Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship

Archive

---

Archive one
Archive two
Archive three
Archive four

A Resignation and an Apology

I'm going to keep this brief. Suffice it to say that recent, unforeseen changes in the conditions of my real life have effectively rendered my ability to contribute to GWW nonexistent. I cannot reasonably expect those conditions to change in the near (or even the foreseeable) future, and am thus forced to resign as a bureaucrat, much to my own chagrin. I realize that this will likely create some difficulties, particularly given that there is currently an open arbitration case, and I apologize in advance for any hardship that is produced as a result of my resignation, but given that I am likely to remain more or less completely unable to contribute for quite some time, I'm afraid that not resigning would create an even greater set of difficulties. — Defiant Elements +talk 10:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What to do now?

Since DE resigned, we have to decide how to proceed. Excluding the possibility of leaving the seat open for the rest of the term, we could:

1. Promote the runner-up in the election when DE was elected
2. Promote the runner-up in the most recent election
3. Start a new election now
4. Hold a double election when Tanetris seat will become vacant in about a month

Given that we will start the election for Tanetris seat in about 2 weeks, my personal favorite is No 4. --Xeeron 13:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Same. The "winner" could take Tane's term and the runner-up could take the remainder of DE's. -Auron 13:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My favourite option is number 4, too, but I would rather change DE's term so it would last one year beginning at the February's election. We would then always have two bureaucrats elections at the same time, reducing the time the community remains focused on them. Having the third election at a different time would allow users who aren't around by February to have a chance at the position. Erasculio 13:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Option 4 is the best road forward on this one. -- Salome 14:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with option 4, and with Auron's comment. -- Lacky 14:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Option 4, best choice. -- Cyan 14:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'll note that, from policy, our actual options are 2 or 4 (actually I suppose there's nothing stopping us from option 3, but in this particular situation it seems silly), and technically Aii and I make that decision, though I for one am happy to listen to anyone who wants to weigh in. Given how soon the next election starts and how much of DE's term is left, I'm inclined toward waiting for the February election.

@Erasculio: After the February election the bcrat terms wil finally be fully staggered from our decision back in August to switch to 1-year terms, so there will only be an election every 4 months. Let's wait to see how that goes before we start screwing with the election schedule further. - Tanetris 14:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see is that when having two elections in February it will be confusing with the term length, because after all we want to achieve the following terms:

• March -> February (would replace Tanetris' term)
• July -> June (would replace Aiiane's term)
• November -> October (is/was DE's term)

So to keep that and our "one election every 4 months" idea, in the February election we would need to have one term March -> February and one term March -> October (an 8 months term).

Or we could make the 2nd place from the last election taking that remaining time. (Or make him have a now -> April term and an election for a 6 months term May - October) poke | talk 15:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just let the runner up from the election in Feb serve the remainder of DE's time. -- Salome 15:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I kinda agree with the runner-up getting his term. Mostly since the next election then won't need to elect 2 candidates, something that would be off the norm. --JonTheMon 15:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that would mean Miz would be elected as he came second to Aiiane in the last election. Miz is a cool guy so don't really mind either way, however I just thought it might be fairer for those voting to know they were electing 2 people in feb and thus allowing people to vote accordingly then. -- Salome 15:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Option 4 please. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 16:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Salome, our election policy always leaves such a possibility open. poke | talk 16:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon, we've had a similar situation when Tanaric resigned his bureaucracy - we decided to have two winners in the next election. However, that resignation was much closer to the election than this one is - waiting until the February election ends will leave us with only two bureaucrats for a month and five days. Will that be problematic? I'm not really sure, but I'm not really bothered either.

If we don't follow the vacated seats section of the election policy (i.e. option 2), I'd go for option 4. If necessary, the runner up from the last election can take the seat until the February election is resolved with two new bureaucrats, as Poke suggests above. That's a kind of mixture of option 2/policy and 4.

