Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/A1

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

initial posts[edit]

Created at User:Tanaric's request. Only a draft at the moment. S 05:32, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Mainly okay, but I would like to see the selection process being explained. --Gem (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Still drafting it. S 05:42, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Bureaucrat selection[edit]

← Moved from Project talk:Policy

I'd very much like to get bureaucrat selection over and done with—it's an important role on the wiki and it's one we're lacking currently. Biro and I did not retain our bureaucrat permissions upon transferring over from the GuildWiki. I'd like to see somebody (Stabber?) draft up a rights and responsibilities document for bureaucrats, and further, I'd like to hear ideas on how to fairly (re)appoint/elect bureaucrats for this wiki.

I'd love to continue serving in that role, and I'm sure Biro wouldn't mind either, but we need some sort of community process to enable us to do so. —Tanaric 20:11, 7 February 2007 (PST)

One thing Mike mentioned was that it might be better to not appoint people for "life" but place limits on their terms. They're looking at this being a very long term project. --Fyren 20:16, 7 February 2007 (PST)
This is a problem for the long haul. Right now our top priorities should be whether we want a verifiability/factuality/etc. policy, and why we are not fast-tracking uncontroversial stuff such as AGF, NPA, 1RV, IUP, etc. Since the only real power bcrats have is to appoint sysops, and I doubt we will be asking them to do this too often, you and LordBiro should suffice. I would be surprised if we draw up a policy that fails to pass you two even if you object to being grandfathered in. (edit conflict) S 20:17, 7 February 2007 (PST)
I'm fast-tracking the uncontroversial stuff as fast as I can troll through edit histories.
Back on topic, I agree that at least some sort of semiannual review for bureaucrats and sysops is a good idea. Since this community is not yet a community, and no consensus in the short term is possible considering the exploding growth we're going to have, I would accept a limited-time appointment (say, 3 months?) just so somebody fills the bureaucrat role. That would give us time to speedily do things we need to do while taking more time on establishing a good guideline for managing this place. —Tanaric 20:29, 7 February 2007 (PST)
I would think bureaucrat selection should always be subject to ANet's approval. Given someone admin rights allows them to gain a certain amount of power over the data itself that should, in my opinion, only be given with their permission. Even if we develop our own process for nominating people and/or selecting them, I think the actual move of promoting a user to admin should at least be approved by someone from ANet's side. --Karlos 05:40, 8 February 2007 (PST)
They don't really want to be involved in it and most likely won't know anything about the particular people involved. Mike was extremely clear on the fact that sysops and bureaucrats would only be members of the community and the policy was up to you guys. You can see that everyone from ANet is now in one of the ANet-related user groups and every sysop is from the community (and there aren't actually any bureaucrats right now). --Fyren 05:46, 8 February 2007 (PST)
As Fyren says, ArenaNet do not want to be involved in the picking of bureaucrats. They have made it very clear that they want the official wiki community to build a democratic system through which bureaucrats would be elected. See Talk:Main Page#Bureaucrat selection. LordBiro 14:41, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Observation: A governing body made up of an even number of members is somewhat unusual and can pose challenges in issues of divided opinion. Even the Senate, with 100 members, has a means to break a tie through the de facto 101st member. Any administrative body on which I've served has endeavoured to have an odd number of members. That may be something worth considering here, or as policies are considered for the future. --Gaile Gray 22:04, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Bcrats?[edit]

The policy is currently unclear about the way sysops can have their status revoked: "Sysops are appointed for life, but may voluntarily resign. Their status may also be formally examined by the arbitration committee." suggests this can only be done by the arbitration committee, while "Bureaucrats are sysops who have the additional power to appoint, revoke or reassess the administrative status of users." suggests this is in the discretion of the bureaucrats. --Xeeron 05:57, 9 February 2007 (PST)

