D&D Wiki talk:Requests for Adminship/GamerAim (2)

From RFA: "Threaded discussions are held in the Comments section. Long discussions are held on the discussion page of the individual nomination."

I'm wondering if this RfA should be reformatted to make the reviewing bureaucrat's job easier. Marasmusine (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

You're right, but I'm not sure how to do it. Maybe copy all the comment discussion into another section, then leave just the original oppose/support (though I think it's just a couple opposition comments that are too long?) comments under the comments section? That way the comments section is cleaned, but the discussion on those comments is preserved for the reviewing bureaucrat to, well, review.--GamerAim (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

It has become a mess, but I don't see a good way to sort it out without appearing biased, or directly altering people's comments. If we can propose an excessively uncontroversial reformatting, then I'm all in favour, because I have no idea how anyone at all can scan through the lot. GamerAim's proposal is okay, but I feel that would just make it even harder to follow any relevant discussion. --SgtLion (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

How about putting spoiler tags around each vote's replies? Varkarrus (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

I agree with Vark. Spoiler tags are awesome and they make things look so organized! :) EpicBoss99 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

RFA Extension Response

Green Dragon, the RFA does not need an extension; it should be deleted. The format of the RFA has led to so much infighting and passive / aggressive responses from all sides. If the community still thinks that GamerAim needs to be considered for removal from Adminship; let them revise the RFA policy. Keep counter responses on the discussion page and stop the infighting. If the current RFA is allowed to stand it is my opinion that you will end up without a fair solution and upset people on ALL sides. I opposed GamerAim’s RFA strictly based on the fact that he made a decision without holding a discussion with the other Admins. The intent and actual policy is / was not clear 9 years ago and still causes a lot of confusion. Admins should support one another through discussion. Action without discussion leads to the impression that one or more Admin’s decisions carry more weight then other Admins. If that is true then it is not obvious to the community or other Admins. -- Kildairem 23:47, 7 October 2018 (PST)

I think I agree with many things said here. Unfortunately, I think to 'stop the infighting' is nigh-impossible. The community in its current state is rather conducive to infighting. I do agree that if we want to make RfA decisions based on unclear/nonexistent policy, we should write up clear policies, and then we can RfA based on events that breach the newfound policy after that - but, fractured as we are, there's no way we can reach consensus on relevant policies, either. So I see don't see an amiable way out of the situation except everyone trying to get along. The RfA page has got messy, but discussion is rather necessary to have hope for a solution. --SgtLion (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2018 (MDT)

SgtLion, Thus my point of posting the message to Green Dragon, but visible to all. Just as I am responding to your post that is not addressed to a specific person. In his capacity Green Dragon can end the RFA with the simple justification that it is doing more harm to the community and further dividing the Admins. -- Kildairem 07:29, 8 October 2018 (PST)

Vote:GamerAim stays admin

I cannot add on to the discussion because the regular page breaks my current phone from length,but if there is a hat I would personally throw in the ring is it simply that adminship isn't interpersonal relationship things which seems to be the main thing that is brought up in the arguements agaisnt him,and he seems perfectly fine editing regular pages without any assistance or with any real controversy about it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newandsearching (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

I think it's fair of me to comment that I find this "support" weird to say in the least - This comment is your only contribution to the wiki since creating your account. ConcealedWife (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2018 (MDT)

I agree it's a fair comment. I'll make the point that Newandsearching has been an active user (but not contributor) of the wiki (and reliably active in the thoroughly relevant Discord server) for a good number of months. Considering how much the Discord server has been behind this RfA, it's not surprising that Discord-based members are more 'weird'ly prevalent here. --SgtLion (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2018 (MDT)

Newandsearching is a user from Discord who has been there for awhile. He must've joined some time after you left. He does use the Wiki, though, so as weird as it may be, there's no reason he can't vote.--GamerAim (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2018 (MDT)

I agree that Newandsearching's support here does look suspicious at first glance, but the user has been around for a while in the Discord, so I'm not terribly concerned about this vote. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:04, 15 October 2018 (MDT)

DnDWiki RFA Policy Question

Does DnDWiki use the same 75% standard for Admin RFAs that Wikipedia policy uses; which allows a bureaucrat to discount comments which were made in bad faith or are of questionable validity? If not can someone link me to that page as I have been unable to find this information -- Kildairem 10:48, 15 October 2018 (PST)

[Wikipedia:RfA] for reference. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2018 (MDT)

I am not trying to answer the question with this link, it is a reference to all users. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2018 (MDT)

Thank you BigShotFancyMan, That was where I was looking and I wish that this RFA looked more like the one going on with Sir Sputnik on Wikipedia. The main topic of an RFA is not the place for continued discussion. That is the purpose of the Discussion page. -- Kildairem 11:02, 15 October 2018 (PST)

I presume Green Dragon needs to answer the question above; maybe they can speak on the desirability of having discussions on the discussion page. I think it stems from no RfA having quite this amount of traffic so the need never arose. I'm just a rookie though >.< BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2018 (MDT)

The decision ultimately is up to Green Dragon. RfA is not a straight vote; it is a discussion about whether the candidate is suitable to become (or in this case, remain) an admin. The votes tally is a good indicator of where the consensus might be, but whether GamerAim remains an admin is ultimately up to the points being discussed and the quality of the arguments being made both for and against. A straight vote is really easy to influence through nonlegitimate means such as spckpuppetry or meatpuppetry, so that's why this isn't just a vote. 75% is just a guideline, and there have been RfA's on Wikipedia that succeeded despite falling below the 75% mark. . — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:29, 15 October 2018 (MDT)

Geodude671 You just confirmed what I was asking -- Kildairem 11:45, 15 October 2018 (PST)

Oi! \o/ that's a 65-75% mark peeps! Let's make sure we aren't selling anyone short here ;-) BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2018 (MDT)