User talk:Vili/Archive 2

IRC link: #gww

Archives
[Add an archive] January 2, 2008 - December 11, 2008 December 12, 2008 - May 2, 2012 May 3, 2012 - October 18, 2013 [Add an archive]

---

eeeeeeeeeeeeee

drama. - Auron 01:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

How very apt. Vili 09:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Games not even out yet and you already have an archive on your talk page :) 76.188.100.220 16:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

When your power level is as high as mine, these things tend to happen. Vili 11:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In excess of 9000? 76.188.100.220 16:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask Vegeta Vili 07:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh

great idea, but currently it doesn't work as GW2W is missing some changes that they forgot to implement here.. But it will work in a nice way then :) poke | talk 22:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's too bad. But, it looks better than what I had, since the box was smashed together and it was unusable. I could have fixed it by toying with individual position markers and spamming recent changes, but I didn't feel like it. Vili 点 04:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sysop Changes

I guess you missed the memo, but check the Admin Notice Talk next time, before making changes to people. To see what consensus says. This is a full gw2w wiki and different from Gww. I'm just saying... I don't see any sense in "Grandmothering" or "Grandfathering" people that don't participate here or know what's going on with this wiki. 72.148.31.114 00:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lurk lurk -Raine --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Raine Valen (talk).

Lol, if that's the case, why not help participate? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.148.31.114 (talk).

First, don't do those commented out comments, both of you (I reallize you were being cute, Raine. I chuckled. But seriously, don't do that, it's annoying). Second, Ariyen, part of the idea of the new wiki emphasizes sensible results over strict adherence to bureaucracy; long story short, unless you have a complaint about Raine in particular, there isn't really anything to complain about. I'm sure at some point there'll be some formal or informal review of if each grandfathered admin is appropriate to the new community with due community input. In the meantime, bcrats are largely left to promote who they want, and experience on similar wikis isn't exactly a downside.

Third, Vili, yeah, I have a complaint. We're moving away from automatic grandfathering at this point, and considering Raine's only been a sysop ~2 months on GWW and frankly isn't impressing me there, I'd like to hear some further justification on why you think she should be sysopped here. - Tanetris 04:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I know the idea. I was hoping Raine would do more. I would like to hear her ideas. I feel if she is to be sysop, etc. I'd like to see what she can do here as well, participation wise, etc. I do wonder, like you, why Vili promoted her - due to the short sysop so far. Yet, I feel well since she's here, why not help her feel welcomed and see what she can do, until it's sorted out if consensus would want her to stay (if they feel comfortable, hence partly urging participation) or if they don't want that done. 72.148.31.114 05:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I oppose giving sysop tools to Raine here for the same reasons I did on GWW, except even more so, because she really represents all the bad things about GWW that we need to avoid here- posturing, lack of diplomacy, lack of professionalism, hardassery, and a tendency to talk big and do nothing. Consider also that Raine only barely received sysop status on GWW due to a weird bureaucratic decision, which at this point seems even weirder considering she's done nothing significant whatsoever with her tools, and the fact that you haven't actually contributed to GW2W in over a year, and you're looking at a downright ridiculous choice to grandfather her. If you want to transition back to activity, I'd be thrilled, but promoting a controversial sysop with no discussion whatsoever is not an acceptable first step. 09:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I like Raine, but I've never witnessed her sysop position on GWW. If we were to grandfather/mother, we should be going from consensus, ye? Above comments were sort of direct. Also, I think the Wiki is handled well by it's current staff, so I see little reason to appoint more sysops at this time. - Infinite - talk 10:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Tanetris and Felix, but in addition to Tanetris' request I'd like to know why you think you should continue as a bureaucrat here. pling 16:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

According to what I've learned about the process, Aiiane apparently did not see... is that the rfa was very borderline and those were not suppose to be accepted. If majority supported her, I could see it. However, after looking at Raine's previous usage of the tools. I do not agree with her summaries, using shortcuts that do not make sense. I'm not agreeing with that she should be sysop here and I'd prefer that if anyone feels the need to godmother/father any new sysops, to ask the community for their thoughts. Not spring it on everyone else... That's a bad reaction causer... Due to your springing, etc., I don't feel comfortable with you having your tools either. Ariyen 17:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I like Raine.--Neil • 19:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Who's Raine? Enough with the grand-whatevering already. -- aspectacle  20:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Raine (Valen) is a person who got sysoped on GWW... Why it's Vili's call on grandmothering and why of all the people to grandmother, Raine is it, is beyond me...Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 22:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think Felix raises a valid point – I haven't done anything spectacular.

