Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Proposed Change to Sysop section 1.1 While we're on the topic 2 Bureaucrats as Sysops 3 sysop userpages move protted 4 No bureaucrats 5 Temporary promotions 6 Patrolling and Automatic Patrolling 7 Proposal: 6 months -> 12 month

[edit] Proposed Change to Sysop section

I would like to propose a change to the Sysop section that would address the issue of inactive Sysops. We currently have 3 Sysops who have had little or no activity since January (or before) and the subject of 'We have enough sysops' is being used as opposition on new RfA's. While I and I think everyone else understands that 'life happens' and there may be times when people can't devote regular time to this wiki, I believe that denying a willing, active candidate because 'we have enough' on the list is wrong. I would much rather see a way to remove the inactive ones to 'free up the slot'. That being said, since life DOES happen, there should be an official way a sysop can notify the community that they will be inactive for a set period of time (Leave of Absence) where no change will be made to their rights. As part of the proposed change I would recommend that any sysop who has been removed by this policy should need to resubmit an RfA to regain their admin status. -- Wynthyst 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i think you answered your own proposal. We can ask a Request for Confirmation on sysops already, and inactivity is a pretty good reason for it (one which i would support at least). Maybe we should just start doing it?.

(added) On the other hand, we would need a way to speed up RfC's when originated on "inactivity" :/.--Fighterdoken 20:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While Fighterdoken's suggestion is perfectly reasonable, I would prefer to have a formal system so there is no guesswork involved, and people can expect when RfrC's while occur. Calor 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this in IRC and the general response (from the few who responded) was that sysops were promoted because we trust them, and that trust doesn't go away when they do.. so there's no real need to remove them when they're not active. Seems reasonable... and yet, I agree with Wyn; I look at the admin list and want to clean it up. RfCs work, but an inactivity removal wouldn't be a bad thing in my eyes. Maybe we should try an RfC or two and see how the community takes it? — THARKUN 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wyn, these "inactive" sysop are kind of filling up the list imho. Maybe a clause that states that if a admin is aware that they may be inactive for a long period of time, they must inform the community why and the approx. time when they will return or there adminship may be revoked and/or they could get an RfC. --Shadowphoenix 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Filling up the list" ? "Free up the slot" ? "I look at the list and want to clean it up" ? ... Those seem pretty shallow reasons for which to strip sysops from a role that the community has granted them in sign of trust. Especially since it's barely been two months since those three last posted on this wiki.

Wynthyst, "We have enough sysops" does not mean "We already have 14 sysops, thus no room for more". "We have enough sysops" translates to "All that needs to get done is getting done, so no point in getting more sysops".

I'm against this suggestion. --Dirigible 21:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but i don't agree with you in one point. If i stop going to work for 2 months for whatever reason (even if my work is quite pointless right now), i will more than likey find myself without job when i come back. Admins are chosen by the community to perform whatever task they do, and we actually expect them to do it. If they know they can't comply with them for a long period of time, they should step aside (or be put aside), even if doing so accomplish nothing in the long run. I would like to ask them if they really want to keep being in the sysop position, but kinda hard since they are't active :/.

In any case, i think this discussion is reason enough as to why the current RfC process is still the best option.--Fighterdoken 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify, since Wynthyst has brought up the same criticism of my post with the "list" comments: I don't care about the list in and of itself. My wanting to clean it up is just a phrase I used to signify that I don't think we should even have to have an inactive section: if you're voted in to be admin, be one, don't disappear. If you are going away, I don't think the rights should stick with you. Every community I've been in - and every parallel you can draw to real life, as Fighterdoken does - has had such time limits. If you have such powers, and have been shown the trust of the community, part of the expectation for holding them is that you exercise them judiciously and actively. Officers in every guild I've been in have had activity expectations, for example; even though there's no arbitrary limit to the number, it is still preferable to have only active officers (sysops). I agree with Dir that they gained it in a sign of trust, but I at least expect someone to be active in the powers we've entrusted them with or step down, even without a violation of trust. Its not just a matter of having a short list of sysops; I just didn't think that I would be interpreted so literally, and I didn't spell out my actual meaning behind that phrase. — THARKUN 21:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Honestly, I think a better solution would just be to point out that "we have enough sysops" is a silly reason to oppose an RfA. There's no such thing as too many sysops. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

/agree with Aiiane --Shadowphoenix 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We can never have enough Sysops. It doesn't hurt to have more, and it's a lifetime thing, so I don't think it would be fair for Sysops to be demoted for maybe not having access to internet or something for a while. Why not email them and ask if they would like to put themselves up for reconfirmation? — ク Eloc 貢 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Dir directed part of his comment directly to me, I'm going to respond. As Tharkun pointed out, in almost every other community, if you are given a post granting you power beyond others, you have the responsibility to fulfill that 'trust'. I see the disappearance of a sysop as a violation of the trust that was placed in them by the community. If and when they return, they can feel free to resubmit an RfA and see if the community still feels the same level of trust in them as before. As for the terms used, I don't care what the list looks like, and I have pointed out that 'we have enough sysops' is a stupid reason to oppose an RfA. Not needing more sysops because "All that needs to get done is getting done" is also just as stupid, because there is always more that could be done, new members to be helped, images to be deleted, violations to be dealt with. Maybe it would reduce some of the inequities that have been at the root of some of the current issues we have faced. This is not directed at the current inactive sysops in any kind of personal way, and I realize that it's 'been barely two months' (and I think you should revisit their contributions and count again) since at least one of them posted, but think about everything that has happened in those two months. As for Eloc's assertion that 'it's a lifetime thing' please tell me where that is stated, or even assumed. -- Wynthyst 05:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that inactive sysops should lose their status over time. Some of them have clearly stated that they don't play anymore, for example, and will therefor most likely not return. -- (gem / talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) For the last part, GWW:ADMIN#Sysops, 3rd paragraph: "Sysops are appointed for life, but may voluntarily resign. Their status may also be formally examined by the arbitration committee.".--Fighterdoken 05:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Wyn it is stated that Sysops are appointed for life in the policy, however, I think that if they are inactive for a certain period of time their status should be revoked or at least have a RfC. This would call for a change in policy. --Shadowphoenix 05:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it now, don't know how I missed it before. (edit) And a change in the policy is exactly what this discussion is all about.-- Wynthyst 05:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I knoiw Wyn, I was just stating the obvious --Shadowphoenix 05:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dirigible above: As long as a sysop is still trusted, there is no need to take away his sysop status even if the sysop is inactive. If the community does not trust a sysop anymore (maybe due to the long inactivity), a reconfirmation is the way to go. So the basic tool you need is already in place. --Xeeron 09:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got much time as I'm leaving for soccer soon (not that I've been away for the last few months because I've been playing the world's longest soccer game but anyway) but because this obviously involves me I'll quickly say a few things. I can see why having sysops who are not well equipped for the job would be bad but I'm not sure what having too many good sysops would result in. If you have faith in the adminiship process then having too many sysops shouldn't be a problem. Secondly how are you going to judge what "becoming inactive" is and as the game gets older and GW2 gets closer few people are playing GW, does the inactivity scale slide? Having to reconfirm your RFA discourages sysops from returning although from reading the above maybe people are saying good riddance to these people who've abandoned their duty, it may not be an issue at all. It does strike me as strange having to reprove your trustworthyness after having done nothing wrong though. I guess if a sysop never returns then it really doesn't matter if they retain their sysop rights or not, inactive sysops don't do anything and by the same token inactive sysops are unlikely to care if they have sysop rights, it hasn't made me rich and famous or gotten me into exclusive nightclubs so far! It's more of a question of what happens to returning sysops I think.

