time to grow. My apologies for any hurt feelings. Good luck. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• IDK, but I checked my talk page after a minor revert war with lolkonig and they were the first to respond to it. I suppose that's​ my vote for yes. Justice (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Heck she is so good on here I already thought she had that standing. I think she would be good at it and is already known for what she does. However, after reading waht Relyk had to say I realize I don't know what the expectations would be for if she did get adminship. KatieBoom (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Haven't been active very much lately, but for all the time I HAVE been active I've always noted Doodleplex as a tireless and constructive editor. She's willing to see to a number of minor minutia and smaller details that I'm usually surprised to see someone pay attention to. She keeps her work to a fairly high standard, and has put quite a bit of work into her own projects (As best I can tell she's put in the lion's share of the work that went into the Shared Model Project) and a number of others. In my opinion she would be an excellent mod. Falren (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• I use the WIKI routinely and actively try to add to it. My understanding is that Doodleplex has already been "found wanting" as a WIKI admin but is again being considered for that position. My question, as a user, is this: Since being dismissed as a WIKI admin, just what has Doodleplex done to demonstrate the degree of "maturity" (for lack of a more precise term) needed to BE an effective admin?? Talk is cheap------it's by one's actions that one should be judged. Doodleplex has already been "found wanting" and without any data on WHAT has changed, my vote would be no---AT THIS TIME. Undouble73.180.64.193 17:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Doodleplex has never been an admin on this wiki. There was a previous Request for Adminship that occurred last October. It was my choice to restart another RfA, and my reason for doing so is above (the first point of discussion). G R E E N E R 17:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'm relatively new to this particular wiki so I don't know Doodleplex and I don't know that my opinion counts for much, but having looked through her contributions and talk page history, she seems to fit what I see as the essential requirements: 1) strong history of positive contributions 2) reasonable understanding of the wiki and community processes 3) level headed interactions with fellow contributors. 4) willingness to do the job. 5) willingness to follow process. Ultimately, adminship isn't a big deal, and it's foolish to think of it as such - there are processes in place for oversight, just as there are processes in place for oversight of any other contributions, actions of admins can be reverted same as with any other actions on the wiki, admins that betray the trust of their community don't stay admins long, and truly bad admins can be easily removed before they have a chance to do significant damage. Given that she appears qualified, and invested in the community I support this RFA. Shadowssinging (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Regarding several comments above regarding the (in)significance of adminship: the fact that this RfA is a global notice, because admins are so rare that you can list one nomination at a time at the top of the wiki as some sort of special event, demonstrates that no matter what your perception of adminship is, the fact is that adminship is an extraordinary and privileged status to have on this wiki. Saying otherwise is meaningless without an accompanying nomination and approval of dozens of other trustworthy users to the role. This wiki's public launch prior to the game's beta release was accompanied by a purge of all existing admins who couldn't prove that they needed to be an admin, despite there still not being that many admins. These matters were decided long before there was even an actual community to appeal to, as there was no game to speak of. It's completely disingenuous to start implying that there are effective community processes (like this RfA) so late in the game's lifecycle, when admin control of this wiki (as the GW1 wikis before it) has been so stifling that there has never been a meaningful community outside of admins and their orbits. There is such an unhealthy overlap between this wiki's admins and its editing activity, when coupled with the small number of admins/editors, that it necessarily presents a conflict of interest. There is no body of non-admin regulars who present a check on the admins, and no critical mass of admins with a diversity of opinions to force compromise or legitimate consensus. Some of the admins have a history of incivility, even sockpuppetry, and the fact that they retained adminship in spite of these abuses further exposes that they lack accountability. And like everything else on this wiki, the input from what few regular users are here on this RfA doesn't matter because the admins will decide amongst themselves what they want to do; their opinions are the only ones that count, and even if that weren't the case, everyone knows full well that there's no community here to disagree. So who the global notice is actually for is a mystery worth exploring. Is this something that Anet wanted? 76.253.2.43 00:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The global notice is an attempt to fix many of your aforementioned problems, as was this notice on the forums. Also, Anet has no say, nor wants any say, in how this wiki is run, and admins don't want the power of choosing who other admins are (very uncomfortable conflict of interests could arise, as you said). Previous discussions with partial overlap can be found here and here, and I encourage further discussions on what you've brought up (though on the appropriate talk-pages). G R E E N E R 01:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Scathing analysis of The System aside, did you have an opinion on Doodle's qualifications for adminship? - Tanetris (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• As an Anon to this wiki but having experience admin'ing various non-gaming content, I wanted to add my $0.02 and my first ever edit to a wiki. Your current admins are pathetically inactive. Only three have had actions in the last 30 days (Ventriloquist - 293, Tanetris - 22 and Auron - 7.) Doodleplex has had 2,014 edits in 30 days. While activity shouldn't be the only measure of an admin's capability, Doodleplex's level of activity is significant. They are putting time and effort into this resource - which ultimately (in my opinion) is the goal of the admin team - to curate and grow the wiki (with both material and users). In reading all of above posts, three arguments stand out to me:

1. Its too soon.
2. The admin role is undefined / don't need another admin.
3. Doodleplex would be a bad admin.

To #1 I say look at your activity levels and don't measure a person based on time but on quality of the job and effort.

To #2 I say what can it hurt to have another? Your existing admins do barely anything (except Ventriloquist) based on my view.

To #3 I say that there is far more evidence that Doodleplex would be a good admin. No admin needs to be perfect, let them grow over time - Doodleplex has certainly shown they can respond to feedback and is acting in what they consider the best interest of the community.

Bottom line: If making Doodleplex an admin would help this community, then you should do it.

And if Doodleplex's edits and contributions are making a former anon and first time poster like me add a comment (and I'm not the only one), then certainly they are doing something right. I vote yes. - Yams

ps Please help format this to look like the other comments please. Thanks in advance. --Yams (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

just fyi, Special:ActiveUsers omits quite a few active users, for example I'm not on it. The point stands though, our active admin team is very small. -Chieftain Alex 19:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• She's active, she knows what she's doing, she's dedicated, and from my brief conversations with her seems to be genuinely interested in making the wiki a better place. On top of that, let's be real, the wiki has been low on (active) admins for a while now and she is by far the best candidate for the job. Put her in, Coach. --Sirrush 15:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Generally support. Doodleplex has been around for a while now, and as one of our most prolific editors she's undoubtedly a very valuable member of the community already. She understands the wiki's policies and procedures, and I think she has taken to heart the feedback she received on her last RfA. At this point I'm not concerned that Doodleplex would misuse or abuse admin tools. If I had any lingering criticisms for her, it would be that I've noticed she has a tendency to prefer things "just so," and can be somewhat unyielding in discussions because of it. When you're an admin your words carry more weight whether you want them to or not. You have to be flexible and consider opposing points of view, because if you just say "It must be this way because of that," it can outright kill the discussion. Keep that in mind, and you should be fine. - Felix Omni 20:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'm only here to add interwiki links (and copy an image from one wiki to the other and minor stuff like this) but I have seen doodleplex's work and I support her nomination. I'm sure she will handle everything well and does the best to make the wiki a happy and better place. --Cloned (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• I've got nothing to add that hasn't already been said. Just a vote to cast in favor. SarielV 15:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)