Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Greener

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Few preliminary responses to start off discussion:

  • "I was able to do this because I had and still have the utmost trust and respect for our current admin team". I don't think this was an issue as a former vetted sysop, which I think was covered in the RfA discussion, at least my opinion. Do you believe you have the trust and respect of the current userbase? For me, you have been an active contributor over time, participated in current discussions, and have plenty of examples of working with other users.
  • Most of the statement is devoted to addressing the admins, which feels like bravado to the admins rather than inspiring confidence (I tend to read too much into statements though). It's not clear if you're sure the admin team trusts you or not. Your actions and behavior in past contributions are more important to me for the RfA.
  • I don't recall specific projects you worked on over time or recently and I don't see if you're participating in our current active projects, so I may need a reminder there.
  • Since you mentioned it, I don't think coding skills are relevant for required for admin or bureaucrat, it's just nice to have in addition. Alex is available for covering that area and has done so with Ishmael and Poke being less active.
  • "I believe it is the role of the bureaucrats to keep this boat stable, not to rock it". Can you elaborate on this? My hope as part of "new blood" is to visit if admins and bureaucrats are missing opportunities for improvement these roles afford such as organizing the improvement and direction of the wiki. It might be that nothing needs to be changed. Right now, the approach is hands-off and let regular users organize projects and direction. For example, a issue such as reviewing the current admin team was only addressed after Doodle attempted a second RfA.