As I see it sysops all play the same role, we may have different background and different things we enjoy editing but we don't have specialised duties. I didn't have any qualms about my absence, the sysops and bcrats I was working with all seemed perfectly capable to me so I didn't have any worries about stepping back. It's a bit different to a job where you're paid to perform a certain task, I don't think that if any sysop disappeared the day to day running of the wiki would be effected terribly much, which is how it should be. If anyone is curios as to why I haven't featured on the Recent Changes much, the answer is pretty boring. I don't spend much time at home on the net and in the past I've done most of my editing at work but my current job has blocked access to the site. I'm currently self studying so I can hopefully find a job I enjoy more but I cannot say when that will happen. It is of course a community decision but I thought people might be interested to here some quickly typed opinions from one of the 3 of us currently in the red!. --Xasxas256 11:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the original problem was not the inactive sysops, but the reasons we are opposing new ones. As we say inactive ones do not do any harm, I think we are using double standards when we oppose new sysops because "we have enough of them working already". That was what caused me to bring this up in the first place, I just figured out my own double standards (not all of them! :P), so to speak. - anja 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/draft B would remove the details of the appointment and removal policy due to redundancy with their in-depth coverage at Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship. I think that any changes to reconfirmation should be covered through RFA, and that any revisions to this policy should wait until draft B passes, fails or goes stale. -- Gordon Ecker 00:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the oppose reason is not directly "We have enough sysops" like the list is long enough (or full) but more like "the current work for sysops is done fine"; I don't think people would say, that we have enough sysops around when only 5/16 were active. poke | talk 09:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] While we're on the topic

I propose we also remove sysop powers from User:Ab.er.rant. He's supposed to be watching the UTC+8 time zone, but lately he's been oversleeping, so he's on the wiki during Bex's shift instead. Clearly, that's a violation of community trust. We need accountability, can't have people coming and going whenever they please. I suggest we fire him and let Gaile know to stop sending him paychecks, and then we can find someone more responsible to watch that timezone.

In other words, I think this is nuts. Sysop tools are just that, tools. It's not a job, they don't actually have to do anything, including enforcing policy. They're not getting paid for this. They're not getting something for nothing. They're not using up any resources. Nor are the sysop tools a privilege for which they should need to prove constantly their worthiness and that they are deserving of the great honour of being able to delete spam. It's just tools. The community has shown trust towards these users before, and that trust shouldn't be lost just because that's how it would be on other communities or in real life.

Oh, right, we should do as Gem says and remove those rights because they don't actually play the game. We should probably add that to the bureaucrat requirements too, so we don't end up electing three of them that don't even play the game anymore. Oh wait, too late, we've already done that. Whoopsie, big deal. (Actually, we should really do this; it'd be a fun reason for which to take down Defiant's nomination). --Dirigible 11:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, nice Dir :D

Actually I have to agree with that; I don't see a reason to remove rights only because sysops are inactive or don't make use of the tools. Especially as the sysop right was applied for life, it doesn't make sense that we try to remove them now. As long as inactive users don't do any harm or are not abusing their powers (which is very rarely when they are inactive..), I don't see a need to remove the rights.

Our room for sysops is not limited, so there is no need to "make room for new sysops". When there are people who want to become a sysop, they can always do that. And just because we currently have enough sysops to do the work, that is not an argument to say we don't accept new sysops.. poke | talk 11:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to discuss with you if your tone would be suitable for it. I hope you intentionally "misunderstood" my point and taking it as if it meant that playing the game would be a requirement. What I meant, and how you hopefully understood it, is that if a sysop has been inactive for, let's say, a year, and he also stopped playing the game year ago, there's little reason to keep them as sysops. I know very well that some of the active sysops/bcrats over the history of GWiki and GWWiki have actually not played the game ehile being active on the wiki.

And currently I have to disagree with 'sysophood is just tools'. It is not, sadly, although I'd like it to be. For what I've been following, the situation hasn't changed much during my inactivity, and a part of the reason why I went inactive was the ridicilous debate over sysophood and whether it's just tools or tools + status. -- (gem / talk) 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That was uncalled for and just.. insulting, Dir. You made your point already. - anja 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anja that Dir's response was harsh, but I don't think it was his intention to insult Gem. While the role of a sysop might be more than just tools it is certainly not a job. The trust that a person is given by the community does not disappear when they leave the wiki. If they were to come back years later and be a total dick then that's a different story, and maybe if this starts happening I could be persuaded that adding terms to sysops would make sense ;) But as things stand I think it makes most sense to allow sysops to come and go. It does no one any harm. LordBiro 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the trust given by the community to a person changes, because the community changes. Same as policies (i mean, just look at policy enforcement and liberty of action given to sysops), the community that is here today is not the same that was a year ago. And what was valued as "enough of a reason for being sysop" then may not be enough today. That being said, i am making a formal request for a RfC on the three inactive cases we have.