There is a distinction between having the technical ability and having a community sanctioned power. Bureaucrats should submit to arbcomm consensus, assuming one will be created. The sentence should make clear that bureaucrats are the agents of the arbcomm. If no arbcomm is created, then the matter is different. S 06:00, 9 February 2007 (PST)
How do you think the arbitration committee should work? Is there a page for that already, like Guild Wars Wiki:Committees? — 130.58 (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2007 (PST)
No, the arbcomm doesn't exist. We should decide if one is needed. I abstain from that discussion for obvious reasons. If one is not needed, we should discuss if bureaucrats are to be treated as having ultimate authority in the wiki or not. S 06:10, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Unless the arbcomm is elected in the same way as the bureaucrats are, the bureaucrats have a higher legitimation by the users. Therefore I would argue to let bureaucrats have the last say in any matter regarding sysop demotion, not the committee. --Xeeron 06:15, 9 February 2007 (PST)
The arbcomm will have to be elected, of course. If it will exist. S 06:18, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I strongly believe that we should have an arbcomm, or at least some office with an equivalent role. It provides a solid safety valve to dissolve conflicts that get out of control, and allows us to move many of the dangerous powers out of the sysop level. I've been pondering about whether it should be merged with the bureaucrat role for simplicity (and familiarity, as GuildWiki bureaucrats usually played the part of arbitrator). --Rezyk 08:29, 9 February 2007 (PST)
For term limits on admins, I would at least like to see a clause for automatic demotion after a period of inactivity on the wiki - maybe 6 months. If the arbcomm exists, then I can accept the "appointed for life" bit; but if we choose not to develop an arbcomm, then I would rather see term limits. Maybe two or three years. They can be re-appointed if they're willing - but it would require periodic renewing via RfA process.
For term limits on bureaucrats, do we want their limits expiring at the same time? I would support one-year terms, but staggered so their terms expire six months apart. If we start with two of them, then one would have a six month term, and one with a one year term - then both one year terms for each appointment beyond that so that they expire six months apart going forward.
On arbcomm, I fully support having one; but with the relative size of a game wiki being smaller than, say, Wikipedia, I think it's justified to merge that role in with bureacrat. Especially as there's interest to make that an elected position already. If that were the case, then we should have an odd number of bureaucrats to avoid deadlock - or enough bureaucrats so that for any issue requireing an arbcomm, three of the bureaucrats can be appointed per case requiring an arbcomm. --Barek 08:37, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Deindenting. Updated text per emerging consensus that the arbcomm and bcrats be merged. S 08:45, 9 February 2007 (PST)

With a background in real-world volunteer organizations, and having served as administrator of gaming community fora, as well, I'd like to offer a personal (not official) opinion: My insight into "for life" placements is that they are generally less than positive, and such policies can have long-ranging ill effects. Even now, 20+ years after an arts organization here in Seattle changed their policies, the "for life" practices of long ago are causing the group significant issues. A bloated board of inactive members is raising such simple issues as reaching a quorum. Other issues abound. I'm curious to learn the value of "for life" placements. What does such tenure bring the community as a whole? Is there a drawback of asking for periodic community validation of leaders made at a timespan agreed to by the community? I look forward to an education on this subject. :) --Gaile Gray 22:18, 9 February 2007 (PST)

  • For required periodic community review, the main drawback is simply the added complexity and process it brings. There's a real cost there that can be worth trying to avoid. For example: Would the added process encourage us to keep the sysop group small, to keep things manageable?
  • I disagree with the term "leaders" as you use it and the current article uses it. Some of the strongest leaders on GuildWiki never had or needed any special rights to lead, and I prefer it that way. Is this just semantics, or a fundamental difference with my philosophy? If sysops are really to be official leaders or have any "non-drone" power (like on GuildWiki), I'd support mandatory review. I'm hoping that isn't the case.
--Rezyk 16:44, 12 February 2007 (PST)
I like the idea of a term length for all positions of power, for if no other reason then to keep people's heads out of the clouds.
I also strongly believe that a non-active time period should mean automatic removal from any position. And I don't think something like 6 months inactive will cut it because that is an eternity on the internet. Maybe 4-6 weeks inactive. The main reason for this is that people with sysop powers that are not here can not be doing their duties. The only reason I put a minimum at 4 weeks is because I know some people take vacations for that long, as I have myself in the past. As many have said it, this is a community site. If an administrator/sysop/bcrat is not being a part of that community, they should become a normal user again.
I also think that a speedy Request for Review should be established and should have very simple rules. Maybe:
1. can only requested from a current sysop
2. would be judged solely by the Arena Net staff (if they so choose, failing that, peer review)
The main reason is, an admin gone rogue could very quickly tarnish Arena Net's image, or worse, and the number one ethical rule here should be to protect the owners of this site.
EMonk 18:48, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Removal of "english language"[edit]