However, I feel inclined to point out that I said exactly what I would do as a sysop (I promised to rain fire from the skies if a situation called for it; that hasn't come up, and so the skies of the wiki have not been alight with righteous fury) and have done no more and no less than that.

Honestly, I don't believe, at this time, that a sysop of my nature is required any more than it is currently required on GWW. The parallel is complete, though, in that I do strongly believe that it's better to have a Raine around and not need it than to need a Raine and not have it.

If you believe that my having sysop status will somehow be detrimental to the wiki then, by all means, revoke it. Short of that, though, I really don't see why everyone's getting their knickers in a twist. — Raine Valen 0:32, 27 Nov 2010 (UTC)

For those of you who aren't familiar with me, I RFAd on GWW because we had a trolling problem at the time that none of the sysop team seemed to be willing to address (eventually, a bcrat had to step in and ban the drama-llama of the time). Long story short, I said plainly that I have no such qualms and, should a similar situation arise, I wouldn't allow it to escalate as far as it did. I also clearly said that that was largely the only reason that I wanted sysop status: I would perform other functions of the office, but those were not why I was doing it. That remains true.

The "weird bureaucratic stuff" that Felix refers to was that my RFA was pushed through by Aiine, who was an inactive bcrat at the time; the other two bcrats were deliberating over my promotion when it was made (and kind of blindsided everyone) because my RFA didn't have "the overwhelming support" (I'm not sure if the quote is verbatim, but it was something to that end) that one of the other bcrats wanted to see. — Raine Valen 0:42, 27 Nov 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have Raine as a sysop here right now. We have not really had a troll problem (with one, maybe two, exceptions) anyway, this community is rather small right now, and it's likely not going to increase any time soon. By the time GW2 is close to release, I think it would be interesting to have a "no nonsense" sysop around, but then again at that time it would be better if this community had found a way to pick its own sysops, instead of getting people from GW1W.

I also think this discussion is a bit of a waste of time, since I doubt Vili is actually going to look at this page any time soon, but... Erasculio 00:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you'd be wrong about that, Eras. I don't look at this page at all, but fortunately Secret Secretson is a very good informer of wiki happenings and so he drags me back whenever there is a need.

One minor thing to clear up before I get started. Because GW2W has no set policies about bureaucracy or adminship, the way things still stand (as far as I know) is that bureaucrats just promote however they feel like it - there needn't be any discussion beforehand. Don't get confused between the way you want things to be and the way they actually are. If in the future you want all promotions to be agreed upon by "the community", there's a policy page out there somewhere just waiting for another draft. My talk page is not the place for such discussions.

You want a reason, Etris? Okay, because it's you, I'll be open and honest about things. I promoted Raine because she is a dear friend and I like her - not because there is any need for more sysops here or any other compelling reason. I just happen to have bureaucrat status here - who knows what Auron was thinking when he gave me that - and I decided to use the powers vested in me. It was a fun thing to do to kill some time.

I didn't even want Raine to get ops on GWW. To repeat myself, I think it's the wrong (well, not the ideal) solution to the problem. You can give a smoker chemotherapy to alleviate his lung cancer, but it would have been better if he'd just never picked up the cigarette in the first place. The factors that give rise to what some call a "trolling problem" are endemic to GWW and won't really be fixed by whitewashing over the resulting damages again and again. My point: even if there was some need for Raine here, I wouldn't have promoted her to deal with it. It was strictly a moment of whimsy, and I have no justification.

But, now, that's been said and done, so where does that leave us? We have one more person on the sysop list. Big deal. She won't even be very active around here until GW2W comes out (if even), so I don't see the harm. Consider Emmett, Salome, and perhaps some others. Here are sysops who don't get branded with the "controversial" label...yet, they haven't done anything here for months, and probably won't for the forseeable future, and I see no one clamoring for them to lose their sysop status. So really, the issue here is not about promoting some new sysop, but Raine (and her RfA) on GWW. (Historical note: this isn't the first time I have just randomly given ops to people. Felix once asked me for ops on MSN, I gave it, and no one bitched.)

Now, I thought we all generally agreed on the "blank slate" principle - users are more or less new people on each wiki, and history only carries so far. Raine may not have done anything totally amazing spectacular on GWW yet, but neither has she totally fucked up or ragequit like some people I could name. Considering that, I claim that I may as well have promoted a random nobody. At least I promoted a nobody who still plays Guild Wars and knows a little about how to wiki.

So I am leaving you all with an ultimatum. Either demote Raine yourselves, or leave the matter be, because I won't do it. The same goes for my own user group status. I have no plans on becoming active here, nor do I plan on playing GW2W - as far as I am concerned, I am totally disconnected from the Guild Wars universe. If you all think the wiki would be better off with me demoted, then you can do that - but I'm not going to go and remove myself for your benefit. (Sorry, Pling. You must be so disappointed.)