Oh, and Dirigible, you should know that "sarcasm" doesn't work on internet unless you use the respective /sarcasm tag.--Fighterdoken 18:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Biro, I didn't think (or say) that Dir insulted me, but his tone was nasty and not suitable for real discussion. -- (gem / talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My response was mainly to Anja, Gem. I don't think his tone was nasty. Sardonic at worst. LordBiro 21:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Gem, I understood your point very well, and I still disagree with it. You are saying that there is a connection between someone's dedication to the wiki and whether they play the game or not, and I'm of the opinion that such a connection does not exist, especially so for someone who has dedicated enough time and effort to the wiki to become an admin.

Fighterdoken, if the trust given by the community changes because the community changes, then shouldn't we be having regular reconfirmations for all sysops, regardless of their inactivity? Regardless, starting up a reconfirmation for this issue is certainly your right, they were meant for this kind of stuff. As long as there's nothing hard-coded in the policy regarding inactivity, I'm happy.--Dirigible 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dir, you are being a bit rude with your "sarcasm". We are saying, what is the point of them having sysop powers if they are not here to use them? The way I see it, when you are given admin tools you have an "oblogation" to fulfill. If you are not going to fulfill your duties, what is the point of you having the tools to do so? I think that if the go over 1.5 months of inactivity that a RfC should be started. --Shadowphoenix 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an observation that I've made in the past, that people tend to disappear from the wiki when they stop playing the game. There are good examples of people who haven't, and I understand that it's not a 1:1 correlation between stopping to play the game and leaving the wiki. -- (gem / talk) 23:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Gem, inactive ppl can't exercise symbolic power, that's not a good argument.reanor 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Should I put myself up for reconfirmation then, since I agree with Dir? And along the same lines, I would like to propose yet another inactive clause, this time for non-admin users: "All users who become inactive for more than 2 months shall have their account permanently blocked by a willing sysop." Why not? If admins should have their admin tools removed due to inactivity, editors should have their editing tools removed due to inactivity as well.

Admins do not have an obligation to use admin tools. Stop treating it like it's a job. We use them because other users believe that we will not misuse them. If that is not the reason, please put me up for reconfirmation - I refuse to be held responsible for not doing something when I don't want to do it. There's a very fine line between voluntarily doing something and being obliged to do it.

And as for the ridiculous example of comparing wiki admins with company employees, I can't believe there are users who actually agreed with it. Someone please write me a cheque for at least half a year's worth of salary for the "work" I'm supposedly required to do on this wiki. And along the same reasoning as the first paragraph I wrote above, please start "firing" all those registered editors that haven't edited for more than two months, after all, they registered an account and are obliged to contribute, why else would they want to register? "If you don't want to use your account, then you don't need to keep your account" - that's exactly what some of you are saying: "If you don't want to use your sysop tools, then you don't need to keep your sysop tools".

A much stronger reason would be needed to convince me why respected and trusted users should be stripped (yes, that's what I see it as) of the tools that contributed to that respect and trust simply because they seem to have moved on. -- ab.er.rant 02:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ab.er.rant, there is a huge gap between an admin being inactive and a user being inactive. Whether you believe it or not, admins are held to a higher standard than regular users (just like a bcrat is to a sysop) so now you are going a completely different direction. If they essentially do not even come here anymore, what is the point of them having administrative powers? We all know that it is not a job, but more or less a volunteer sort of thing; but if you volunteer even and don't do what you are asked to you are kindly asked to leave. Now in this case, we don't want them to leave; well u get my drift. --Shadowphoenix 03:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with ab.er.RANT. Imho, being a given admin rights is like giving someone a key to your house. You give it because you trust them with it and because they have a use for it. Okay, you may always ask for it back because they haven't used it, but why bother if they haven't violated your trust unless you're selling the house. However, you will definitely ask for it back if they misuse it or are just plain annoying and start to show up whenever like its their house. -- Inspired to ____ 03:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

SP, bureaucrats are held to a higher standard. Sysops are not. Sysops just need to understand what they can do. Sysop = regular user + sysop tools. Your own last sentence shows the problem with your own argument. Saying that sysops should leave when they are no longer contributing as sysops is exactly what removing their sysop tools does. It implies that they are no longer wanted by the community. Hence my argument about non-contributing regular users - should we ask them to go away? By your own argument, if I volunteered, and I stopped doing what I volunteered to do, am I no longer a volunteer? A teacher who no longer teaches is a retired teacher, not a "non-teacher". It's also another fine line between "no longer doing something" versus "not allowed to do something". "Not doing" versus "Cannot do".

One of your sentences, "If they essentially do not even come here anymore, what is the point of them having administrative powers?" can easily be changed by replacing the underlined word with "editing". What good would deleting an inactive account do? Nothing. What good would removing sysop status from inactive syops do? Nothing. What good would retaining inactive users do? They can still come back and edit when they feel like it. What good would retaining inactive sysops do? They can still come back and edit plus use sysop tools when they feel like it. I apologise for not seeing the big gap you're seeing. -- ab.er.rant 05:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You pretty much summed it up for the "large gap" (which is, in fact, solvable but the problems that carry avoidable also). A inactive sysop (for, let's say, one year, let's exagerate a little) will come back and use the sysop tools when he feels like it. But in the process, he will have missed all the small policy talk, interpretation, concensus, and "community" view of things, and the way they changed in that amount of time.

