D&D Wiki talk:Requests for Adminship/Yanied

Yanied Contributions

Again, its not a question of how many contributions Yanied has. I am saying I haven't seen enough of them. I haven't seen a lot of them. AKA as someone who logs on daily and still has no idea how their, prolific, contributions are I am not confident giving SysOps to someone.
During an RfA, I wasn't sure of someone's understanding of the edition they edited. I went through their contributions for a couple hours, pulled half a dozen pages of different categories and thought they had a good grasp of the edition they edited. Afterwards, I feel like my assessment was wrong and I regret my vote. Had I seen more of their contributions through time vs rushing it into a couple hours, I might have had a better idea.
Simply giving someone SysOps because they are nice with a lot of contributions doesn't seem like a reason to me otherwise we'd RfA many users that swing by for 3-4 months before being burned out and leaving.
No disrespect to Yanied, they seem very nice and motivated. Their name is popping up more and more in my watchlist, as is others that I am grateful for their help.
Clear as mud? :p ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2019 (MST)

I am curious, why do you oppose the nomination when you admit that you haven't investigated Yanied enough, instead of leaving a comment? It just doesn't seem to make sense to say "I didn't end up doing 'x' so I oppose you." --Green Dragon (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2019 (MST)

Yes, clear as mud... (no I still don't your logic), also what GD said ;) --Cosmos (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2019 (MST)

Since when did there become an onus for users to "investigate" RfA candidates? In the world of consensus, perhaps its all the same. I've remained neutral on certain votes, even ones I am intimately familiar with. I chose "Oppose" because this user's contributions aren't vast enough. There isn't very much vouching from users except ones we've I've barely seen.

Perhaps I am mistaken. I've seen past RfAs and users would "Oppose" on the premise they do not know who the candidate is. Is there an opinion that this reason isn't valid? I think my expectation that a user's reputation to become an admin shouldn't be one you have to investigate. How could I possibly get to know a user in less than a week with real life? It is even recommended that a user be online for a year before being considered but a voter needs to cram that into a week? What did the candidate do in that year that active users, and I will even throw it out, admins! don't know this user. So far, CL is the only admin to have an idea of this user. Quincy's commentary is that Yanied can write lore and has new articles with completed formats. I just don't understand how that shows a need or purpose for admin rights.

Cosmos, I still don't your logic either. You "Support" because the user is: happy & has a lot of contributions. My issue with this is happy people can make bad edits & don't always understand the system they edit. Users with a lot of contributions can make bad edits & don't always understand the system they edit. I think that users with admins rights RfA candidates should have a well known history and reputation for good edits because they've shown they understand the system. I truly hope that helps clear up my point.

Lastly, if this seems like a rant or defensive, well it sort of is? I respected others' opinions and votes. Mine is continually questioned and I struggle to understand why there is so much controversy over the way I evaluate the candidate. Is it that I am too harsh? Am I suppose to spend days parsing through contributions (on top of SysOps, my own contributions, and real life)? I...*sigh* just befuddled. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2019 (MST)

If I wasn't an active user GD, I'd leave a comment. But my watchlist is in the thousands, I'm here daily, I get email notifications, and I am on Discord all to be available to help. Through all that, I still don't know the candidate beyond their user name and edition they edit and oppose handing admin rights to someone that most likely means well, but I just don't know them. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2019 (MST)

I was just curious, and asked the question. It does not mean that your vote will not be counted. I see your reasoning, even though you would not of had to defend it. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2019 (MST)

Okay, I see your logic, and I see how my logic doesn't have much logic in it XP so yep. But I can't really say that I oppose either :/ --Cosmos (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2019 (MST)

oh. that was it GD?...I do apologize then. I've tried to avoid my monologues. @Cosmos, your good to support. It is your vote. I support you voting your conscience. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2019 (MST)

Well I can't decide so neutral I shall be. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Cosmos (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2019 (MST)