User talk:Aquadrizzt/RFA/Archive 1

My thing is... I have not seen you hardly take part in many discussions like main type articles, PP type discussions, etc. things that are of utmost important to this wiki. Despite having seen a bit of your good work, I've not seen enough that tells me you are sysop material. I think you should try again later, especially when we get more active. Also, I don't think we need another sysop as we have plenty at this time. That's just my opinion as a fellow user. 72.148.31.114 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Some questions.

1. You say "I have also shown myself to be reasonable, to be able to exercise good judgment..." Will you please present some of these instances?
2. Similarly, "I have also shown myself...to know when it is time to stop." Will you please present an instance (or any amount you desire) in which you knew it was time to stop?
3. What was the determining factor behind your decision to start a request for sysop rights?

Good luck! --Riddle 05:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I second Riddle's third question. I have always had the feeling that people don't understand exactly what being a sysop means (check the top of this page). Being a sysop isn't really about being a good contributor - sure, someone who's a bad contributor probably wouldn't be a good sysop, but the question a candidate has to answer is how being given access to the sysop tools would improve the wiki. It doesn't matter how many controversial discussions an user has been in, rather what he can do to the wiki beyond what he already does without the sysop abilities. Erasculio 08:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously guys, jealousy gets you nowhere. Not everyone can be expected to be superactive, some people actually have RL responsibilities too. 08:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, would you want to have someone that you hardly know their actions on things be a sysop? I would like to see these answers, but I would like less of the Assumptions that I "apparently" don't know about sysops. I am one on at least a wiki (I'm not giving out more information) and if I didn't know what I was talking about, I wouldn't be one. I wouldn't be an Administrator on many groups either. My question to Aqua is... Do you have what it takes to take care of heated discussions, bans, etc.? So far with some things that I have seen. It seems as if you "ran away" than discuss things out on some things. Others, you did okay, but not what I'd expect of someone with potential sysop abilities. So could you in your own words, describe an example and how you'd handle it?72.148.31.114 09:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, beggers can't be choosers. RFA strikes me as a "I Want Power" competition. If you want power, you're in it for the wrong reasons right off the bat. I believe it takes one to know one and therefore believe that if anyone, the current admins should discuss and pick a new sysop whenever the time calls for it. I trust them enough to make unbiased decisions like that. And to clarify, I am not stating that to suck up to them, because I have openly shared before that I will decline any offer made for admin rights. In short; I don't support any RFA, including this one. - Infinite - talk 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) In order of original posting: my responses:
@Riddle: What an individual thinks is "good judgment" is (in my opinion) subjective. My personal definition of good judgment is using my insights into situations to help myself and others work in a positive, helpful and non flammatory matter. One example that I have done in the past is the suggestion (only a suggestion) to a fellow user that reporting a user with whom they have a history is somewhat unhelpful. Look at the Scythe vs Auron to see what I mean.

"Time to stop": I, like all people, have different ways of dealing with stress. When I get stressed, it can lead to poor judgment on my part, which can lead to things I don't want to do, such as personal attacks and lashing out. For me, I use "signing off of the wiki" as a way to keep my personal feelings and stress *off the wiki.* That, after all, is one of the reasons that people make PAs: personal feelings getting in the way of editing.

Final question: The determing factor for requesting adminship is that I truly care about the wiki. I feel that my ability to help the wiki, both the community and the wiki itself, would be greatly extended if I were given the ability to do things such as delete Copy-vios and unnecessary content or files, and also being able to block disruptive users, vandals, and trolls. (I do not believe in hair trigger banning, I would ban only as a last resort, after polite requests to stop have been made, or if the person in question was clearly vandalizing. I prefer to assume good faith first, and ban serious disruptions later.)

@Erasculio: I agree that participating in controversial discussions isn't necessarily a measure of one's worth to the wiki, or their ability to be an effective sysop. Some discussions: I just avoid because I realize that my comments would be uninformed (grammar discussions), unhelpful (policy discussions) or unwanted (discussions between users that don't pertain to me). When people are in a flame war, all other stuff is kind of lost in the crossfire until it is resolved. There is no benefit (or loss) for not contributing in controversial discussions. Well, atleast you know my opinion on them [controversial discussions.]

