Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/A3

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Proposing a Change 2 Proposed change to cleanup clause 3 GWW:RFB 4 Bcrat rights removed from Biro 5 Rephrasing somethings for clarity, BCrats 6 Header

Proposing a Change

The purpose of a policy should be to reflect a preexisting consensus. Policies should not be a source of discord. While policies may be left open to interpretation, problems arise when two vastly dissimilar interpretations of the policy arise, not only does it strip the policy of the intended precedent it was meant to provide, it creates a situation (in this case) in which, depending on which view you take, actually impedes that which the policy sought to "fix." As written, this policy indicates that "Sysops are granted reasonable discretion;" however, it goes on to say that "they are expected to apply policy rigorously." I've been given to understand that when it was originally created, there was some basic sentiment (among some groups of editors) that the Administrators should not have discretion beyond the limits of policy, and this sentiment eventually evolved into a pervasive mentality that, regardless of the intention of this policy, has cause it to be enforced as if discretion were non-existent. I'm not sure how many times this issue has been raised but, based on the recent evidence I have seen, there seems to have been a shift indicating that Admins should be able to exercise discretion. Despite this shift, there has been no attempt (that I've seen) to re-word the policy in such a way as to make clear, one way or the other. Again, some degree of ambiguity is one thing, but their is a vast difference between running a wiki w/ sysops who have discretion and running a wiki without. The fact is that whether you favor strict literalism or a more "Spirit of the Policy" interpretation, all you're doing is interpreting the policy, and the policy should reflect, one way or the other, the "consensus" (I'm using the term loosely) between these two opposing views. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, no, no tries at all. While there aren't many, we ARE trying to change the wording. - anja 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

stfu nub DE ownzzzzz -- Armond Warblade 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to revive the discussion at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/Draft 2007-11-14#Moving forward. -- Gordon Ecker 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Know this is late, but for further reference, I'd like to point out that the original idea was not contradictory. The word "discretion" was simply not seen as inherently refering to policymaking. 14:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to cleanup clause

This proposal was motivated by this comment: [1].

I propose changing this part:

Sysops are administrators who perform cleanup tasks (deleting pages, undoing page move vandalism) and [...]

to this instead:
Sysops are administrators who can delete pages according to deletion policy and [...]

Sysops are administrators who can delete pages in accordance with deletion policy and [...]

--Rezyk 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer "in accordance with" over "according to". The latter implies that the deletion policy authorizes deletion (also indirectly implying that without a blocking policy, sysops would not be allowed to use the deletion user right), while the former implies that the deletion policy regulates deletion. -- Gordon Ecker 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed the proposal. --Rezyk 03:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. -- ab.er.rant 04:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

GWW:RFB

I mentioned this on Talk:GWW:RFB, but why is the shortcut for bureaucrats RFB? We don't have "Requests for Bureaucrats". Surely something like GWW:BCRAT would be better (to compliment GWW:ADMIN and GWW:SYSOP). LordBiro 11:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not part of the policy, so there's no reason not to change it. Backsword 10:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Double negatives FTW :D yeah, I realise that, but there's always a chance that someone has a persuasive argument that I have not yet considered :) I was more curious than anything. LordBiro 17:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just add another redirect, change the link here and keep the RFB one. poke | talk 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bcrat rights removed from Biro

LordBiro has 10 more days until his bureaucrat term expires. Until then it seems unfair to me for those rights to be removed prematurely by anyone. Please restore them. --Dirigible 12:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As I explained to your elsewhere, Dirigible, it provides less opportunity for potential exploitation of the system (in allowing someone petitioning ArbComm to decide upon a favorable choice of bureaucrats for their case) to transfer the seat when the election results are finalized, rather than precisely 6 months after the previous election. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it's not up to you to singlehandedly decide this. Restore Biro's rights, remove Tanaric's, and start a discussion to amend the policy however you wish for the next election. But it seems to me very unethical for you to arbitrarily end another bureaucrat's term like this, especially since those terms have been respected and followed very rigorously in the past (and may I note, with no such examples of "exploitation of the system" that you are scaremongering with now). --Dirigible 12:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrarily as opposed to what? The elections policy does not actually specify when the seat changes hands. I have provided sound reasoning as to the motivations for transferrence of the seat, but I have not seen any reason put forth by you beyond a short history of tradition (3? 4?). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2007-07 bureaucrat election clearly states that the term is August 1st, 2007 to February 29th, 2008 and Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election clearly states that the term is March 1st, 2008 to August 31st, 2008. -- Gordon Ecker 12:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither of which are the policy.