Let me put you an example. Today, we have come to a point were sysops are given certain degrees of liberty in their actions and the way sanctions are impossed. Let's say Admin Rurik is sent today to Wakabistan, and has to stay there for a year, without internet access. He comes back after a year, see a user openly and grossly (sp?) insulting other in a main article talk page, and issues a ban for 3 days. What Rurik missed was the approval of the "Bans have to be approved by at least 3 admins" act, because we decided to do something about single-admin possible double standards during that time. Now some drama will begin, and we will have to start explaining him every little change that happened in that year.

Someone will say "that is a fault of the admin", and is true (tools come with a neat instruction manual after all), but things could have been avoided had Rurik just resigned to his position when he left, and later started a new RfA if he felt like voluntering again.--Fighterdoken 05:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, we haven't yet elected such a crappy admin that wouldn't review every policy after being away a long time.reanor 06:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That is true (even if i could point a single exception that is not relevant in this case), but i am not sure if all and every potential "coming back later" admin would also take the time to go through archives in every talk page where discussions and the gathering of concensus related to different issues are carried (which is, sadly, the whole wiki).--Fighterdoken 07:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As Ereanor mentioned, isn't that a problem with the sysop in question rather than the policy? As courtesy, yes, if the sysop in question knows he will away for one year, he would voluntarily resign; but that is his/her prerogative and is in no way a requirement. If said sysop comes back and attempts to apply policy that held true one year ago (if he even remembers said policies and does not actually look it up to refresh himself/herself), wouldn't a more up-to-date sysop undo said mistaken action and proceed to explain what has changed? Do you really think that the community might have voted in such a rash user as a sysop and that we should have a policy to prevent potential situations? (and just to note, this is starting to become similar in nature to many other policy arguments - do we really need rules to prevent obscure and unlikely problems at the expense of something positive?) -- ab.er.rant 07:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, which is why i said somewhere up there that we have the tools already, so a policy change is not really needed. But about the community... yes, i think we are pretty capable of making such kind of mistakes.--Fighterdoken 07:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucrats as Sysops

There is note on the bottom of this policy that states that bureaucrats should keep their tag as sysops. I was wondering if this meant that someone elected as a new bureaucrat who was not already a sysop will also become a sysop. -- Inspired to ____ 17:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Short & Long answer: nope :P --Shadowphoenix 17:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

With the current adminiship policy bureaucrats have (technically) sysop rights but are not allowed to use them for sysop tasks. After their bureaucrat term expires, both rights are removed. poke | talk 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But if they were a sysop before being elected as a bureaucrat, they will retain that sysop status. -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Has this ever happened with someone who wasn't previously a sysop because I see that as potentially a problem. Also, why can't this get fixed? -- Inspired to ____ 17:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Dirgible is the only non sysop to ever get the role. --Shadowphoenix 17:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

fix what? And no, it was always that bcrats got their old status they had before. poke | talk 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't know what you mean by "problem", but I'll give you couple of examples to clarify what it means. Dirigible was elected as a bureaucrat - he was not a sysop before being elected, so when his term ended, both user rights were taken off. He is now a normal "user". LordBiro was a sysop who was elected to a bureaucrat - once his term ended, he kept his sysop rights and his bureaucrat rights were taken off. It's easy to see who had a different user right by going to Special:Logs/Rights-- Brains12 \ Talk 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well since bureaucrats have additional rights "...but are forbidden from executing page deletions/undeletions or user blocks/unblocks" this seems strange enough for someone who previously had those rights and is told upon election to not use them. But to technically give those rights to someone who has never been approved to have them. Well, I can't help but thinking that there is a reason why they haven't been given sysop status previously. Besides, I go back to that I can't help but believe this would be a very easy database admin change for ANet to make so that rights match with policy. -- Inspired to ____ 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well some users that arent sysops that run have never had an RfA b4 and, the community is only going to elect someone that they trust with admin tools; so thats not really an issue. --Shadowphoenix 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This policy simply sais that bcrats are not sysops and they should not use the sysop tools they technically need to be a bcrat. See the current policy draft, as it is proposed to give bcrats the power to act as sysops as well. But so far, just accept that bcrats are not sysops. And even if they were sysops before they are now bcrats, not sysops and bcrats. poke | talk 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some people will default assume that someone being considered for a bureaucrat who isn't a sysop isn't one because they were denied for some reason in the past. I almost did, before I went digging which lead to this. (Also, I'm not sure if I'll get to vote even if I decide I want to - it may depend on how long this discussion keeps going.) -- Inspired to ____ 18:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of things you could add to actual content articles to meet the edit requirement, and help improve the wiki at the same time. Special:Wantedpages is a good place to start for that. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I shouldn't have implied that I would keep going on something like this just so I could vote; I'm also aware that I could technically have gotten the required number already just by saving mid-edit several types. It is just frustrating when there are two different roles clearly set up and for some unknown reason, that I can't fathom, the security rights aren't set to match those roles. Okay, if I ever vote for a bureaucrat, I just need to consider if I would also vote for that person to be a sysop if they're not already one. -- Inspired to ____ 22:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand where your confusion comes from. The reason why bureaucrats are also given sysop rights automatically is a technical limitation - it does not allow us to give bureaucrat status without also giving sysop status. This policy attempts a separation of "jurisdiction" between the two roles. That's why the clauses might seem a little weird. -- ab.er.rant 07:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sysop userpages move protted

is this a new thing that you guys are adding that comes with being a sysop? ;)—♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe it'll be permanent, but it was to try to stymie the vandal a bit. Calor 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sysops have the ability to move their own pages, thus it doesn't harm them, and sysop talk pages are often where people expect to be able to go when there are ongoing issues of vandalism, same as the reason why the Admin noticeboard is protected. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't really disagree with the protection. I just didn't think sysops here were allowed to do anything without a huge discussion. Also, since its something unique to the admins, I would mention it here as part of the admin perks is all. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 18:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, both the users and the administrators of GWW are actually human. I don't see a need to mention something like that, considering it's not an official policy, nor is it something that's outright required. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What?! The admins are human? Blasphemy! 85.71.168.42 20:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I am doing mine too then, oh it already is, lol. --Lemming 11:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No bureaucrats

I don't think bureaucrats are necessary. We have a lot of ceremony around that position (see the election process), but there is little the bureaucrats actually do. We could describe their roles as:

• Acting as sysops during emergencies in which there are no sysops around. This role clearly is not necessary.
• Changing administrator status of users, based on Requests for Adminship. Theorically this is something which requires discretion, but the RfA's description already have some rules about what is considered a success and what isn't (more or less "the RFA is successful if it has at least 3 times as much support as those in opposition"), and this is one of the few things in which the community can actually reach a conclusion (if not a consensus) by itself.
• Arbitration committees, which IMO are the most important bureaucrat role. Despite their importance, though, the last accepted request for arbitration was more than one year ago, and there has been no request (accepted or declined) this year.