@Balthazad: Thank you. :) I do have a handful of real life responsibilites. Mostly school (like most other people on this wiki) and swimming, but after those two: the wiki takes its place as my top priority. I immensely care about this wiki, which is why I invest as much time as I can into its maintinence and content.

@Ariyen: As I stated above: I do not believe that I will necessarily be helpful in heated discussions. If two people are in a heated discussion, I feel that any possible contribution that I could have made to the discussion (assuming I had a valid contribution/statement/argument in the first place) is simply lost in the cross fire. I also prefer avoiding drama, but if it gets bad, I am more than willing to have my contribution to that discussion being a post on the admin noticeboard asking an admin to break it up. My reasons for applying for sysop include the fact that I would like to be able to end this when it happens, not after it happens (if an admin isn't on when it is occurring.) I am on fairly consistently after I get home, (i.e. 6-10 EST, and later on weekends) which allows me to observe what is happening on the wiki fairly consistently. It also seems to me that most of the admins are simply not on during that time period, thus allowing me to cover an otherwise low point of admin activity.

I have also made my position on banning clear. Banning is a last resort, after assuming good faith (or trying to) and after asking politely/warning a user to stop making their edits as they are currently. The only instance in which I believe bans are acceptable before other steps have been taken is when there is clear vandalism on a page.

About me "running away," most of the time, when I have "run away" from the wiki, it is not when I am in heated discussions, but when a small discussion on the wiki is going in the wrong direction (it has the potential to become a heated discussion, but it is not close to becoming one yet) and the small amount of stress I get from it are compounded with individual stress from real life responsibilities. I have never "run away" when I am in the middle of important discussions, as my lack of presence could lead me to not fully understand the situation when I return.
You also asked for a hypothetical situation: Here is one I came up with: A user (registered or not, it doesn't matter) has been making edits to pages that, while not necessarily vandalism, do not follow current formatting guidelines. At this point, I would revert the edits and leave the user a message saying that they are in violation of the rules (as I am assuming good faith.) If however, the user either continues, or reverts my reverts, then I would either warn them again (more forcefully this time) or ban them (depending on the severity of the violation after the first warning.) Normally, except in dire cases, I would warn twice before banning, because the first one might not have completely sunk in, but the second warning definitely should (as the second warning would be worded differently, effectively stating "Continue what you are doing and you *will* be banned. You have already been warned once.")

@Infinite: You have your own opinions, I'm not going to even try to change them. However, I do feel like not talking about my reasons should not be present. I am not the person to take positions of responsibility, and I am particularly not a person who goes on power rushes, where they try to seize all power that is within their grasp. I am doing this because I believe that I want to take that next step on the wiki and that the sysop tools would give me the ability to do that.
Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 05:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

About your hypothetical situation - I'll highlight the specific parts: "A user [...] has been making edits to pages that, while not necessarily vandalism, do not follow current formatting guidelines. At this point, I would revert the edits and leave the user a message saying that they are in violation of the rules (as I am assuming good faith.)"

Formatting guidelines aren't rules, and "violations" of them don't require reversion. If an edit is inconsistent with a widely used formatting pattern, it should be improved or at worst simply kept, not reverted. Such an edit also doesn't require a warning (a warning which, in my own view, would be worded too strongly) - incorrect formatting isn't an admin matter but one of content. If the editor disruptively reverted continuously, then yes that would require admin intervention, but the initial edit wouldn't. Also, I'm not sure that that is assuming good faith - helping someone improve an article instead of admonishing them for their method would be better.

I'm also not sure about your aversion to heated discussion. While deleting things and blocking vandals can be done fine, an admin might also be expected to handle personal attacks or trolling, which tend to occur in heated discussion. (Some people might not expect this of you, but I at least would be more comfortable knowing you could and would be willing to handle most areas of sysophood, not just one or two.) You say you prefer avoiding drama, yet you want to stop disruption "when it happens, not after it happens" - I think this contradicts that preference.