Since all policies here always relate to the english language wiki, stating it explicitly is not needed and makes it look like all sysops of all wikis would always be choosen in the english language one. Should there ever be a french guild wars wiki, they would create their own policy pages, writing on them (in french) whatever policy they like to appoint sysops. Including the "english language" term here (and not "english language administrators" invites later confusion. --Xeeron 06:11, 9 February 2007 (PST)

There already are french and german language versions. http://fr.wiki.guildwars.com and http://de.wiki.guildwars.com. They should be free to decide their own policies, so it makes sense to be precise in our language. S 06:12, 9 February 2007 (PST)
It seems we both want exactly the same thing, but understand that sentence differently. I'll make it a bit clearer (for me). --Xeeron 08:34, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Thanks, that's perfect. S 08:36, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Regarding existing sysops[edit]

Should existing sysops who were grandfathered in be required to go through RFA at some point in the future? S 08:27, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I posted a comment related to sysops in one of the above sections. I would at least like to see a clause for automatic demotion after a period of inactivity on the wiki - maybe 6 months. If the arbcomm exists, then I can accept the "appointed for life" bit; but if we choose not to develop an arbcomm, then I would rather see term limits. Maybe two or three years. If they're willing, they can be re-apppointed - but it would require periodic renewing via RfA. --Barek 08:38, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Given how frequent people become inactive, term limits with re-appointment seem to be the better solution compared to appointment for life to me. It would also deal with the issue of grandfathered sysops: They would simply be up for re-appointment after some time. --Xeeron 08:47, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Do we want term limits for sysops (which would force a needless rfa for sysops who are obviously willing, able, and desired to continue), or expiry for inactive sysops? The two are very different proposals, and it's clear which way my sympathies lie. S 08:48, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Xeeron's comment promoted to its own section

Regardless what we decide, I think the initial SysOps (and Bureaucrats!) assigned by ANet should go through a one-time "verification" process by the community, according to the very rules that we decide here. --Tetris L 00:51, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Proposal: Term limits for sysops[edit]

I was imagining a page that would basically read once a year: "Sysop XYZ's term is up for re-appointment in 2 weeks time. If you feel that this sysop should not be reappointed, give your reasons below". If the page is empty after 2 weeks (or there is consensus that the raised issues are not grave), the sysop is reappointed. --Xeeron 08:53, 9 February 2007 (PST)

My list of cons of this proposal:
  • The term limits of sysops will have to be managed by someone. Yet another janitorial task.
  • Most active sysops are obviously active.
  • This severely forces sysops to keep up appearances at all times. "You better keep me happy if you want to be re-elected." I say no. Sysops are not politicians.
  • Obvious long time abuse by a sysop can be corrected by the bcrats.
  • Term limits are the invisible hands of a machine. A wiki is organic.
S 09:00, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Stabber's points reflect my opinions on this matter; I can understand Tanaric and myself being up for a fixed term, but I think this puts an unnecessary strain on sysops and the wiki. LordBiro 09:58, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I tend to concur with S and LordBiro on this one. I do think we need a clear and open way to demote a sysop if there is an issue. It should not happen like it did on GuildWiki recently (IMO). --Rainith 19:35, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I think limited terms for SysOps are unnecessary. It would cause mostly red tape work, with little benefit. If a SysOp abuses his rights this has to be taken care of separately anyway. If a SysOps becomes inactive, there are easier ways to purge the list than limited terms. --Tetris L 00:51, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Barek's comment promoted to its own section

Proposal: purge inactive sysops[edit]