None of those roles justifices the constant existence of bureaucrats, IMO. I believe the wiki would work fine if sysops were responsible for changing administrator user rights, and if any 3 sysops were allowed to form an Arbitration committee in those few ocasions in which one is requested. Erasculio 00:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I kinda agree with that view. I think we could easily replace the Arbcomm with something like "a group of (n) active or semi-active sysops not directly involved in the issue, and not objected (with a non-trolling reason) by the parts". With that being taken care, bcrats are not really needed here.--Fighterdoken 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your first and third points, but we need someone to manage user rights in order to promote and demote sysops, and I don't think we should dump that responsibility on ArenaNet. If the responsibility of arbitration is transfered to sysops, we could cut the second, third and fourth points of the bureaucrat section, making bureaucrats effectively regular sysops with the userrights permission. Without the responsibility for arbitration, I don't think bureaucrat elections are necessary, instead, we could use a simpler bureaucrat selection process. For example bureaucrat status could be assigned the three most senior willing and active sysops, or to all willing sysops who have served for a certain amount of time and aren't currently undergoing reconfirmation, or to any sysop supported by at least half of the sysops in a petition for bureaucrat status, or to every sysop who wants the responsibility. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

iawtc. Gordon said it everything :) poke | talk 06:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with shifting arbcomm status to willing and uninvolved sysops, having bureaucrats as sysops with userrights and infinite terms (with appointment similar to RfAs, perhaps, or a more discussion-oriented method, or maybe just at the will of other bureaucrat(s)). -- Brains12 \ talk 11:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you take away the arbcomm role of bcrats and just use them for user rights, then there is almost no reason to not give a bcrat for life status similar to on PvX or GWiki. Even with arbcomms the bcrat role could last a year or two between elections as that is about how often the bloody things are requested anyway. I will be sad if elections disappear or become less frequent though, they almost always amuse me. Misery 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Any possibility of just giving all sysops the ability of changing userights, and then completely removing bureaucrats? Erasculio 23:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all of the admins are/were trusted with the ability to change userrights, especially when people "voted" on their RfAs and/or they were promoted. I would disagree with that course of action. Vili 点 23:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there would be a problem with giving bcrat status to all sysops, since we are pretty cautious on the sysop assignation, and a bcrat can't just give such status to a random user "because he wants to". Even so, i think an automatic condition like "Any sysop that has been ACTIVE (ffs), for the last 12 months will be automagically given god-like powers".

In any case, is not that people didn't trust all admins, they didn't trust all candidates; also, from the admins running as candidates, they didn't "want" some to be bcrats due to the role of arbcomm specifically, not due to administrative powers.--Fighterdoken 23:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so what happens then when a sysop becomes a problem and needs to be demoted? You kind of do need a chain of command. Misery 06:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What about removing the additional rights from the "bcrat" group, assigning some sysops that group so they form the arbitration group, and then adding a group "Administrators" in which those sysop come that can do everything. Those then could be elected by the sysops or something for life or until they don't longer want to.. poke | talk 07:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that concept, but I guess people need to decide what they want from an ArbComm. Misery 07:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

About the "what if" issue... for admins, we have a RfC already, plus a lot of admins who can revert their actions (check the logs, it happends already once in a while). A "bcrat going rogue" is something that could already happends today, and could be easily solved by a RfC if it were needed (plus, there would be "other" bcrats to fix their wrongdoings, same as today). At worst, there is tech support who can fix everything.

In any case, i don't think we should be worried about a "worst case scenario" that on the years the wiki has been active hasn't happened anyways (plus, like i said, can be fixed even now with the tools we have).--Fighterdoken 08:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! You guys will go to any length to keep me from becoming a Bcrat! (just kidding of course :P) I personally don't have a problem with changing the admin structure. -- Wyn 08:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not correct, Mis. Elections have everything to do with userrights, and nothing with arbcomm. Bcrat rules basically belong to two unrealted systems, elections+user rights and limited sysoping+arbcomm. The reason we had the first group also be the second is twofold; as arbcomm is a duty, we need to be sure there will be someone to do it, without it being disputed and so on. I could easily think of other ways of achieving this, but the current one is rather simple yet effective. The other reason is the value of a standing commitie, that does not need to be assembled for a case. Not only for the reduced red tape, but so there is someone who can issue injunctions. The latter could be imporantant in a few cases, tho' unlikely to happen. There is of course, other ways that could be handled. Backsword 08:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What isn't correct? Are you telling me that bureaucrats are purely elected as opposed to appointed to allow them to oversee RfAs? If that is the case the system on this wiki is more madder than I ever thought. It makes sense to want to occasionally change your arbitrators, but I see no need to change someone who just has to decide whether or not consensus has been reached on an RfA. Misery 09:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm telling you that. You may consider it mad, but it allows the community to replace them if they don't think they are making the right choices. (There are more to user rights than RfAs, and RfAs aren't concensus based, bwe.) Backsword 09:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not purely concensus based, sure, but if you read up people consider it a simple matter of 3:1 support:oppose. I don't like that system, but I suppose it is approximately right. You'd need a pretty good reason to deny an RfA with that much support. Misery 09:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think things would become too complicated (and unnecessarily so) if we renamed/removed/added groups - it just seems so much simpler to use the format already provided to us by the software and have sysops do the sysopping, and bureaucrats doing the sysopping (since they'd also be sysops) and user-rights adjustment.

