RuneScape:Requests for adminship/iN008 (bureaucrat)

From Old School RuneScape Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Replacement filing cabinet.svg
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current project page or contact an administrator for aid if no talk page exists.

iN008

iN008 TalkContribs • Last 20 Forum - Main - User talk editsEdit count

Per the recent departure of Scuzzy, I nominate myself to take the role of a bureaucrat for the Old School RuneScape Wiki, as having a single bureaucrat active is less than ideal.

I look to handle the typical tasks expected of a bureaucrat such as determining consensus on RfAs and granting tools when appropriate. Beyond that, bcrats have had additional expectations on OSRSW which I will be looking to help Spine with, such as managing the twitter account and writing the article of the week on a biweekly schedule as it has been handled up until recently.

I've been thinking about submitting a RfB for a while now. For the last two years I've heavily involved myself with the wiki, from small-time editing, to administrative tasks (helping Scuzzy with fork css and general administrative work) or larger projects, I've looked for ways I can apply myself in order to improve the wiki. Bureaucrat would be another opportunity to do so.

Questions

Question - I seem to recall you disagreed with Hotpot's Wikian title nomination on RSW, which was fairly close. How would you have closed it and what considerations would you take when doing so? It's obviously no RfA, but it's a useful exercise in determining consensus. cqm talk 07:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

At the time it was closed I had suggested that it could've had it's close date extended for an additional week in the chance that anyone had additional input, though I would've likely closed it in the same way if no extra input was given.
After re-reading the thread myself I expressed my thoughts on discord regarding the closure; while there was notable opposition, most of it stemmed from a different argument altogether; whether or not oswf edits are valid contributions to consider for the title. Where those in the supporting camp (with slightly more in favour) also noted additional reasons for the title to be awarded such as Mitchell and Elessar pointing out that the nominee had tackled edits in areas where people aren't so eager to edit, leaning the nomination in favour of awarding the title. iN008talk 09:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Question - In your opinion, what mistakes (if any) were made on Cat's RfA by existing bureaucrats and how would you go about avoiding them in the future. cqm talk 07:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Premature closure was the biggest issue with the RfA, alongside a bureaucrat nominating, it led to involvement from both bureaucrats from the start when the thread was reopened forcing a third-party (Gaz in this case) to step in. I don't blame spine at all, at the time of closure the thread had no hard opposals though some did note causes for concern, the thread was inactive for most of 5 days before closure bar a soft oppose with no additional arguments.
I feel it would've been a better idea to take a step back at that point and make sure everyone was aware of the RfA (preferably before the thread was close to closing) as well as providing the candidate with questions to answer. I understand there is a fine line between making people aware of an ongoing discussion and canvassing but I certainly feel like there was viewpoints missing from the thread as several active os editors hadn't weighed in, even after the thread was reopened.
Though that is another issue the wiki needs to address in general, it hasn't been easy to get our own regular editors to engage in these kind of discussions especially when we can barely get enough input on regular forum threads. Should there be an expectation for them to do so? No, I shouldn't think so but it's unfortunate that a chain of events can happen when input is limited. iN008talk 09:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Question - Should proposing a change, whether that be to an existing policy, a new idea or nominating someone for extra rights, disqualify you from closing the discussion? Does the same apply when supporting/opposing the proposal? In what circumstances would it be appropriate and what should happen when there is no alternative, e.g. single bureaucrat nominates someone for RfB? cqm talk 07:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think excluding bureaucrats from conversations is the direction to take, it doesn't make sense that someone more detatched from the community would make more sound decisions regarding the community. I'll concede it gets a bit murky when discussions involve people the bcrat is close with, where they are more likely to have stronger opinions; in such an event there should be room for them to move aside, which currently is not possible as there are so few bureaucrats (in other words: one, previously two bcrats). iN008talk 09:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - Any questions welcome. iN008talk 03:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Support - IN008 has been a key individual in helping me become a better editor and is always willing to teach. IN008 is someone that I would trust and be proud to say is a Bureaucrat for the OSWiki. Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 04:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Redacted; upon review, I do not have adequate experience or knowledge on topics that would be important for voting. Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 04:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think you're the best option of the remaining admins to determine consensus on RfAs, which is the only thing that really matters for being a bureaucrat. I think you'd do a fine job doing the other things you mentioned (managing the Twitter account, setting the article of the week), but those don't inherently have anything to do with being a bureaucrat, and sort of just seemed like something that Spine and Scuzzy did because they wanted to. I think that can happen without a thread.

As for why I don't think you'd be the best option for closing threads, it comes down a lot to what happened on Towelcat's RfA. Your approach to adminship ("As adminship is not about status, and is merely access to tools, I believe that's where this discussion should end, but I'll humour the other topic.") doesn't sit well with me, and I think could easily result in inconsistent closures.

Further, some of your comments there are, to me, fairly inflammatory, and disqualifying for someone who wants to convince the community that they can close discussions without bias. As I said privately to you when you first floated this idea, the big hurdle here is convincing everyone that you can be impartial about things that involve your friends. Us needing to have Cat's RfA closed by Gaz was pretty embarrassing, and clearly the way around that is to have more bureaucrats, but I'm not convinced people would have trusted you to close that one effectively. ʞooɔ 04:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