I'm okay with not setting a term limit from Sysops, as long as there's a clear recall procedure in case the community believes that an admin is abusing the rights given them in any way (using an Arbcomm process). I would also still support demotion if an admin has no site involvement over a given period of time (6 months? more? less?). No need to actively police for those, just if it's brought to the bcats' attention, they can act to demote if someone drops out of wiki involvement. Just thinking of some of the "Sysop for life" participants in GWiki, who technically still have that access even though they haven't been active for, in some cases, over a year. --Barek 11:18, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I mostly support this proposal, but I think it should not be auto-expiry on inactivity. Bcrats should try to contact the sysop and ask if they want to continue. The understanding is that anyone who passes RFA should be level headed enough not to hold on to a position for no reason. I would also favor an auto-sysop for sysops who return after their terms lapsed. Who here would, for example, be opposed to William Blackstaff being a sysop? S 11:26, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I would support this type of proposal. I tend to feel that Sysops should keep a presence in the community. Even if they say, stopped playing the game and just hung around doing spelling/grammar edits and answering questions for new users. If they were to "drop off the face of the wiki" for two years time, then come back they should have to go through the regular RFA process. --Rainith 19:35, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I, too, would support this. I'd make the period even less than 6 months. I wouldn't mind 3 months, if auto-re-SysOp'ing is granted. The 3 months can be extended if the SysOp explains why he is on leave and if he stated that he intends to become active again mid-term. --Tetris L 00:51, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Neutral/abstain for both proposals. I don't feel I can come to a strong conclusion on these matters until I have a better understanding of the powers/role that sysops will have. (And I should probably initiate some discussion on this matter.) My opinion in general: Term limits add annoying process, but are most useful to safeguard against non-obvious abuse and perception of such. I'd end up favoring limits which I felt matched the "potential for abuse" (but also accounting for other safeguards). Since we're heading toward limits for arbcomm, it'd be nice if we can shift enough of the potential for abuse to them so that we don't need so much process for sysops. If that doesn't happen, I may support some term limits, RFA for grandfathered sysops (*gulp!*) (ed: supporting this now), purging, etc. --Rezyk 11:45, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Proposal: infinite terms except for grandfathered sysops[edit]

I see no issue with infinite terms on this wiki, because sysops here aren't imbued with the authority that sysops on the GuildWiki were. That said, since we're moving toward community-oriented processes, and because ArenaNet doesn't want to be involved with sysop or bureaucrat selection, I'd suggest that all current sysops go through a review period at the beginning of May so that the community can be given the choice to keep them or not. We need a strong sysop team in the short term, hence the three-month grace period. —Tanaric 13:33, 9 February 2007 (PST)

After some thought, I now agree with some sort of eventual RFA for grandfathered sysops (or whatever new sysops would need to go through). If nothing else, it's worthwhile in promoting the culture of basic equality here. --Rezyk 20:13, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I don't think any sysop/bcrat would mind being reviewed by the community. It's premature at this juncture, but I see some solid things being formed rather quickly, we might want to shorten this grace period in the future to say two months. — Gares 20:30, 9 February 2007 (PST)
As I've commented in the sections above I'd support infinite terms for active SysOps (purging inactive ones), provided that a clear policy exists how demotion in case of abuse of rights will be handled. --Tetris L 00:51, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Infinite terms aside, is anyone opposed to putting grandfathered sysops through RfA -- or whatever it turns out to be -- in three months time, to make the appointments come from the community instead of from ArenaNet? —Tanaric 17:04, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Discuss everything here?[edit]

Suppose I wanted to push for something potentially controversial like, for example, shifting the role of sysop from "moderator with reasonable discretion" to "button-pushing drone agents of consensus and arbcomm". Is that something to discuss here and now, or is it more appropriate to fork a separate draft for it? --Rezyk 09:05, 9 February 2007 (PST)

You have your pick of Special:Prefixindex/Project talk:Admin. Here seems like the only place devoted to this topic unless you want to go to Project talk:Policy. S 09:06, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Administration and ArenaNet[edit]

The current text makes it sound like ArenaNet have nothing at all to do with all this. Is anybody naive enough to believe that seriously? As the server host they are ultimately in control, and responsible. Even if they want to make us feel like it was, this isn't a democracy, it's still an autocracy. Actually, this isn't all that different from the situation on GuildWiki. We just swapped one "monarch" for another one, one that we deemed fairer, and more reliable. But we still depend on his goodwill.