Since there is some discretion involved in judging the outcome of an RfA (and indeed, I think there could be so much more discretion allowed for that role), I don't think we should give every sysop bureaucrat tools; RfAs weren't commented on or accepted based on allowing that user user-rights adjustment, and there are some sysops I personally wouldn't feel comfortable about determining the results.

To decide on those bureaucrats, I would be hesitant to agree on a number-of-contributions/level-of-activity system. A simple way to get a new bureaucrat would be to start an RfB (i.e. an RfA but for bureaucrat) - that could include users who wish to be both sysop and bureaucrat, and/or sysops who wish to be bureaucrat; for the former, sysophood only would come with a normal RfA. It's similar to the promotion format we already use, so people would be familiar with it and wouldn't need to memorise or know about multiple formats and systems. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RfBs won't work because the people voting have no idea what the position entails. These elections have been going on for years now and people still don't know what the hell the position is about. Elections will be much less frequent with your method (i.e., solo RfBs), but every bit as much of a farce; people will still be voting for their friends and against their "enemies," all the while unable to comprehend what bureaucrats actually do.

If your goal is to be bothered by the elections less frequently, then go ahead and do some kind of RfB. If your goal is to make bureaucrat elections not a huge joke, more work will be required. -Auron 15:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a simple vote - the comments that show ignorance of the role can be disregarded. The bureaucrats would decide who is promoted based on the (knowledgeable) consensus and the bureaucrats' discretion (similar to RfAs, in a way), not the masses. As I said somewhere above, we could stress the discussion aspect.

Of course, if that wouldn't work, just keeping Tanetris and myself (with added autonomy!) is fine with me :) -- Brains12 \ talk 15:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(RI) Thoughts (other than "wrong month" xD)? Erasculio 17:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My term could be the shortest ever :> Misery 19:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with bureaucrats for life... sorry, if that's what this is going to turn into, I will oppose it as fiercely as possible. -- Wyn 20:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Fully agreed with Wyn.

Furthermore, our current system works, never produced any problems and allowed new blood to get into the bureaucrat seats. It achieved everything it was designed for. It also has elections for 6 months terms, when almost everyone seems to agree that we could use longer terms. But the solution to that is as easy as replacing a number in the policy. --Xeeron 20:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well, we could change it so a bureaucrat lasts for 12 months. However, that kind of comment is one of the reasons why I want to change this system - a sysop is currently for life, yet a bureaucrat, who does significantly less than a sysop and has a smaller impact on the wiki as a whole, has a shorter term. I don't understand this idea that bureaucrats are a big deal when they hardly do anything at all; and making bureaucrats to be officially recognized as not being that big of a deal is one advantages of this process.

And Xeeron, nice to see you, but the fact that the current system works doesn't mean a new system couldn't work better. Erasculio 20:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we continue this discussion on the proposal talk page. I fiercely oppose discussion about one thing being in multiple places. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary promotions

IMO temporarily granting sysop permissions should be explicitly covered by the adminship policy. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this ever going to happen again and will any policy changes be implemented before the implementation of the feedback namespace is complete? Misery 09:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In what situations these permissions are granted anyway? - J.P.Talk 09:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

20:33, 2 July 2009 Tanetris (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Satanael from (none) to Sysops ‎ (Temp sysop for Feedback space setup only)

20:32, 2 July 2009 Tanetris (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Erasculio from (none) to Sysops ‎ (Temp sysop for Feedback space setup only)

At the moment the feedback namespace is sysop edited only. As such two people have been promoted to sysops to set up the namespace. Another question, did you also intend this to cover things such as my temporary promotion to sysop status for the duration of my bureaucrat term Gordon? Misery 09:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Gordon in principle, however as Misery said, this was a one off situation that probably won't happen again, and by the time discussion and consensus could occur for these changes, the namespace will be complete, and most likely old news, if I know this community at all :P -- Wyn talk 09:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Misery I'm nearly sure your temporary sysop powers for the duration of being a bc, are already mentioned in the policy. I would also like to echo Wyn in that on principal I agree with Gordon, however this was a one off situation and it needed to be done sooner rather than later. -- Salome 10:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It mentions I gain them, it doesn't specifically mention I lose them when the term ends, but I would consider it implied. I was just seeking clarification as to what Gordon wants to change. Misery 10:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

However it is in the spirit of the policy :P And I agree with Misery, that such a thing shouldn't happen again so it doesn't really justify a policy change. poke | talk 13:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Tane also mentioned that he will be closely monitoring their logs, in case they do anything out of line. --JonTheMon 13:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Under the Bureaucrat heading, "Altering the assigned groups and administrator status of user accounts based on community decisions, policy, or arbitration." - I don't think I'd be wrong in saying that the two temporary promotions mentioned above were based on consensus, meaning they're covered by policy already. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

Temporary promotion of bureaucrats is already explicitly covered. Temporary promotion might also be appropriate if the wiki is targeted by heavy vandalism and there aren't enough sysops currently online (which happened a few years ago on GuildWiki). I was thinking of creating a formal "deputy sysop" position. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. What exactly though, like a brief idea? --Antioch 05:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think it would be a lot of bother for absolutely nothing. There are more than enough sysops on the list to cover pretty much any vandal attack, we've proven that over and over with some really horrendous bot attacks. I personally don't know of any time period of the day where there aren't at least one, and usually 2 or more sysops available. But just what did you have in mind? Another form of RfA to create a list of "standby" deputy sysops in case of an emergency vandalism attack? Who's to say any of them would be online when it happened? Who's to say there would be a Bcrat available to promote them if it did?