I don't think the bureaucrat we choose to replace DE should serve a whole year, since that would render the staggered terms thing useless. So yes, I'd prefer the new bureaucrat serves the remainder of DE's term. -- pling 17:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that Poke, that their is always a possibility of this happening in according to our policies, it's just it happens very rarely and the one tie it happened before we went with option 4. However Pling covered all my points above, so basically in agreement with Pling. -- Salome 18:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think 4 would be easiest, though I wouldn't mind 2 as well. Also, remainder of the term thingy. — Why 20:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This section is pretty sad. We put in the effort to have a system everyone was OK with so that there wouldn't be any issues or delays in a live situation. Don't you think it would have been better to raise your issues with just about any other time? (And yes, I understand that you might not have been thinking about things until they became actual. There is still later.) Backsword 12:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That is cold. If someone can't handle their duties, then they can't as real life happens. Take in the facts that life can change drastically without a moments notice. I respect that this person did this in the best way that he could. Kaisha 16:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Salome: "it's just it happens very rarely and the one tie it happened before we went with option 4" - The thing is, that we then made those policy changes so we would be ready if it happens again. Now it happened again, and basically we just ignore what we have decided back then and put into the policy. Don't understand me wrong, I don't have a problem with option 4, but we made that decision so that we have a correct way for such situations, so we shouldn't ask if it was "fair" for the voters or not. After all they should vote for all candidates they would support. poke | talk 17:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Kaisha, I think Backsword is referring to our discussion about how to go ahead with selecting a replacement, not DE's resignation itself - since we put something into policy detailing what we should do in a situation like this, we should follow that, according to Backsword. That's similar to option 2 on Xeeron's list. However, option 4 seems to be popular; it won't result in any delays to the next election, since we have almost two weeks until it starts. In this case, we have plenty of time to decide what to do if we're going against the policy without messing up the next election. (And if the consensus is against the policy, we go ahead with the consensus and update the policy if required).

I think it's up to the bureaucrats to decide if they want to use the results from the last election to decide DE's replacement. I'm ok with both options. -- pling 18:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm of somewhat the same mind as Tanetris in this particular case; I wouldn't really mind either option 2 or 4, but since the upcoming election is so close, it does seem like it might be convenient. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What to do after

Seems that we should also add a policy amendment that would describe how to handle resignations. Something along the lines of:

• If the term ends within 5 weeks, wait for that election.
• If the term began within 5 weeks, offer the position to the runner up in the recent election
  • Possible modification: open an is anyone opposed vote for 7 days (in case an election didn't have runners-up with positives >> negatives).
• For any other situation, hold a new election.

I don't have a strong opinion about the details, as long as we have a clear policy to deal with the 1x/24 month event.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it would be better to leave it to common sense; the decision is already made by bureaucrats, and I think that's how it should stay. Right now there's nothing requiring a bureaucrat in Defiant Element's place, but if we were within 4 weeks of the next election and filled with ArbComm requests, I would rather have a runner up taking the position than waiting for the beginning of next process. Erasculio 11:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This case will (hopefully) be so rare that we can deal with it as it comes up. As the section above shows, we didn't have any problem getting to a consensus quickly. No need to start a policy change for it. --Xeeron 17:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xeeron. These resignation situations are rare and circumstances surrounding them are often unique, so much so that a policy can't accurately document them, or can't deal with a future situation more adequately than a discussion at the time could. This may mean we choose to remove the vacated seats section from ELECT or we leave it there as an option to easily go back to if we want. -- pling 22:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As a side note: Our policies are formalized consensus, but remember that consensus always beats policy (given it is clear, and has a large enough backing). --Xeeron 22:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

So from what I can tell the "ArbComms" seem to not happen regularly at all, and potentially a lot of bureaucrat activity happens off the wiki responding to potential emails?.. I can see that in the case of Aiiane that she makes practically no wiki edits over the space of 5 months and mysteriously turns up for the current election. How can we tell if a bureaucrat is actually any good at what they do or being helpful at all if its all behind the scenes? --Chieftain Alex 22:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a bureaucrat's job to be helpful (though it would certainly be nice), but yes, there is a distinct lack of transparency among the upper echelon of GWW. In Aiiane's case, I would encourage you to examine the results of her last year as a bureaucrat and make a decision based off that. ([1] [2] [3] might help) elix Omni 22:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The bureaucrat job is also one that tends to sparse - there will often be months without any bureaucrat activities required at all (in an ideally functioning wiki without conflict, the only thing bureaucrats would have to do is promote/demote new sysops and bureaucrats, which happens somewhat infrequently). The biggest reason you haven't seen a ton of bureaucrat activity is because there hasn't been much, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