--Relyk ~ talk < 17:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing these up. My responses:
  • I intended that particular quote to reflect my understanding of the relationship between contributors and contributors who have admin rights. The Be Bold concept is important to me. I believe that while I was trying to wake up the community, Tanetris and poke were respecting my right to Be Bold, and I intend to do that for others. The community can only Be Bold when they trust their admins to let them be so. Sorry if my emphatic words ended up being too distracting there.
  • I have had some people question my motivations for pushing on the wiki. A few have taken it to mean I want to somehow overhaul the current admins. This is very far from the truth and I went out of my way to express it. I do not want people to give me their support under false pretenses. Also, as mentioned in the previous bullet, I believe an admin must be keenly aware of the community's trust in you, not for the sake of your position, but so that they can contribute freely.
  • You're right that I have not put my name down on any project in the Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects. That was a poor word choice on my part. I meant to say that I have done my best to work in various areas across the wiki. I have helped with the mass updates of pages after releases. I worked on completing the wardrobe skin library. I've recently been helping to keep the gem store information up to date. I've tried to keep an eye on talk pages, especially since the release of the Feedback button, though in this I've fallen woefully behind. I have not led any projects, but I hope even my dabbling in other people's projects has helped motivate them to continue.
  • I would disagree about the requirement for coding skills. One example where I've come across an issue which I should have been able to address on my own is the Special:AbuseFilter. On the GW1W, reviewing it and ensuring it is functioning properly has been difficult.
  • I delayed making this RfA because I believe the bureaucrat role comes with shackles. As a regular contributor I've been able to "raise a little hell" (there's some Canadiana for you). My words carry no more weight than people allow them to. As a bureaucrat, I believe I lose that ability. My words and especially actions on the larger issues should be a reflection of the community and not necessarily my own. Tanetris does a great job in clearly separating those two voices (his and his interpretation of the community's), but I do struggle with that over on the GW1W. I believe that change in the wiki comes from below, and I do not intend to bring about change from above.
Let me know if I missed the mark in responding to any of you questions. G R E E N E R 18:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are you requesting the role of bureaucrat as opposed to sysop? - Felix Omni 04:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely a multifaceted answer.
  • I believe my skill set can better fit that of a bureaucrat than a sysop; I have a habit of talking more than doing. Perhaps it's true what they say of those that teach ; ).
  • I worry that if I were to take up a sysop role, it would lull the community into believing that there would be no more need for new admins. I've been advocating for an injection of new blood into the system and I am the antithesis of that. In other words, myself as a sysop would be contrary to everything I've been pushing for.
  • I hope that Doodleplex has moved some of the general burden off of our other sysops, and made them not feel trapped in a role with little reprieve or chance to step back a bit. If I can offer that to the bureaucrats, then I'm happy to do so. Note that I am not saying they need it, just that I feel I can offer it. I'll draw your attention to two points:
Thanks for the question. G R E E N E R 09:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, this is all way beyond the 'general user'. What's the difference between a Bureaucrat and a Sysop (and what are those, anyway?) No wonder there's no 'new blood', if I'm following. Y'all guys make it very complicated and somewhat difficult to break in here. Sorry. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't apologize for pointing out my failings. I should be communicating more clearly as that is my goal. In fact, your question and statements are right on point.
  • Here's a link to the general statements about admins: Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Practices and processes#Administrators
  • The wiki relies on sysops to ensure that things are running properly. They're similar to mods on the forums.
    • Pages and files need to be deleted on a regular basis: GW2W:DEL
    • Certain actions can only be done by sysops (bureaucrats are able but less likely to do so): Editing the Main Page; Modifying the MediaWiki:Sitenotice; Blocking/banning of accounts; Keeping an eye on the Special:AbuseLog; etc.
    • Sysops are usually first on the scene if members of the community are having difficulty communicating to each other in an appropriate manner (i.e. shit's hitting the fan).
  • The bureaucrats are a bit more hands off in the day-to-day running of the wiki. They function in more of an oversight capacity.
    • If there were an issue with a sysop, a bureaucrat would be expected to look into the situation.
    • In larger scale decisions (such as this RfA), it falls to the bureaucrats to interpret the consensus of the community and then make a judgment on how to proceed with that in mind. This is probably where the wiki relies on them the most.
    • There is a closer working relationship between bureaucrats and the Anet employees who help to maintain the wiki. (NB: See Felix's comment below).
Asking questions, from the most basic to the in-depth, is important. Keep them coming. G R E E N E R 11:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this answer more or less reflects the current status quo, but it's worth noting that there is no proscription against bureaucrats being active day-to-day. That's just Tanetris and poke being lazy. And FWIW some of the people who often communicate with ArenaNet on the wiki's behalf aren't admins at all, or weren't until more recently. - Felix Omni 16:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. G R E E N E R 18:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Elites, really? (Felix response) See, I read the pages I was referred to, and Admins being 'elites' wasn't what I took from it. But, as I said before, I guess the whole Admin thing is way beyond the understanding of the regular contributor to the Wiki. Much luck to you all. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to speak for Felix, but I also know that if I'm wrong here, he will be comfortable correcting me. Felix's use of the word "elite" was intended to be ironic. The GW1W suffered from a perspective issue, where some believed it was run by an oligarchy (the admin team; and I'm not going to argue the merits of that claim). If you have never felt that the admin team on the GW2W was a group of elitists who were trying to control things, perfect. Perhaps to its own detriment, the admin team over here has been an invisible hand that's tried to keep the community in charge. We're now in a spot where too few may even know the admins exist, or know the level of work they're doing, or how we're running low on them (from my perspective).
To speak to Felix's claim of me needing to open more channels with the admin team, he is correct. It was something that I did not do for the GW1W, but something I need to do for the GW2W if I am made a bureaucrat. G R E E N E R 08:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was the way I intended it. Apologies for stating it in such a way that could be misconstrued. I have a long history of silly comments on RfAs, but of course newer editors shouldn't have to know that to contribute to the discussion, so I have de-sillified it.. - Felix Omni 01:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Keeping the important wiki conversations on the wiki and not (i) squirreled away in IRC, (ii) in guild chat or (iii) in emails is part of what we should be trying to do. Admins, and especially bureaucrats, should be happy using the wiki to communicate with other admins and users alike, otherwise it looks for all intents and purposes that you're doing nothing. Greener is already an excellent communicator with any user. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 11:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Transparency is important and admin decisions should always be explained publicly, but that doesn't mean every admin discussion needs to happen in the public eye. Talk pages are not a particularly convenient or efficient way to have one-on-one conversations, and I don't really mind appearing to do nothing as long as things that need to get done get done. Also, reminder to anyone following this conversation- the IRC channel is publicly and easily accessible, something I pushed for a while ago, and is often the fastest way to get a hold of a sysop in case of disputes, vandalism, etc. - Felix Omni 14:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Agreeing with Alex here. That aside, I'm curious which group of admins is present in the IRC? User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 15:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Tanetris and myself most often, frequently Auron, infrequently Poke and occasionally Alex. When JonTheMon was active he was in there a lot as well. - Felix Omni 16:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, good to know, thanks. Side note: I knew of the IRC channel, but I never realised that widget (can I call it a widget?) was a thing. The more you know... User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 16:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You can call it a widget, for it is indeed a widget. - Felix Omni 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding a wiki notice[edit]