The two temporary promotions this week were done for the sole purpose of setting up the new namespace that is locked to edits by any but the admin team. Emily indicated to me that a new usergroup for this was not possible, and that even if it had been, any new usergroup would have ended up with the same permissions as sysops anyway. So I asked Tanetris to promote them. I felt it was necessary as the entire discussion regarding the new namespace had completely died in the two weeks since it's been put in place, with the exceptions of the two who were granted access. Maybe, had any of the rest of the admin team (who were given the responsibility to get it set up), shown even the slightest interest in moving forward with the work that needs to be done, it wouldn't have been necessary at all. And yes, you can read this whole thing as I'm annoyed. The feedback namespace, while not perfect, is something that we have been inching our way to for almost a year. Now it's here, and no one cares and no one wants to deal with it. Civil disobedience, because what most really wanted was just to be rid of suggestions entirely, is just stupid. This isn't a case of "if we ignore it, it will go away." We asked ArenaNet to consider alternatives for suggestions and the one the presented us is this. And this entire discussion is just another thing distracting attention from it. And yes, this is a very rare public rant on my part, but I felt some of this stuff needed to be said.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to propose a change to any policy you wish Gordon, I just wish you had real grounds to do so. I don't see any here. -- Wyn talk 05:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We have enough sysops, but we don't have enough sysops? Im confus. -Auron 05:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No you're not, Auron. Stop trolling. We have enough sysops for stopping vandals; we have remarkably few sysops getting involved in Feedback namespace setup. You know this perfectly well.

@Gordon: I'm not sure I agree with your example scenario. If a bureaucrat is available, I don't think I've ever seen a vandal spree where one person couldn't handle the blocking, and the rather more involved undoing can be done by normal users about as easily as deputy sysops. Also, how would we decide who gets deputized? Just search RC for non-vandal users we trust not to make a mess of things? And what of the learning curve for using the sysop tools effectively? I suspect it would be more efficient to not bother and simply keep blocking. That said, if there was ever a situation where I really felt it was the only way to stave off a vandal spree (middle of the night, no other admin in sight, I can't stay on the wiki another minute longer to handle it), I'd probably just do it whether it's in policy or not and take any flack for it later, just as I was/am prepared to take any flack for temporarily promoting Erasculio and Satanael, as it's what I believe needed doing. - Tanetris 07:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to add it to the policy either. If it is needed for some reason (be it for management as in the feedback pages example, or for counter-vandalism reasons as in Tanetris example) sysophood can be given under the discretion rule already (or i think it could).

In any case, the policy is there not only to be enforced, but to inform the userbase about what is a common practice on the wiki also. A small mention to this can't really hurt as far as i see it, as long as we don't start using it as excuse to give temp-sysophood left and right (and we know people will try to wikilawyer it later somehow).--Fighterdoken 07:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be added that temporary promotions might be granted in very special situations after a discuss between other sysops and a bless of a bureaucrat. Of course this wouldn't be the thing in situations like mass vandalism which needs quick actions, but these situations should be manageable by current sysops, as said above. - J.P.Talk 08:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

En masse alot of the sysops have dropped the ball on the feedback setup, myself included. Tane promoted 2 people who had a keen interest in the subject and were trusted users, I honestly don't think we need to debate this anymore than that. I am against any form of formalised "reserve" sysop, as to be honest I just don't see what merit it would have. Either they will have to be elected and thus could probably pass a normal RFA or it will be a case of a BC's just appointing who they want with no prior discourse, which I'm dead against. At the moment we have enough sysops for maintenance of the wiki, we also have enough sysops to set up the feedback pages, but just very few of us took an interest, thus the temp promotions. I for one am gonna go and see if either of the users need any help, which I hope others will do too, instead of debating this dead subject. -- Salome 13:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Salome. We really could use more help on the feedback thing. Erasculio 13:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The heavy vandalism requiring emergency promotions scenario occurred on GuildWiki back in September 2007. The prior discussion requirement would prohibit promotion during emergencies. I'd like something similar to the sysop section's discretion clause, permitting bureaucrats to alter user groups when they feel that it is necessary. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, our adminship works a bit different than on GWiki, and bcrats are able to perform sysop tasks if no sysops are available after all. poke | talk 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I support allowing bureaucrats more discretionary power over user rights, but I'm not sure why your reason is based on something that hasn't happened yet (and is unlikely to happen in the near future, seeing as our sysops/bureaucrats are active).

I'd like to point out, though, that if such a situation arose and I had to promote someone for that purpose and in that urgency, I'd do it anyway - maintaining the wiki is far more important. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that you can't go a day without there being a few active admins/BCrats on IRC (along with a decent number of normal users who will (and normally do) notify them of vandalism), so you'd be hard pressed to find a time when there wasn't enough people to handle any mass vandalism (it'd have to be a lot of vandalism for more than a few people to be necessary). ~ PheNaxKian 22:33, 8 July 2009

[edit] Patrolling and Automatic Patrolling

What does it do, what is it for, and what does it accomplish? -- Lacky 09:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It tells the admins if another admin has visited the page. -- Wyn talk 09:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I see...so it's kind of like a "this admin has got the page situation handled if something has gone wrong" kind of deal? -- Lacky 09:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's designed for preventing vandalism, usually on small wikis. The idea is that if an admin has visited a page, they will have removed or reverted any vandalism, so it can be marked as 'patrolled' - if they haven't, then it still needs patrolling. Ale_Jrb (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thanks for that explanation. -- Lacky 10:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And automatic patrolling is something that is done by a GWWT plugin, so admins don't have to click the "mark this post as patrolled"-link that appears on the pages. poke | talk 12:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have to mark every page you visit patrolled? -- Lacky 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to do nothing.. except if you want to get rid of those exclamation marks that mark unpatrolled posts. poke | talk 20:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: 6 months -> 12 month

This has been discussed before, also as part of other proposals. Seeing how none of those efforts went anywhere, I want to suggest this as a single change, not coupled with anything else.

Proposal:

Current version: Bureaucrats are generally appointed for fixed terms of 6 months from their date of appointment, with the term periods being staggered to have a functional and unchanging subgroup during the transitions.

Proposed change: Bureaucrats are generally appointed for fixed terms of 12 months from their date of appointment, with the term periods being staggered to have a functional and unchanging subgroup during the transitions.