As I alluded to in our conversation, if there has not been any opportunity to show I can be impartial since that incident, how can I possibly prove I can be impartial when I know I can be. Yes I think there was definitely a mistep with cat's RfA, it's unquestionable that it was a failure on our wiki's part having to bring in an external bcrat to close, however if the end plan is to have 3 or more bcrats on os, then surely even if I do get involved in an rfa there would still be someone around to close it.
The idea that my views are set in stone doesn't add up, the longer I've involved myself with the wiki the more I've taken on different views. I don't necessarily hold all the values I did almost half a year ago, I won't change my stance that cat would've been a great admin given the opportunity but there could've been better handling of the discord situation I will concede. iN008talk 04:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Being a bureaucrat is literally all about being impartial, and evaluating the arguments that other people have made. In a sense, that's kind of a demotion – it makes it much harder logistically to be able to give your full partisan thoughts on someone's request, or to do the nomination yourself. (That's incidentally why I'd never want to be a bureaucrat: I have too much fun actually commenting on the RfAs). Much like me, you can be a pretty strong partisan on these sorts of threads, which makes me think that both you and the community are going to be better served by having you in a position where you can freely comment, instead of worrying about whether taking a side is going to cause problems after the week is up. I think this affects you much more directly than any of the other prospective candidates, which to me makes you the least appealing option for bureaucrat. ʞooɔ 04:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I have to strongly disagree that one example of me being partisan on an RfA justifies this fixed classification on me that I can't be impartial in regards to people. Especially since if you take a look at every other RfA that was posted not long before it I never made arguments, not real arguments for or against candidates and I don't have interest in doing so in the future. If you want to look at a shift of attitude in regards to people look no further than oswf, I started of disliking the idea immensively due to an expectation that we'd get a lot of low quality edits from people that didn't care much and here I am in 2020 running a task and working with people on transcripts. iN008talk 04:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - I think your strengths are on projects and ensuring the quality of the wiki and steering the overall direction of some policies. You often challenge people where necessary, such as when you correctly protested against my edits to the fiery and draconic monster attributes. I support your desire to contribute to things such as article of the week.

However, I do oppose your RfB. A bureacrat is meant to act as a neutral mediator. Given that you have strong opinions about people and actions, I feel like you contribute more by giving your opinion than by acting as the bureacrat. I worry about your level of neutrality given that you can be strong-worded in your expressed opinions such as on discord. Even if you feel like you are remaining neutral, your general impression of things can often clash with that of other admins. Therefore, your interpretation of a neutral ruling might not be considered neutral by others, weakning the impact of RfA closures. Unfortunately, the perception of a mediator being neutral is as important as their neutral judgment. Thanks for reading and sorry about the opposition. --Gau Cho (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

See above. iN008talk 04:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Your comments above don't address the points made by Gau. Can you clarify how you feel about the importance of a neutral ruling being perceived as neutral? Riblet15 (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Support - First, I agree with others that being a bureaucrat on the wiki is about having a neutral judgement and approach to discussions, and I also agree that the way that Towelcat's RfA was handled was a bit ridiculous. I don't however think that this is a fair reason to prevent you from becoming a bureaucrat.

I don't like the assumption being made that because you're not neutral now, which is perfectly fine because you have no reason to be by the way, you can't be neutral if you were to become a bureaucrat. I don't think you wouldn't be able to close an RfA neutrally, because that is what the role of bureaucrat would ask from you and you'd take it on. You've taken the initiative to want to assume the role that Scuzzy left behind, so I think people should take that with more seriousness and as a sign of a willingness to abide by what is expected of a bureaucrat on the wiki. Obviously, if you change your mind, that's fine too.

Clearly OSRSW needs more bureaucrats. As you are someone who has been around for several years now and have a lot of experience on the wiki, I think you're a trustworthy and suitable figure to become one. jayden 00:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Support - While I agree with some of the points that Gau and Cook bring up about iN008's strengths potentially being hindered by a bureaucratic position. I don't necessarily agree that that should prevent him from being a bureaucrat. I support this RfB as I believe he has the experience to be a successful bureaucrat. Shoyrukon (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - I have concerns with your perspective on the role of the Bureaucrat in the community. Maintaining neutrality is more nuanced than abstaining from commenting in or closing specific threads. Any thread could cause a conflict of interest, or could appear to have one, based on the understanding the community already has of your opinions on many topics. I don't mean to say that you are unable to be neutral in any situation, but that a bureaucrat may have to be neutral all the time to maintain the trust of the community. We're better off if you're free to pick apart details of arguments (like you're doing here) without worrying about what appearance this causes when you would close other RFAs. I don't completely mean that the weight you apply to arguments may be influenced by the people that make them, but that it may be based on your own opinions of those arguments. For example, you have stated that the decision for Adminship should be strictly about tools. When a significant portion of the community makes arguments based on Adminship having significance besides the tools, I am not confident your analysis of the conversation is guaranteed to align with the feelings of the community, and even with your best intentions it would be very difficult to avoid the appearance of this.

It's also fair to have concerns about your involvement in Cat's RFA, because I definitely expect we will see Cat go for RFA again. I want that conversation to be fair, and I would want you to be able to comment on that thread without any concern of what it would look like if you closed that, or future RFAs. I first take concern with your analysis of Cat's RFA: that opposition mainly came from RSW(1). This is not the perspective I expect from a bureaucrat, because the opposition needs to be considered on its own merit and must not be dismissed based on the people making the post. This also unfairly labels opposition from exclusively OSW editors (such as Julia and myself) as if it were irrelevant to the conversation. I also have some concern in your answers to the questions above. You acknowledge that Cat's RFA should have stayed open longer because you believed the viewpoints of specific editors were not at all represented in the thread. However, you also appear to agree that there was sufficient consensus ("no hard opposals") for Spine to close the thread when he did, which is precisely what caused the RFA to become so problematic. If the thread is closed and there were unrepresented viewpoints, the only unbiased action the bureaucrat can draw from them is no-consensus.

Your experience and willingness to be vocal about your views make you a good contributor to the wiki, but are not traits that fit naturally with the bureaucrat role. Riblet15 (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination - iN008talk 21:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)