If there is anything to be learned from this incident, I think it's this: this wiki's foundation still has a long way to go if one little bitty incident like this can spawn such a silly discussion. I don't even want to guess what comments must have been flying around on IRC. *eyeroll* Vili 点 03:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply - though I don't think you've done yourself any favours by coming across as so completely full of bile. You're right, there was no policy which prevented what you did, but as you know wikis are consensus driven things and consensus currently appears to be against your action so your action could easily be undone.

Yes, our response may be different from grandfathering in the past, but this wiki now has it's own active community who would rather if there was another sysop added to the list that they would be selected from people who regularly contribute here.

And it is true there are many inactive sysops and bureaucrats here. But for your actions we'd probably be happy to ignore them for longer, but as it is it now seems timely to reconsider inactive sysops and grandfathering of sysop rights again. There are a few reasons for this 1) to stop this from happening again 2) to consistently, fairly remove Raine as a sysop - she needn't be a sysop here and perhaps shouldn't be 3) to emphasise that GW2W now has an active community of its own which can make its own decisions 4) to support selection of new sysops from active members of this community.

I do hope that another bureaucrat steps up and removes your rights - your post shows nothing but contempt for every contributor here. Did we make a storm in a teacup? sure, but none of the questions here really deserved the angry, bitter response you've given us. -- aspectacle  05:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Aspectacle. While you, Vili, have not been paying attention to what has been going on; you have missed out on many discussions, including dealings with sysops and b-crats. Coming from completely inactive to active and making a big jump, does not look good for you. I thought you were better at big decisions and dealing with the public. With your attitude and your big jump decisions, makes me really reconsider you and the safety of the wiki. I would like to see you step down and realize your mistakes, just as Tanaric did on GWW, but considering your remarks that aren't too kind. I feel you won't. Remember, Tanaric tried to be gung-ho and coming back to a wiki that had changed from when he left and he ended up leaving again, cept with his sysops intact. It's not good to come back to something that you do not know and using additional powers at hand in irresponsible ways, least of all without considering the differences in the wiki that had changed from when other sysops, etc. were grandfathered. Nor learning that there are now a good bit of differences between the wikis. While the other one relies on Policies and guidelines, this one relies on practices and proceedures, basically the community relies on it's self. As Aspectacle said, it looks like the community is against you and your decision to godmother Raine. While Raine might be a good sysop. It's not just one's call, but a community type call now on who should be one and who should go, etc.. After all, I feel that'd best be as close as I could describe to the practicies and Procedures of this wiki. Without, having to create some sort of "big" page on nominations, etc. It was discussed... The current (previous to Raine) b-crats and sysops were to stay, no more was needed and if the community or one felt another was to get sysops. There would be a discussion held, not like the rfa type stuff... Which I like the guild wiki type Rfa that they do on wikia... Where they show the pros and cons, etc. Here, we could discuss that out without needing votes, etc. we could all decide and agree if we feel the need or if we don't think the person is deserving. Then let the b-crats see what the consensus is - the out come and then go from there. I may be wrong, but I think that's the gist of things. So, I hope the B-Crats and the community would undo your actions and consider what to do with you. Ariyen 06:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not gonna take sides on the merit of Raine being a sysop here, but I will sorta side with Vili. It's not a highly active wiki with a highly active base, and there haven't been any real guides on how BCrats are to behave. In a "we trust our Bcrats" manner, Vili decided to promote Raine, knowing that not much will happen, and the community will pass judgement at some point. Given that, I do appreciate that you're laid out your reasons, Vili, and I wish this thread had been more of a "could you weigh in" and "do you mind if I disagree" (more of a question from other Bcrats). --JonTheMon 07:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a fairly active user-base and so I can understand why the other two b-crats disagree with Vili's action. They have participated and made their presence known, even Xeeron has joined in on discussions with pages of the wiki. A "do you mind if I disagree" sounds rather like "let me turn my cheek while you do something that many, even I, may disagree with", which is not a good way to do on a wiki, especially this one. Remember, it's consensus that makes up the decisions and I feel that things have moved along enough that there are people here who may want someone else as sysop or who may not want someone as sysop. There's enough for consensus and the people here are the ones that make up this consensus. Not a b-crat who's going to promote someone after the changes of No policy and what not, even discussions on sysops, etc. Not someone who's going to pop in and make a change that was not consensus as if he, and others looked and paid attention, you'd do well enough to find discussions on sysops, etc. and what most have said, before taking up on one's self for such an act. I personally feel that letting certain people get by with things while others get punished is not fair to a community either. While Raine is a sysop, I feel it was done unjust to this community and should be-reverted regardless that a b-crat did this as "godfathering". Even if another b-crat on the other wiki promoted her for reasons half may not agree with. Promoting her here was not decided upon by this community. Ariyen 08:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I really think you're missing the point Ariyen. "Do you mind if I disagree" = "I want to undo what you did, can you give me a good reason not to?" 'cause no one typically minds if their actions are left alone. And how is all this "unjust to this community"? The current bcrats are vested with the power to promote admins, which is what Vili did. Her reasons may be weak, and another bcrat may decide (with the same powers) that Raine shouldn't be a sysop, but ultimately it's down to bcrat discretion. Most of the time the discretion is consensus based, but often (in the case of this not-as-active wiki), it's not. And what are you talking about with "letting certain people get by with things while others get punished"? You gotta address the actual points and not go off on tangents. --JonTheMon 15:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a tangent. For example, One and Neil were both causing the same things/problems. Neither had been banned before. One gets 3 days the other gets a week. Fair? I don't know, but since you wanted examples... There you go. I believe both had gotten what they deserved, but that's just an instance. I don't need to give examples really and I am not missing the point. I believe that paying close attention than assuming is better. It's unjust to this community, because from the last godfather to now, there have been enough activity and said over at a couple of other discussions about letting the community choose their own sysops, etc. from then on. That it's up to the community if they feel someone is doing wrong to speak up and go about that way, instead of any type of page to dictate how to get someone to be a sysop, etc. I don't feel the need to direct you to the pages of discussions, if you don't understand what I am saying. I do know Venom as well as Infinite were a few involved in such discussions. So, I believe I have already made actual points and addressed them rather well. If you need more information, I'd suggest to look around the old policy talks, admin noticeboard talk history (archives and recent talk), etc. Ariyen 00:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to interject: check block logs again. Neil had been banned before. - Tanetris 03:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me say this clearly: There is nothing wrong with the way in which Vili promoted Raine.