To put it another way, the extremely active bureaucrats in the past were active despite being a bureaucrat, not because of it. It's pretty rare to actually need to put your bureaucrat hat on. Since wiki activity is lower now and there's not as much to actually do, it's not surprising that the more active editors have become somewhat dormant. —Tanaric 15:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrats, elections, arbcomm

So, it's time for another election, but as I was starting to make the page, I couldn't help but think: it's GW2 beta weekend time, GW2 will be released some time this year, this wiki's activity level is getting lower and lower, and who cares about elections anyway. I have a feeling it's been more apathy than opposition when it comes to doing something other than voting in elections every four months, and I think with GW2 around the corner (for real this time), it'd be good to have a stable bureaucracy and more sysops.

Scrap Arbcomm, letting bureaucrats be bureaucrats+sysop in truth as well as technicality. Scrap elections, scrap terms, and choose afresh bureaucrats who will serve indefinitely. Perhaps use normal RfAs to choose them; maybe even borrow from GW2W's RfA system. Either way, I think these are things that aren't too controversial. pling 17:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been saying this for years now. Definite support. -Auron 18:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

But, but, but ...all I ever do on the wiki these days is vote every 4 months :( (meanwhile, back on Earth - strongly support.) --snograt 21:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding sysops, I think each election period should be used to update the status list. Since december 2011, I have only seen 3 out of 16. Also, I would like to see those users granted with administrator tools make more use of Guild_Wars_Wiki:Sysop_guide#Cultural_reverence_of_sysops rather login to delete only. I have been checking the Recent Changes for half a year now and its non-sysops who do the explaining. Which makes me think that I know what sysop is in theory but unseen in practice. Yoshida Keiji talk 12:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was a long history of that, regarding the use of the word "janitor" being applied to the sysops on this wiki. But like pling said, it's mostly apathy now as many people have moved on.

I support (even though I'm doing what Yoshida said - deletions). If someone would actually create some drama over this, it might actually liven up the place a little. :) -- ab.er.rant 15:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

From the 16 and even out of 3, you are the only one that actually bothered to leave messages refering to background, giving the big picture and explaining further steps to move on (that's why I was thankful). The problem Im seeing is that if regular users leave comments in new user's talk pages; it's good but...since they are not sysops, they don't need to detail or reply in dialogue. And without interaction between users the community itself cannot grow. I would like to see sysops assisting active user and /un-stuck issues that are on halt. I think "Ask a question" is a good example of how the entire wiki should be handle. There are several questions around here and there but left with no answers (same case as drop research sections without tables to fill in = show the way, and users will do). Yoshida Keiji talk 21:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin duties are things like warning, blocking, deleting. Stuff like talking with other users and talking about drop research aren't admin-specific things - it's something any user can do. Even if an admin gets involved in something like that, they're doing it as any normal user would, not in an admin capacity. Civil dialogue and explaining actions are things all users are encouraged to take part in, not just admins.

But this is all beside the point, as this section is about bureaucrats and elections. Feel free to create another section to discuss general admin involvement. pling 21:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There have been no arbcom requests since 2010, and no accepted/resolved cases since 2009. The wiki has been quiet for a couple of years now. It's safe to that the system is dated and ready to be removed, and this isn't including any opinions of whether the arbcom system was any more effective than, say, user committees.--Riddle 22:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I have no opposition to anything said, and would like to say that the past 3 or 4 elections have felt one-sided with the same people being re-elected and only 1-3 people even attempting to run/being nominated. That said, I dislike seeing 75%+ of the list of admin being red in "inactive" and suggest the premise of "# months of inactivity results in revoking of seat" with someone else being put in place - be it by election or RfA. Konig/talk 04:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh. There's your drama, Aberrant. -- FreedomBound 11:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

