Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Doodleplex

Questions for Doodleplex

Feel free to add more.

1. If you were to become an admin on this wiki, what will you change in your editing habits, given that people will inevitably view your edits as holding more weight and your voice holding authority?
2. What have you learned since the last RFA, speaking both in broad terms and in specifics?

Looking forward to your responses. G R E E N E R 19:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'd probably try to avoiding editing when overly tired(or sick) to stay creditable, because I know I tend to make really stupid mistakes when I'm too tired due to not thinking clearly(which is also why I didn't respond yesterday, too much pain from the dentist). That and make sure I was being consistent in my edits to avoid inconstancy that might confuse people which is something Poke mentioned back when I was starting with my bot.
• I've learned
  • to explain stuff better and more often, which I think was my biggest issue before. As somebody who grew up with a learning issue, a good clear explanation/example as to the "why/how things worked" always helped me understand what I may have been doing wrong. So I really did need to work on that to look less like a angry bull charging through a fine china shop. Still working on this too.
  • I've learned while answering this question and reflecting, that I can be pretty fussy if I don't like something, and try to just make it go away fast. And that never worked well nor did anybody wind up happy. That coupled with my failure to explain well above is what caused most of my previous issues, and I'm so sorry about it. Not to mention that sometimes I may have been correct, but how I approached it was wrong(ie the pumpkin-decoration thing, I had the right idea but went about it the wrong way). So I hope I've gotten better at it. I've certainly tried. I think the explanation part is helping with that, and I'm doing my best to work on fixing that.
  • Adding on to the explanation part, I've re-learned to fact check or to just check where people are coming from, such as the case of User talk:108.252.5.73/Archive 1 - I wanted to see if The Bifrost was ever called that, and after checking all the way to the page's creation, it actually was called that as a typo, but quickly corrected.
  • sometimes you don't need to ask questions, you need to ask the right questions, ie Talk:Composite Wood Board, asking Csbeef where he saw it was the right question, as either he/she found an in-game typo/error and could show it to us or, as it turned out, he/she simply got things mixed up.
  • something Incarnazeus brought up from the last time: I take awhile to write. If it takes a while for me to respond, it's not because I want to, I still have that learning disability. It basically makes it hard for me to write the words in my own head when I'm trying to explain things that often require lots of thought in order to be clear. In order to beat my handicap, I need to take the time to untangle my own head into a complete thought(or else I have to re-write/re-explain it several times), but I didn't really understand why it took me so long until recently. Now I know why I've always been very slow at writing things, so thanks for pointing it out Incarnazeus, it taught me a little bit more about my learning disability and how to not let it mess me up.
  • what it means to be unbiased. Bias + emotions(or a bad/no explanation) = bad combo and somebody gets hurt. I got hurt that way, I don't ever want to hurt people because of this. It makes me sad, I really just want to help.
  • I still have a lot more to work on and a lot of stuff still to learn. - Do_odleplex 20:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Here are another couple that I'd like to hear your thoughts on:

1. As an editor the wiki is yours to change; you have power over it. As an admin, the wiki is yours to adapt to; you are at its behest — it controls you.
2. The GW1 wiki structures itself around policies. The GW2 wiki uses practices and processes to the point where all policies were suspended.

Thanks again. G R E E N E R 20:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for not answering these sooner, as they seemed more like statements than questions so I wasn't initially sure what to make of them.

1. Providing I understand correctly, I think admins need to keep in mind that they do not control the wiki, the users do, and that admins should always listen to the users first and foremost.
2. My answer is the same as last time more or less to the similar question asked before: they're more like guidelines to help and make editing the wiki a pleasant experience for both experienced user and one time anon. Nothing is set in stone, which is a good thing, it allows for change when it is needed. - Do_odleplex 23:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

---

I've been raising much ado concerning the wiki community in general and their participation in this election specifically. While I'm perfecting willing to admit it could be about nothing (yes, that's a drawn out Shakespeare reference), I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the matter. G R E E N E R 03:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Lack of general participation

I'll admit that starting this RFA so soon after the last one may have been premature, and therefore contentious, for some. More concerning to me is the lack of input from the larger community that we have.

I'd like to suggest a couple steps. First, put this RFA on hiatus until others feel it's something to approach. I do expect the community to come back to this, though, and not leave it hanging. Second, use a banner to communicate to people what is going on. The few people that contributed last time was a sad sight and it is our fault. The lack of knowledge, care, or understanding in the wiki community cannot be this poor, and we are responsible for improving it. G R E E N E R 15:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I do like the idea of a banner because honestly waiting for more time to pass may not mean more people are likely to respond then than they are now. I also think last time I asked at least two people to comment(at least Darqam) otherwise there probably would have been even less responses. I think more people would comment if they knew, more than often they don't see this part and don't know it even is occurring or existing. It actually might not be a bad idea in general to have a widget/banner thing somewhere for people to see what the current issues(or more likely, the request for comments) are, but that idea is a topic for elsewhere, so for the time being, I vote banner or something along those lines. - Do_odleplex 23:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We used to do banners for bureaucrat elections. Considering the rarity of sysop requests, maybe we could use banners for that too. -Auron 09:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added a banner. Please amend the text as necessary. -Chieftain Alex 19:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki does not need a global banner for this

--— Cronos 22:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I would argue the opposite of this. The wiki is a player-built resource which is used daily by a large portion of the player base. Their input on how it grows and is maintained is vital for its continued health: We're in a constant fight against stagnation and apathy, and having a "hidden" electoral system would only contribute to its decline.