It's also worth noting that being an admin tends to attract heated discussion - admin actions will be disagreed with and you'll have to justify them. The past shows that these can often be the most drama-causing of discussions. pling 17:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about editing destructively (i.e. deleting things that they disagree with). My apologies for not making it clear. I was talking about when someone removed something that they believed was not important to the article, when the content was decided previously (through consensus) to be relevant and necessary. Also, I do not try avoid heated discussions like the plague, if I am in one, I will try to not just leave in the middle, however, I see no logical reason for attempting to insert oneself into a heated discussion that doesn't pertain to myself except to remind the users in question that they are starting (or have, depending on the case) overstepped the boundaries of what is an acceptable, social, meaningful and helpful discussion. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Spamming

It is highly inappropriate that you spam the same note on 5 user talk pages (not to mention that it took you two edits to do it right), on the admin noticeboard (not its talk page) and on RFC. Regardless of your other actions, this actually makes me wonder if you act appropriate enough to warrant an adminship status. poke | talk 09:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's inappropriate when we have not yet established what is an appropriate way to ask for sysop tools. 09:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It is always inappropriate to spam the same message on multiple pages when it can be sure that each of those pages is watched by all addressed persons. poke | talk 09:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ain't the end of the world, though. -Auron 12:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the concept of pinging the bcrat's talkpages was brought up in a previous discussion and deemed okay.--Riddle 21:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Glory

You've failed to give a single reason why you should be made an Admin. Because all you do is talk about your good deeds (which - as you doing them has shown - do not need Admin tools in any way, shape, or form) I'm forced to come to the conclusion that you're doing this because you feel you deserve to be an Admin, and that you've earned the prestige, etc.

That's a very worrying line of thought. While I like you and value your contributions, I think for the time being you're best off as a regular contributor. By all means attempt to persuade me if you wish; I think you need to refute my point before you've much of a chance at passing the RfA.

A F K When Needed 16:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I kinda agree with AFK here. I like you as a user dude and in the future I think you'd make a fine sysop but perhaps not just now. I wish you luck however! ShadowRunner 00:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

@AFK: I feel like I was decidedly vague when writing my candidate statement, which was a poor decision on my part. People assume that I'm doing it for the power, or the glory, or the entitlement I feel I deserve. As I said above, is it so beyond comprehension that maybe I'm just doing this because I want to help the wiki. I'm not doing this for the title, I'm doing because one way I can help the wiki is by doing administrative stuff in times of low admin presence. I already fight vandals, but as an sysop I would be able to not only revert their vandalism but also prevent them from doing it further. (Please note: only in cases of clear vandalism do I believe in blocking; I made my positions on blocking, vandalism and Assume Good Faith clear in the previous section.) I also like helping with maintenance and doing administrative work (this is actually true in both real life and on the wiki). I don't mind the administrative work, it allows me to contribute positively to the community, and that is my goal with this RFA, not for the title, the prestige nor the status, but for the ability to help more than comes with it. As I stated above, I care about this wiki (content and community) greatly, and I would love the chance to help it as a sysop.

@Shadow Runner: Is there something that I don't possess now that you would like to see me possess? Or was that a suggestion to wait until the wiki becomes more fully fledged? Anyway, thank you for the good wishes. :)

Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 06:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It was more a suggestion to wait till the wiki is fully-fledged :) ShadowRunner 11:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The shiny glory of Ohshit.

People do hold things against you (or anyone) forever, Like Scythe and Aurons QQ war (tbh more scythe) or the rant against my (now healing) spelling errors in general, Oh- and the bans.
Listen, people can be douches. if you were to actually have a vote, i would vote yes- mainly because, unlike many of the current admins, Your a nice guy. You've undone certain vandals, you've contributed positively to the wiki (not as much as others, albeit) and you've also helped and welcomed many new users to the wiki itself. --Neil • 00:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, no one will always like you but if you get the job done and correctly, I see no problem and the wiki would be...easier. If you want power, awesomeness; if you want to help and extend over the regular capabilities that us regular users have, go for it. Whatever may be your reason keep one thing in mind: Focus on what you want to accomplish as an Admin and you will do great. - Lucian Shadowborn 04:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ehhhhhh...

I'm not sure if you are at the level of maturity required for the role of sysop. I'm not saying you aren't trying, but edits like this betray your "exercise good judgment" quality. --Riddle 17:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It was clearly meant as a sarcastic comment and not derogatory (hence the pseudo-tags). It displays a "light" characteristic and a human ability to have fun. Not all comments and discussions must be of a serious nature. Venom20 17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Venom. Be less judgmental and realize people try to have fun and it's not hurting anything. :-) Ariyen 17:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm is inherently derogatory, but that is not my concern. I am an avid user of sarcasm, after all.