^-^ Well, the original stand was that once we've trusted someone enough to be an admin, then unless they prove themselves unable to handle being admin anymore, we just let them be, active or not. But that was when GW2 was a long way off. Now, it's highly unlikely that the majority would even consider returning to a more active role here. We could always drop a message on their talk page. Still, if we start trimming our list of admins, should we first try to get more admins? Are there admins willing to step up to maintain this wiki (instead of "stepping up" on the GW2 wiki instead)? -- ab.er.rant 14:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Currently we have enough active admins to keep the wiki in decent order. I would personally support the removal of inactive admins since they're not contributing so don't need the rights :p. Removal of short fixed terms, elections and arbcomm system along with longer terms sounds like a sensible idea for bureaucrats. Chieftain Alex 15:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If we're going for indefinite bureaucrats, I don't see a reason to not have indefinite sysops (and I don't consider trimming red blocks a valid reason). Also, Konig, there's no "place" that the inactive sysops are keeping reserved; we can add new sysops whenever we want, without having to remove any inactive ones.

But, again, that's another topic (and these arguments have already been made); this topic's about bureaucrats :P. pling 15:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As one of the currently seated bureaucrats, this act to permanently install me in power is glorious. On a less power-hungry note, I think elections have become more of a hassle than a help; we're not having issues with needing bcrat turnover or fresh blood for ArbComms. To that end, we should have bcrats be permanent until they step down/drop off the face of the earth. Also drop ArbComms, since those haven't been relevant and we're now trusting in our sysops more with discretion. But, to transition things into the new system, we'll need some sort of way to establish the bcrats from here-out, and how to replace ones that step down (likely the same system with different scope). That does imply that we want 3 bcrats, but that would be fine to change or retain. --JonTheMon 16:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

@ping: I know sysops don't have a limit for positions, I was implying we could make. just tossing ideas about. Either way, no opposition from me about improving the admin system, especially bureaucrats. Indefinite until inactivity or stepping down sounds like a good course, for both bureaucrats and sysops. Konig/talk 17:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just my two pence: before shortening the list of admins, please announce this and allow a transition period (like 1 month?) to let people be more active if they desire. Then exclude those who don't like. --Slavic 18:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

@Jon; we could just have them pick "successors" when they feel they're too inactive to be of any benefit to the wiki. We're a small enough community now that everyone knows everyone, and we trust the bcrats enough to not pick dipshits to replace them. -Auron 06:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Three was a good number and unless there's a compelling reason to move away from 3, let's just stick to 3. -- ab.er.rant 14:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The wiki has changed a lot since it started up, and the 4-monthly elections have been obsolete for a while now. As such there is no big problem with doing away with regular elections. However, the number of admins (3) has not shown any downside, so I don't think there is any reason to change that. Regarding the procedure to select bureaucrats, I am opposed to bureaucrat-self-selection. We'll have very long (infinite?) periods soon, so why change a prodecure that will not make any hassle due to overuse anymore. Given that we will not have the downside, what arguement could you possibly make against the current procedure? It works and has never selected bad bureaucrats. --Xeeron 17:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue of inactive sysops very much revolves around how you look at sysops Koenig: If you feel that being a sysop is some kind of reward or present, then it is unfair to give that reward to inactive people. However, if it is a box of tools, then there is no problem with inactive "tool box carriers", since we have an unlimited amount of tool boxes. --Xeeron 17:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Like auron and others said, this needed to be done years ago. I definitely support plings proposal. --Lania 23:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If the entire "process" of electing/appointing "bureaucrats" and "arbcomms" was to "police" the WIKI, the GW gaming community, the "scammers" and other assorted deadbeats, then it's STILL a necessary "occupation"----------after all, "if the cat's away,the mice will surely play". The GW community (both for GW and GW2) will still need it's "won-ton" (or half-pound as the case may be) "enforcement" arm as a "last line of defense" against the "barbarians at the gate". The success that the community has had in keeping GW (and this WIKI) in a "reasonably clean" condition is, in part, BECAUSE of our elected bureaucrats and arbcomms. This game has not yet been interred, all of the questions have not been asked (or answered), and though GW2 "MAY" stand alone, it will be a far poorer place without the GW "foundation" supporting it.