We work hard in trying to incorporate as many voices as possible when forming a consensus, and at this point we're discussing bringing in another person to help at the helm. While we've been fortunate in the past not to need our admins to resolve too many issues, their presence and judgment is an important aspect of the community's stability. Input from the player base is a requisite in determining how this player-built resource is run. G R E E N E R 23:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Look at the pitifully small list of active admins. This process needs more participation, and that requires pointing people to a section of the wiki they normally don't contribute to. Recent RfAs have had dwindling participation, and like Greener said, it's an important aspect of wiki maintenance. We're basically giving someone a badge and a gun and hoping for the best - sysop discretion is part of the job, and the community has to ensure their discretion can be trusted. -Auron 12:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, there's a dismiss button, not sure if that was there before. ezpz --— Cronos 20:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, all banners have a dismiss button. —Ventriloquist 21:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The wiki

I'm going to leave something here for people to read, respond to, or ignore as they will, but it's something that I believe needs to be said. I'll start with two anecdotes:

Auron - a person whose methods I have rarely ever agreed with, but whose motivations I've never doubted. His approach to issues have been so blunt and harsh that I've stared at the screen agog, yet I have strained to find any reasonable flaw in his arguments, and everything he put forth was always for the betterment of the wiki. His presence was one of the greatest gifts this community ever got because he was different, and he fought for others that were different.

Dashface - a person who took a community which based itself on volunteering, well-wishes, and gratitude, and fucking started paying people to edit the wiki. I am an educator who focuses heavily on intrinsic motivation, yet I lauded that page as the most amazing thing I have ever seen on this wiki and I absolutely stand by that.

Our active admin team, as it stands now, is lacking. Every person on there is great, but they are just more of the same. We have stability at the cost of growth. Is Doodleplex someone who can bring something new to the wiki as an admin? I don't know, but I bet none of you know, either. Would electing her be for the good or the ill? There's only one way to find out. Change brings us up and down, but staying still brings death.

Speak up; speak out; have your say. If you want to take this chance, then say so! If you don't, then say so! Dissenting voices are how we reach a dynamic equilibrium instead of a static one. But let's not hide from ourselves and ignore our future, or lack thereof. G R E E N E R 21:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A follow-up to what I wrote above as I have been asked off-wiki for clarification from a few people.

First and foremost, it is not necessary for me to believe everything that I write; but I can write what I believe is necessary. (Tanetris, this is why I laughed and said I was glad you didn't believe 100% of what I'd written!). Abstaining from a conversation is something I support, and there are circumstances where it's endorsed and even enforced. But abstention in-and-of-itself speaks loudly. We need to make sure that it isn't the environment which is holding people back, and that's what I tried to suss out.

An environment where too many people hold their tongue is not a healthy one, and my emphatic (read: overly dramatic) monologue was my attempt to shake some people who were unsure if they wanted to speak their minds or not. Again, I will stress that I pass no judgment on those who choose to abstain for their own reasons. My attempt didn't pan out, but that's life, and that's okay.

If it's not obvious, I care a lot about this wiki and its community. I think we have some things to work on, and issues to address, but hey, doesn't every family? Love you all. G R E E N E R 19:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Resolution

So, when this RFA popped up again, I felt (and to be honest still feel) it was too soon. That's not Doodle's fault, mind you, but I came pretty darn close to closing this after the first week for obvious lack of interest in a candidate who just had an RFA 5 months ago. Still, Greener's been pretty into this grand experiment of getting more user engagement into RFAs, and it hasn't hurt to leave it open, so it's been open, but over a month now is almost certainly long enough.

So what is the resolution? As said, I still personally think it's too soon. But while I (and Poke) are the 'final' arbiters of whether someone gets promoted or not, we are not the sole arbiters. The bcrat job involves first gauging community consensus and then acting as a sanity-check on that, and not only are both aspects of that important, but the order of that is important. So, weighing every argument on both sides, community consensus seems to be, while not overwhelming in either direction, leaning significantly toward giving Doodle a chance as sysop. So to the sanity check. Are there red flags or other indications that the support is incorrect? Is there anything that makes me uncomfortable with giving Doodle the sysop tools to see how it turns out? After some pretty careful consideration... Not really. Some of the individual supports are based on a lack of understanding of adminship and/or what makes a good admin, but honestly that's always the case, and it doesn't nullify the overall support.

To be clear, this isn't me washing my hands of this and saying 'on your heads be it'. I have advocated before and still believe that any bcrat that does that is a crappy bcrat. If I've missed red flags, if I've given more weight for supports or less weight for opposes than they are due, then those are my mistakes as your bcrat. But it would also be a mistake as your bcrat to let my own personal feeling that it's too soon override the community decision without cause. It's a delicate balance, and as I always say, that's why we get paid the big bucks (figuratively; we do not actually get paid).

So that's all a long-winded way to say that this is a pass and Doodle is promoted to sysop. - Tanetris (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Just make Greener a b'crat and you two can go retire. -Chieftain Alex 18:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

On the Community, Administrators, and Reconfirmations

← moved to Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Community portal#On the Community, Administrators, and Reconfirmations