Clarifying addition:

To achieve an even spread of elections once every 4 months (instead of having 3 elections every 2 months and then none for half a year), the first election after adoption of this change will be for 12 months, the second one for 6 months, the third and every following election for 12 months. Holding the second election after introduction of this scheme for 6 month will achieve an even spread of elections over the year.

Reason:

The wiki is now stable and the gains from being able to choose a new bureaucrat every 2 months instead of every 4 months are small. On the other hand, we currently spend about half of the year in election mode, which is at best annoying and might lead to voter fatigue and detract from other more important issues. --Xeeron 11:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We should be shortening the period if anything. Hard enough to get good candidates with a 6 month period. ALso, the place to improve on elections are the election policy. Backsword 11:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of moving to 12 montsh. I also think we spend too much time in election mode. When I saw the most recent I was like "again?" And as the term of the Bureaucrats is spelled out both in this policy and GWW:ELECTIONS, I'd say discussing here is fine. --JonTheMon 13:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This change sounds good. If we happen to adopt this change before the current election is over, would the winner have a 12 month or 6 month term? -- Brains12 \ talk 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with moving to 12 month terms. I think we could use the 12 month term for this election as long as it's decided before the voting phase, so people can withdraw/apply and discuss with the right term in mind. - anja 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a good joke about resolving it before this election ends, but I would propose we move to apply it to an election not already in progress, if only so people are clear on exactly what they are accepting nominations for and voting for. Misery 16:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually only changes of GWW:ELECTION won't affect running elections... poke | talk 16:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely, not being robots, we can implement policy changes effective from whatever date we bloody well want. I've outlined my reasons for preferring waiting until next election, but realistically all I would have to do is stonewall until the end of this election if I wanted to be a dick about it. Misery 16:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly (and unsurprisingly) endorse this proposal for basically all of the same reasons I've outlined on numerous prior occasions. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Other potential candidates should feel free to correct me, but I don't think that raising the time serves from 6 to 12 months would significantly decrease the number of people willing to run. And don't forget that we would have to find someone only every 4 months, not every 2 months, so the number of candidates running might actually increase. --Xeeron 22:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with waiting until the "end of the election" is that this discussion will die as soon as the election ends, same as the previous 16 discussions. I agree with extending the term (even though i think we had a better idea regarding bcrats in the last election), and if it covers Misery's issue, maybe adding just a small temporary statement clarifying that the changes apply only from the next election (for each bcrat position) should do the trick.--Fighterdoken 23:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing. Right now, it takes too much time to be an informed voter every 2 months.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to beat the dead horse, but I agree. Having longer terms would detract from neither the quality nor the quantity of the candidates. On the upside, the elections are more spaced out, so the wiki doesn't seem in a constant period of election, which has grown to be simply annoying. calor (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fighterdoken, that is what I was saying -_-

Also, I support this because I support infinite terms and one year is closer to infinite than six months is. Reasons outlined before, yada yada. Misery 06:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, so far there is plenty of support and only one objection by backsword (and we hopefully can convince him). Since this is a pretty simple, straight forward change, my hope is that we can implement it in a reasonably short timeframe (i.e. before everyone tires of this discussion again after the election). --Xeeron 11:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If people have reasons for supporing it, I won't stand in the way. Tho' only DE&co have given a solid one, I'm surprised you would support that. In fact, if asked beforehand I would have expected you to be the one who would have opposed it the strongest. Backsword 17:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is the flipside of more candiadates. But the net impact can't be negative, as then the opitmal number of candidates would be zero, and I doubt you think that. I admit that it didn't cross my mind, as for most who post her, the work load is nonexistant, they already know all the serious contenders from being active on the wiki. Backsword 17:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We should be shortening the period if anything. Hard enough to get good candidates with a 6 month period. Backsword, I fail to see the correlation between your two statements? If it's hard to get good candidates in a 6-month period, why would it be easier if it's shorter? Surely, the longer the period, the chance of getting better candidates will increase? Also, any improvement of the elections policy is beyond this discussion, especially when there really isn't a promising proposal for improvement to begin with. With regards to the proposal, since it's 12 months long, the likelihood of resignations is possibly increased. I assume a resignation triggers an immediate election? For the remainder of the term or for the remainder plus the next term? -- ab.er.rant 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's explained at GWW:ELECT#Vacated seats; essentially, a new bureaucrat can be chosen from the most recent election to carry out the remainder of the term. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, the greater the commitment, the less people are willing to sign up fo it. Fairly staightforward, I'd thought. Backsword 17:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I can't imagine having any interest in commitments less than 6 months; it takes 3 months just to figure out what any job is. And, as someone whose current interest is limited to being a responsible voter, I'm still exhausted from the last election. More frequent elections make it more likely that b'crats will be chosen solely on the basis of popularity or likeability, rather than ability to support the community. Maybe the best strategy (if updating the policy) is to force a re-review if there are less than 3 candidates.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, some days since the last reply, and I see plenty of support. Planning to implement this soon, if anyone who has not yet commented still opposes this, please speak up now. --Xeeron 09:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I oppose! The oppose part was in massive sarcasm quotes. — Jon Lupen 16:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the proposal, because longer terms are better imo, and what everyone else said. – Emmett 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hell yeah, 12 months. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 18:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

SupportI think 12 month terms are a good idea. --Riddle 18:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea. There seems to be little interest in the elections as it is, perhaps less frequent elections would garner more participation. --Freedom Bound 18:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I feel the level of support is sufficient and no further opposition is forthcomming, implementing this now. Please note the clarification, which I will not add to the policy page for length reasons. --Xeeron 20:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So we are clear, is this effective immediately? I would prefer it to be effective from the next election in 2 months time. Misery 01:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Inmediately yes, retroactively no, as any change of this kind (so yes, you are still on a 6 months term).--Fighterdoken 01:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring more to the current election. Misery 01:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As per Anja above, the implementation was a few hours late for this election. I don't care much either way though. --Xeeron 04:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should not apply to the ongoing election. - anja 05:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans, everything has turned out swimmingly for me then. Misery 16:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)