That doesn't mean that Raine is a perfect sysop or even that the promotion will necessarily stand (more on that in a minute), but there's no requirement or even method in place for bureaucrats to promote sysops any other way than how Vili did: decide on someone to promote and promote them. I don't agree with the choice (or the reasons now that I know them), but I think everyone focusing on the method over the choice itself is entirely missing the point.

Thank you for the explanation of your reasons, Vili. They're crap, as you obviously realize, but I'm a pretty firm believer in understanding the other person's reasons and explaining my own when undoing, particularly an admin action. To be clear, my objection to Raine isn't level of activity (an occasionally-active good sysop still has the capacity to good on those occasional times), nor does it involve her much-discussed trollbusting methods. I just don't think she's a good sysop. Maybe it's something she needs to grow into a bit more, or have more guidance on, or maybe she's just not wired to do things the way I would want her to; I don't know, and it's somewhat tangental here. I find her sysop actions on GWW to always be just a little off. Not enough to call 'Raine has done wrong! RfR!' on anything or even on the whole pile of things, but enough to sigh and shake my head.

And it's for that fairly simple reason that I'm undoing Raine's promotion. When even the promoting bcrat isn't particularly convinced the sysop would be more than 'not harmful', I don't think it's useful to just shrug and let inertia ride. Raine, if either now or in the future you want to convince me, another bcrat, or even the community at large that you'd be a good sysop to have on GW2W, don't take this as a 'Raine will never be sysop here on my watch!', but rather as 'I'm not currently convinced, and no one else seems to be either'. Hope the distinction makes sense. - Tanetris 09:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for the records, I agree with Tanetris. Vili herself knows there weren't really any good reason to promote Raine, and there are a couple good reasons to not promote her, so I think Tanetris is right in undoing the promotion. I would also like to point how part of the idea behind having a list of practices and processes instead of a list of policies was that we would not just point fingers to people and scream "That's against the rules!", rather we would explain why a given action is not something we would like to do here. Telling Vili how she should have or not promoted Raine is a bit moot; what matters is if Raine should or not be a sysop here. Erasculio 10:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As Tanetris says, Vili, your reasons for promoting Raine are crap. So crap, in fact, that this seems more like abuse than simply not-good-use. The instability with which you edit (ragequit every other week), the "whimsy" with which you carry out administrative actions (GuildWiki and here), and your editing style on GWW (trolling) don't provide me with confidence of your abilities. It's harder to clean slates when it comes to administrative competence (or lack of). In other words: I don't think this is or will be a one-time thing. I'm removing your bureaucrat and sysop rights; if the other bureaucrats disagree, please say, and we can restore them or decide whatever. pling 17:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)