I was very happy to see Relyk's in-depth questions, and I have been waiting to respond to more. Could we have a banner on this wiki pointing to the RfA? G R E E N E R 16:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure to add it. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 17:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Expanding on the reasons for my Request for Adminship[edit]

No one takes on the responsibility of being an admin on this wiki for personal gain, or if they did, I believe that the community should be able to suss that out and deny them the role. Admins receive no compensation for what they do here. They take on a job on top of things they already do in their daily lives. They're asked to work in sometimes complex and trying situations, where they need to deal with human beings via a text based medium which constantly distorts meanings and intentions. They are expected to make decisions based on what they believe others would want in a job where the to-do list never stops growing. Their only reprieve is putting the role down and stepping away, with the knowledge that when they do they'll be leaving the tasks to an even a smaller team. For altruistic people, that's painful to do.

So why the heck did I open this RfA? Because I'm willing to. I'm willing to take on these responsibilities because I care about the community. I'm willing to battle the difficulties of communicating clearly without voice or body language because I believe that with persistence your voice will be heard, and if it isn't then it was still worth the attempt. I want to support those who have given so much of their time and energy to this wiki and help share the load. Far more importantly, I want the community to understand what it takes to keep this creation running, and I've been using this opportunity to repeatedly highlight one of the aspects, the admin team. This is the pound of flesh I'm taking, so I hope you are all listening. G R E E N E R 09:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, now that I understand the positions a bit more, I'm a little sad to learn you are running for Bureaucrat rather than Sysop. I'm sure you will do a wonderful job, though you will be missed. Good luck. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't have any intention of going anywhere, though I always worry my momentum is dying down. 99.9% of the edits I do if I'm a bureaucrat will still be just regular contributions from a regular contributor. I still expect to make mistakes, and still expect people will come to my talk page and ask me what the heck I was doing.
Having me as a sysop would have been a band-aid solution. When I look at how long GW2W:DEL is and how there are two images that have been flagged as potential copy-right infringements for months, I don't see a dereliction of duty, but instead I see a tired team with one sysop in training. We waited two years after Ventriloquist offered to help before we had Doodleplex volunteer, and we (myself included) turned her down the first time. I'm trying to look at where our admin team will be during the next expansion, or a year down the road, or two years. Was the community really expecting to ride the same sysop team until we have only one person left? Do we want to be left scratching our heads wondering why no one else has volunteered for the job? The role has been, for better or worse, invisible.
Dashface's project has given us a wonderful gift of new contributors. Many are already becoming integral parts of the community and have taken on updating templates and moving projects forward. Out of this group there may be some who have earned the trust of the community and want to help out more, but how could they volunteer for a role they don't know even exists? A role whose job description too few know? My solution to that for the past many months is to make a lot of noise. If I took on the sysop role, then I would be standing in the doorway, rather than holding it open for others. G R E E N E R 19:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Responding to Auron's comments[edit]

When it comes to the discussion of getting the community engaged, I'm exhausted. I've been getting out as much as I can now because I am currently just a regular contributor. If I become a bureaucrat then my time for such rocking is up, and I can only look to see what others may do. I could be Chicken Little, screaming at how the sky is falling. If I am, then so be it. I don't have the energy to continue beyond this point.

I'd said off-wiki, and possibly on the wiki, that if needed I'd be willing to start an RfA as a temp sysop. I don't think one is needed nor will be needed, but I was concerned when there were only two active sysops for a while. Besides, I'm behind on my own sysop duties elsewhere, and that wiki's hardly moving! I don't believe that my life, time, or energy will be able to match the sysop role for this wiki in an appropriate manner. If you feel I should be a standing sysop first, then I fear I will be a weak one, and do a disservice to the role.