My suggestion is this:

If you are going to maintain an active GUILD (or be a member of an active GUILD) in EITHER GW or GW2, that GUILD needs to maintain an ACTIVE presence on the WIKI, willing and able to serve a term as a bureaucrat OR a sysop----AS NEEDED. (meaning: you run for election AND SERVE THE TERM if elected, or are available to serve when/if a WIKI "crisis" demands additional assistance to resolve (smiting hackers, spammers, thieves and other assorted riffraff)---who knows, you too might get a "green" (energy-neutral) weapon system for your very own use!! 68.59.37.249 17:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

How is that supposed to be related to the changing of beaurocrats to indefinite terms, arbcomms (users being a PitA on the wiki) or elections? Chieftain Alex 18:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I've long thought that the current system was too cumbersome for the current level of participation in the wiki. I'm not sure I like GW2W's system. But I think we either trust our admin team...or we don't. If we do, it's easy:

• Appoint for life; the B'crat team chooses its own successors. Their only specific responsibilities are promotions/demotions and (on rare occasions) dispute resolution.
  • If there are objections, we can hold a reconfirmation.
  • If a chosen successor isn't yet a sysop, then they go through an RfA.
• They should have the same rights/privileges as sysops.
• Issues that require an appeals process can be handled on an as-needed basis by any three sysops. Call it an armcomm, call it a court of appeals, doesn't really matter.

– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Appealing a block and regular ol' discussion is enough for an "appeals process". Let's not define a number required for something to be sorted out. Re choosing bureaucrat successors; I'm fine with bureaucrats choosing their own successors (either by themselves or after discussing with the other bureaucrats). But how do we choose this first group of bureaucrats who will serve indefinitely as sysops+bureaucrat? pling 17:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: # to review an appeal: the point is we don't need to have 3 elections/year to create an independent review panel; any reasonable, but formal system of appeals will do the trick.

Re: which b'crats do we start with. The ones we have now; I don't see a material difference with our current system in which incumbents have always won (except when there was, in effect, a recall movement). Or, at worst, hold the next three elections as scheduled, but changing the terms to permanent.

One thing I forgot to mention is that there needs to be some way to determine if a b'crat has become inactive (I think semi-active is fine, as long as they respond in a timely fashion to queries). I think the easiest system is to allow anyone to suggest (based on recent contributions) that a b'crat is inactive and let the active b'crats choose a successor. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the point that incumbents usually win, while we do have a fine group of bcrats, bear in mind that there are a number of former bcrats (myself included) who simply don't run anymore because of how bcratship interferes with being a sysop. Removing that issue as suggested here would likely see a swell of interest (if perhaps a small one, as some have faded away from the wiki overall). - Tanetris 18:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, I'm agnostic about whether to hold a massive "choose three" election soonish or to stick to the current schedule and elect one at a time. (The latter has the advantage of giving different people a chance to think through their interest in the role...and allow different parts of the community a chance to choose.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Are we ready to agree?

(Reset indent) I see widespread support and no opposition at all to the central ideas:

• B'crats are appointed for life.
• B'crats are special sysops with the power to promote and resolve disputes.
• Arbcom is dismantled. Any appeals can follow the same process as Guild Wars Wiki:Appealing a block.

There are also some issues we seem to agree are beyond the scope of this discussion:

• Do we need to purge the list of sysops so that the "inactive" section isn't so large?
• Do we need a larger number of active/semi-active sysops?

There are some missing details:

1. How do we select the first set of indefinite-term b'crats? One election? or use the next three in the schedule to select the people, one-at-a-time. (I don't think there's full support to grandfathering in the current group.)
2. How do we decide when a b'crat is inactive enough that they should be demoted to sysop?
3. How do we choose replacements?

(1) I'm okay with one big election or sticking to the current schedule to choose. The first gets it done quickly, but the second offers more opportunity for people to participate.

(2) I think we can offer two objective but arbitrary definitions: they haven't contributed at all for 6 months (or 3 or whatever) and/or on more than one occasion, the community couldn't reach them to resolve a timely issue. However, the simplest would be to let anyone propose that a b'crat is inactive and follow the existing RfR process.