I didn't get the impression that he was aware of what his actions might do, or how they might reflect back onto him. This community has an awful tendency to band together at the wrong times, and I don't think he was aware of that when he left the sarcastic remarks on that page. One little debunking could have been enough. Ignoring it and letting the subject die could have been enough (though someone was bound to take that bait). He did neither, and started what would later become a bandwagon of sarcasm. --Riddle 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There's quite a few sysops who are generally sarcastic. I, too, side with Venom's comment. - Infinite - talk 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Riddle, while I am not stating that what followed was okay, I did think about whether or not it was worth posting that. One quip remark on my part should not become a blanketing statement that I lack maturity. I am in fact, very, very thoughtful about the consequences of my actions, and at that point, it was light hearted poking, nothing more. I agree that it should not have grown in the way that it did, but saying that my comment incited five other people and thus proves a lack of maturity on my part is somewhat illogical. If people think I did go too far with that, I be more than willing to extend an apology (and I might anyway.) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 19:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean that you lacked maturity as a five year old lacks maturity. I just get the feeling that you don't have quite the right level of awareness that (I believe) a sysop should have. You're a good user, no doubt, but you're not sysop material yet. --Riddle 20:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Maturity and awareness are significantly different. You can argue against it all you want, but they are. A lack of maturity would have been if I had ripped apart Hubbard's by quoting him, making some obnoxious comment, and then repeating for every element. A lack of awareness would have been if I had not only been immature, but I had also incited others after the fact with comments such as "lolz." I made one quip remark about it, and that is enough for you to think that I lack a sufficient level situational awareness. And besides, if I hadn't stated it in the way I would have said it, would you have preferred me saying something like "No, your wrong. Here's why..." The logic behind the argument is confusing. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 20:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Maturity and awareness are significantly different. You can argue against it all you want, but they are... A lack of awareness would have been if I had not only been immature..." I won't go into the finer points of how maturity and awareness are related, because this is not the place.

It's not just that one edit, but edits like that one. How you handled Hubbard earlier is another example, which Venom followed up in a much better fashion. How you handled my criticisms, haranguing me to no end is another one.

Also, for what it's worth, you could have done the "no, you're wrong, here's why" route, or you could have flatly ignored it. --Riddle 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A lack of awareness does not require that you are immature, only that you do not fully think through what your actions could cause. I think using this particular comment as an end-all for the RFA is silly (though I don't think that's what Riddle meant to do), as that comment alone can't be blamed for the continuing discussion; the issue of GW2 vs WoW is difficult to predict in discussion and, a vast amount of the time, causes trolling, flaming, and overall drama no matter what.

I do think that it wasn't necessary or constructive (not to say the discussion itself was), and that there was some lack of awareness about exactly how inflammatory those conversations can be, even without stoking them, and especially when stoked. It's not so much that you used sarcasm as where you used it.

I just realized that this entire post is basically an elaboration of Riddle's second in this section. --ஸ Kyoshi 22:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sure if Auron made a Sarcastic comment, you guys wouldn't do this. Drop it okay? It's enough. I don't agree with Riddle trying to use it against Aqua as far as Sysop. I am sure there's a lot more out there that could be used than some fun that has been taken out of hand. Thank you. Ariyen 04:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen, it's a discussion. We can say what we want, within reason (NPA for example, and none of that has been used here). You don't have the right to tell us to drop it just because you disagree. Aqua's actions are exactly what should be used to judge whether he's qualified for sysophood. "Using it against him" makes it sounds like a vendetta, which this is not; this is a legitimate concern being brought up.