Furthermore, delaying transferrence of a seat makes the following element of GWW:ADMIN unclear: "Bureaucrats are considered members of the ArbComm based upon the date the request for arbitration is made. If a bureaucrat loses his seat during an arbitration, he still acts as a member of ArbComm for that case until the arbitration is complete. Similarly, if a user attains a bureaucrat seat in the middle of an arbitration, he is ineligible to participate in that arbitration." It is not laid out whether being elected, or being set to bureaucrat status, or having a term as laid out by a given date, is what defines having "attained the seat". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO: a person is elected for a certain period of time (specifically stated on the election page). That makes him/her attain the seat at the starting date mentioned on the election page, and loses the seat the moment the end date mentioned on the election page has been reached. This is common sense for every other election I know of. Sure things can be decided beforehand, but that doesn't mean those results should be implemented right away. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 12:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I was slightly brief about this in my initial response, Cor, let me elaborate:

The situation which arises when the results of the election are finalized but the seat isn't transfered is one in which everyone knows who the seat will belong to in X number of days, and who it belongs to now. Because it is the "plaintiff" of ArbComm cases who decides when to request an arbitration, this knowledge essentially gives those wishing to request ArbComm intervention the ability to choose which bureaucrat is involved in the case, an opportunity which is not afforded to the "defendant". Thus such a situation inherently taints any arbitrations which might be requested during the intermediary period. The simple solution to that is to transfer the seat when the outcome is finalized. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship clearly states "Sitting bureaucrats can only be removed by unanimous votes of the other bureaucrats.", Guild Wars Wiki:Elections clearly states that term length is specified in the election subpages and Guild Wars Wiki:Policy clearly states that policy can only be changed through community concensus. -- Gordon Ecker 13:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Having Tanaric or LordBiro being bureaucrat for those 2 weeks will not make a difference in practise, but disregarding the dates we specified on 2 election pages would set a bad precident which I would like to avoid. I restored the old user rights till we either come to a different consensus here or the 1st of march arrives. --Xeeron 13:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it does not make a difference, but as I've already stated I will leave them in their original state for now. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While I can agree that a problem can arise where a person could choose to go to Tanaric or LordBiro, I don't see that as a problem. It's not like we have chosen a totally different bcrat that will make very extreme decisions, and most importantly, decisions not in the best interest of the wiki. I see your point Aiiane, and I would have nothing against it if consensus was to change seats now. What struck me is that Biro wasn't even informed. - anja 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, seriously, is this that huge a deal? IMO if Biro's fine with it, why are we complaining? Even so... it's 10 whole days out of a 6 month period. I honestly started thinking of the Celestial Ministers in the Divine Path as I read through this... always getting bogged down in policies and rules and regulations to the point where one of them had to step up and seize authority in order to get the ministers to applaud. -- Armond Warblade 17:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am fine with it, but only because it is me. :) If someone else had had their term ended early I would be pretty pissed off. I don't disagree with Aiiane's logic, but I think it is important that we stick to the terms that are set. LordBiro 21:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much about this either way, especially since Biro and I have generally come to the same conclusions on issues that have gone to ArbComm. —Tanaric 23:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't stay awake for another hour, so I am going to volunteer to give up my bcratship approximately 55 minutes early. Best of luck, Cory! LordBiro 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

good bye, bureaucrat Biro and welcome bureaurcrat Tanaric :) poke | talk 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Grats and welcome Tanaric. --Xeeron 23:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I slightly munged my new email address, since listing my last email address on wiki caused me to be destroyed by spam. Hope that doesn't bother anybody. —Tanaric 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this incident was a big deal. An error was made, discussed, aknowledged and corrected within a few hours and no harm was done. -- Gordon Ecker 03:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wonder if that would happen if you type it as foo@bar.com, which shows up as foo@bar.com. — Galil 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Most spiders will pick that up, unfortunately. My preferred munging method these days is to put my email address in a Flash SWF, but that's not possible here. —Tanaric 06:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found that making part of an email address text (say, the username) and then the other part an image (say, the "@whatever.com") works pretty well, since the spiders don't have the contextual clues to put the two together to make an address, and parsing either one individually doesn't grant something usable. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing somethings for clarity, BCrats

From:

If a bureaucrat loses his seat during an arbitration, he still acts as a member of ArbComm for that case until the arbitration is complete. Similarly, if a user attains a bureaucrat seat in the middle of an arbitration, he is ineligible to participate in that arbitration.

To:

If a bureaucrat's term expires during an arbitration case, s/he still acts as a member of ArbComm for the duration of that case until it is complete. Similarly, if a user becomes a bureaucrat in the middle of an arbitration, they are unable to participate in that case.

Also, why only have one BCrat? Two is a good number, and three (or any other small odd number) is best as a decision can be made faster. --People of Antioch talk 20:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

All bureaucrats have a say about whether they want to accept the case - if they do, they participate in the arbitration. The case isn't reserved for any one bureaucrat. The sentence above was just about if one bureaucrat loses his seat during an election whilst a case was ongoing. -- Brains12 \ Talk 20:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I'm referring to the line that says "at least one bureaucrat". Why reduce the number from two? --People of Antioch talk 20:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly "reduced from two". It's supposed to mean that the terms attempt to ensure that at least one bureaucrat will be around at any one time. Also, I believe that particular line came from back when we had only two bureaucrats. The rewording is fine, although not necessary (I'm fine either way). The "They are" should be "he or she is" instead though. -- ab.er.rant 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought about the correction of that line too. It's just when I read the first version, I have to read it twice to be sure of what it means. --People of Antioch talk 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that after 1-2 months of activity the should auto. go up for a RfC. But I suppose that e-mailing them couldnt hurt. --Shadowphoenix 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Header

So are we going to start adding a header to the site from now on when someone is up for adminship? — ク Eloc 貢 03:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. My suggestion for tip-of-the-week seemed to derail that, thankfully. —Tanaric 06:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)