(3) In choosing a replacement, I prefer to let the remaining two b'crats choose. Yeah, it lacks a classic balance of power aspect, but we're talking about the wiki, not the government of a new republic. I like the idea above of requiring a new RfA to confirm the choice: that ensures that the person becomes a sysop (as required) and it gives the community a chance to chime in, without making things too complicated. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

1. If nothing else, hold 1 election and the top 3 vote counts get the seats. Still not a fan of elections though.

2 and 3. My suggestion was mostly that the bureaucrat himself would decide when he was unable to continue contributing, and would at that time appoint a successor. Some people (like poke) can get hectic real life schedules, but if called to the wiki for any specific task, would do his best to see it through - but when someone loses their desire to contribute (or oversee the project) they know it's time to pass on the torch. Most people, especially the ones actually serving as bcrat, see the position as a duty to the wiki and not as a badge of honor, and would willfully pass it on when they lose interest in performing the duties. PvX isn't the greatest example of a wiki, but that's largely what we've done over there - I stopped "caring" about the project in 2010 sometime, but I made sure bureaucrats were always around who did care, and made sure they knew to promote people if they ever went inactive. -Auron 09:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm good with that. This revamp effectively says that we agree to trust b'crats to get things right and to take their job seriously and Auron's suggestion builds on that more so than what I proposed. (And, as a backup, RfRs are always available for any sysop, including a b'crat.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree. One point occurred to me (not overly changed by this proposal, but still...) - what safeguards are in place for the unlikely situation that a bureaucrat turn rogue? Always wondered ^_^ --snograt 10:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

ArenaNet can make server-side changes to strip his power, and if he manages to do something bad enough, revert to a backup. Most edits/user rights changes can simply be reverted. -Auron 11:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ty, Auron :) --snograt 11:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How am I supposed to participate in elections? How to make the right choices? If a "new" Bureacrat is to be promoted among current sysops...old election candidates seem pointless as what matters is how much active they have been as of the last months. I have been trying to understand this since the last election. Sysops are just users with three more tools: Block, Delete and Protect. Which means...these should be users who are "very active" in maintenance and bookkeeping on a "very regular" basis. Now the users who are currently doing both maintenance and bookkeeping...none are sysops. On the other hand...the sysops...are not much seen in both maintenance and bookeeping. How can regular users find out? By checking the contributions, being the most seen: Special:Contributions/Auron, Special:Contributions/Ab.er.rant and Special:Contributions/Farlo. And also by doublechecking: Special:Log/block with Special:BlockList and Guild_Wars_Wiki:Admin_noticeboard plus Guild_Wars_Wiki:List_of_candidates_for_deletion.

How to check Bureaucrats activity? By looking Guild_Wars_Wiki:Requests_for_adminship (history) and Guild_Wars_Wiki:Arbitration_committee/Requests. Since there has been no arbitration requests for years and only one (meh) RfA... I don't know if the current Bureaucrats are perfoming (active/inactive) as expected (positive/negative). How can a regular user know if they are doing well? So that we can create an image...and then look back to sysops and think who could do better by replacing a current one? Are Bureaucrats supposed to be only 3 or could there be more of them? I don't see administrator ranks keeping the wiki organized or updating pages such as filling up articles with {{stub}}, checking revisions and fixing lazy/lame edits, participating in talk pages to discuss article issues, etc. Elections will keep coming but I still cannot take part, nor will know the how in here GWW...GW2W...GW3W... and so on... Yoshida Keiji talk 13:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You can still look at past RfAs, discussions, arbcomms, etc, to see how candidates have acted/would act, even if there haven't been any recent situations which require action. You can also ask candidates questions and base your opinion on their answers.

Regarding the three issues above: (1) like Auron, I'm not a fan of vote-based elections. However... it's quick and relatively effortless. I'm not sure whether a big to-do with RfA-style RfBs would be better than simply voting on it. I'll leave that to others to decide. If we do vote, I'd rather have them all at once; I can't see there being more or even the same level of activity after Guild Wars 2's release than there is now. (Tbh, as long as Tanetris is promoted, I'm fine with whatever.)

For (2) and (3), what Auron says sounds ok. pling 23:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm chiming my voice in to agree with Pling. -- Armond Warblade 00:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)