I initially wanted to start a project to educate these new contributors on what actually goes on behind the scenes; let them know who the admins are; get them more engaged. I was encouraged instead to take a more focused approach and reach out directly to people who I though might make good sysops (i.e. fill the gap I saw directly rather than wait and see what might grow). I did so and got mixed results, some expected, and some not:

  • "I'm too busy with things in my real life."
  • "I don't feel like I'm connected to the wiki community."
  • "I don't want to go through the shit-show that is the RfA." <-- I take full responsibility for that one.
  • "I thought you were going to be one first." <-- The unexpected one.

I had already intended a while back to start this RfA for being a bureaucrat, but I kept pushing it off for one reason or another. The last statement above was the tipping point for me. I don't know if anyone will opt to be a sysop once this RfA is concluded. I don't know if anyone will take on the role in the next year or the next two. I can hope though, and I can at least do my best to make the community care and point out how the reins are in their hands. G R E E N E R 05:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Your point about being strapped for time makes sense. If you were a total stranger I'd be more concerned, but it's not like you haven't proven yourself as a capable sysop. Your posts here (and elsewhere) indicate pretty heavily that you understand what the wiki needs, and will work to provide it. I'll revise my statement. -Auron 07:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
No wonder no one gets involved. This stuff would scare almost anyone away. It's certainly made me less eager to participate. Maybe it's just me, though.
Instead of all these politics, maybe you guys should create some kind of 'How to be involved in the Wiki' program. I do think the 'Leave Feedback' feature was the best thing to happen with the Wiki in a long, long time. Kudos on whoever got that up and running, though. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There's a hell of a lot less politics now than there used to be, honestly. The wiki for the first game had red tape about everything. Policy for this, policy for that... absolute nightmare. And lots more drama, to boot. We forged this wiki to be less dramatic and to allow sysops more freedom to exercise discretion in countering threats. It's worked out well - too well, almost. People seemed to forgot about sysops because sysops did the job too smoothly. Bureaucrats didn't need to take action to reprimand sysops, so (to the outside observer) it looks like they aren't doing any work either. But it's taken years to get this far. Everything was a lot more chaotic back in the day. -Auron 07:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
This process only messy right now because I'm making it so. Here are the RfA's of the past in chronological order:
Other than noticing that our admins have a shelf-life, you'll see the lack of engagement from the community over time. This trend is what I pushed against here and on Doodleplex's RfA. Her RfA and mine are the exceptions. I'm willing to bet that no RfA's in the future will be like like these two. The status quo will return where we discuss the person instead of the lack of participation.
Being an admin for the Guild Wars community is amazing. I've been one for far more years than I just wanted to count. It is absolutely fulfilling to see what it is that people can do, what people can make, what people want to give to others. When I've had a tough day, just taking a look at the Recent Changes will cheer me up. Being poked and prodded a bit by the community is a small price to pay in order to be able to give back to such an incredible group of people. G R E E N E R 17:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolution[edit]

So Poke and I have talked this one over, as we tend to when it comes to the big decisions. We're both of fairly similar mind: while neither of us are ready to dump bcrat'ing the wiki on Greener's lap solo anytime soon, we both think he'd make a solid addition to the bcrat team, adding an extra set of eyes and hands, and an extra perspective. I may not agree with all of Greener's views on assorted 'initiatives', but I know it all comes from a place of good intentions and thought-through reasoning that I can respect even if it doesn't precisely match my own conclusion, and I know he's willing to listen and be flexible when listening and being flexible is called for. And then of course there is the overall effusive support of the community according to the 'votes' indicating the sort of trust a bcrat needs to work effectively, and where there are concerns he has responded to those concerns in a direct, clear manner. While no RFA for bcratship is ever gonna be a 'gimme' that takes no thoughtful examination, I'd say this is about as close as it comes to an obvious pass. - Tanetris (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Just want to echo what Tanetris said, I believe that Greener will allow for a good balance in the bcrat team. With Tanetris and me being very old members of the community, I think that Greener will freshen everything up to maybe help moving the community into a good direction. As such, I’m happy to see that the active community is behind Greener in this RFA, and I’m looking forward to having him on the team. poke | talk 21:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_2_Wiki_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Greener&oldid=1457381"