As I just explained, the issue is not that Aqua used sarcasm, but where. Commenting less-than-constructively on an issue which would have even escalated on its own was just a bad move on Aqua's part. Auron (usually, or at least as far as I've seen) knows where the caustic part of his social interaction will cause too much trouble. --ஸ Kyoshi 08:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Caustic..... good word Venom20 14:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Srsly you guys, Aqua has been (more or less) told he wont be an admin this year; so why dont you stop shooting fish in a barrel? --Neil • 20:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Kyoshi, I'm telling you all to "drop it" and to try to stop more drama. Not because I "apparently" disagree (strong assumption on your part). However, it looks like you want to continue this to prove what? Nothing. Apparently, the both of you (Riddle and you) missed where Aqua basically said he/she was removing the nomination. That was said, before the "sarcastic" note that was only meant in fun. Not my fault that you two are taking this beyond extremes where it don't need to go. Let it go. I feel it's far beyond enough and this wouldn't of been tolerated from me with sysops. Ariyen 21:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really drama, nor is it taking things beyond extremes - while I don't particularly think the initial comment itself was very significant, this a discussion about Aquadrizzt's quality as a potential sysop. (The discussion and responses are actually quite interesting and potentially helpful.)

I think I did miss where Aquadrizzt removed the nomination, where was this done? pling 23:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Pling: I was about to ask the exact same question... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 23:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Contributes - research. I'm not a babysitter. 72.148.31.114 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I missed that he said he wasn't continuing this because I haven't been following the RFA with any dedication. (For that matter, where the hell was it? I don't see it on this page, and it isn't noted on the main article.) because it was bullshit, apparently? --ஸ Kyoshi 23:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that said, I apologize for this comment: "You don't have the right to tell us to drop it just because you disagree." as it was an unnecessary jump to conclusion. --ஸ Kyoshi 00:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolution

Well, it's been about 2.5 weeks, and discussion's pretty dead, so let me jump in with a bureaucratly response here. I'll say first off that I haven't been ignoring this, I just wanted to let the community discussion run its course. If nothing else, it's been an interesting experiment in freeform RFA, which I have my own thoughts on, but I'll talk about that on GW2W:RIGHTS at some point.

To the matter at hand: you're a good contributor, and it's pretty clear to me you want to help the wiki the most that you can. It's important to note, though, that sysop isn't always the "next step" for a good contributor. Far more often, the next step is to be a better good contributor, and the step after that a better good contributor, and so forth, because there's always room for improvement for all of us. I disagree with your statement about admins being selected based on personality. While some aspects of personality may play a factor, the primary thing is trust. The community needs to trust you not only not to maliciously abuse the sysop tools, but also to be able to properly understand any situation you may come across and apply or not apply admin tools judiciously, to not let off-wiki issues (mood, headache, someone being your very best friend, etc) affect your adminly actions, and to be objective, reasonable, and mature in your application of admin tools.

One thing you say in your candidate statement is that your contributions speak for themselves. They don't. To be absolutely blunt, if they did, you wouldn't be self-nominating. Not that there's anything wrong with self-nomination, I wouldn't consider whether someone self-nominated or nominated by someone else a factor in deciding an RFA, but you do need to sell yourself a bit. Point out specific instances where you've acted the way someone who's admin material should act. Just advice for future RFAs, for you or anyone else reading.

I've rambled a bit, so let me get down to the point: I don't see it. I can't say with any certainty that you'd be a bad admin, but I'm even less certain you'd be a good admin, and that's fairly well borne out by the community discussion. So, unless another bcrat has a strong objection, I'm marking this unsuccessful. - Tanetris 16:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Tanetris, for your response. (I also apologize for the tardiness of my response.) I, actually, do not disagree with your choice or your judgment in anyway. In retrospect, it was probably a bad idea to put up this RFA at such an early stage in the wiki. But to what I'm going to take from this.
When I put up this RFA, about three weeks ago, I figured it had several distinct outcomes. Best case: I'm a sysop. Worst case: some brief drama. My goal in this RFA, aside from the obvious attempt at sysop-hood, was to get constructive criticism from people about how to better myself as a wiki-er. I do believe that, for that intermediate goal, I was successful. I hope that, with time, I will learn from this, and end up a better person because of it. The next time (if there is a next time), I will show that I can learn, that I can be mature, aware and that I will not strive to get the last word in on any discussion even remotely pertaining to me. I will also put a lot more of thought into this, if I do choose to do this again. In conclusion: I think you were right, and I intend to learn from this, and end up a much better contributor as a result. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 04:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't feel that putting up the RFA was a mistake. It makes it easier for others to "get a read" on you. And, at the very least, it promted us all into thinking about the way RFA's should be handled. --Xeeron 16:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)