ANet have stated that they do not intend to interfere with adminship, policy and content, except in extreme cases, and I believe them. However, they still have the power, even if they refrain from using it. The policy article should make that clearer.

Guild Wars Wiki:About should be updated as well, making clearer how ANet and the official wiki relate. --Tetris L 00:21, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I have to disagree partly. They do have ultimative power over the server and thus the technical storage of the data, but not the wiki. No matter which server is used, the provider of the server always has ultimate power insofar as that person can override everything we decide if they want to. The big question is: Can they do so withhin the limits of the wiki itself and here the answer is no, they can not. Think of it like the difference between switching governments and revolution. No matter what you write in your constitution, there is always the possibility that someone will simply use power to do away with it all, in clear disregard of the written words. The issue at hand here is: Does ANet have a possibility short of revolution, that is, withhin the limits of the wiki policy, to switch out people at the top. For that question, the answer is no. --Xeeron 04:22, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Consider this a constitutional monarchy, then. The Queen cannot realistically take any political action; that is up to parliament. There are few people that would argue that the UK is not effectively a democracy. LordBiro 06:12, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Sysops term - Maybe we wait on this?[edit]

I find many discussions regarding the sysops and the term they may serve (and so on). I believe that as we currently have sysops a-plenty that this topic should not be discussed at this time (the re-election/term/etc. part). There isn't a large user base on this wiki yet and therefore most of any opinions for the sysop terms discussions may only be from the sysops or those that closely work with them on a regular basis. I have no problem with the sysops discussing this but I feel it is premature. As 6 months seems to be the term that was discussed then I would like to suggest not putting any sysop terms policies/procedures in place for a few months (maybe 3) and then discussing it again then as there should be a larger user base by then that can give their opinions. As it is currently, I don't want to see our wiki "congress" vote themselves a "raise" without first consulting more of the public they will be representing (sorry for the blunt metaphor but I wanted to get my point across). I am by no means pointing fingers or trying to start any arguments with this. It is only my opinion and I felt it needed to be voiced. Thanks.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 06:03, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I feel pretty much the exact opposite. Yes, we do have "sysops a-plenty", but only because these are instated by ANet, in a most undemocratic act. The SysOps have not gone through any community evaluation process whatsoever, at least not here on this wiki. This "government" lacks democratic justification, badly. Therefore, in my eyes these SysOps are only interim, and should be evaluated ASAP, especially if we decide that SysOps are asigned for life. For that evaluation we need criteria and rules. --Tetris L 06:19, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Which said rules and criteria will be made by those sysops we have now unless we prevent that from happening when there is a larger user base. I'd rather not see sysops deciding how they will be elected without better public representation. I honestly see no problems with letting them do their thing for now (as I'm sure many if not all will be re-elected) but deciding now when most of the populace here is sysops is not a wise choice in my opinion. I'm not asking for the sysops to not have any power on the wiki here but just not to have any power to set their own election standards without more of a userbase to add their suggestions.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 06:28, 12 February 2007 (PST)
One of the basic problems of this wiki (in term s of democratic control) is the fact that it is not officially announced yet, and not known to the majority of GW players. Only some few know it, and the word spread a bit when somebody guessed the URL. Still, the people currently discussing here is a small "elite" vanguard. This means that whatever policies we define now should only be seen as interim, and verified when the wiki has been officially announced and the user base has grown a lot. --Tetris L 06:42, 12 February 2007 (PST)
I can support that. Thanks Tetris L.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 09:56, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Word was spread further by reference of this site in irc, and someone posted the address on Wikipedia in the Guild Wars articles. So, it's more than just the elite vanguard; but I agree with your point that it's still not officially announced and that many users who would likely contribute here still are not aware of this site. --Barek 10:00, 12 February 2007 (PST)
There also seem to be links on some of the heavily populated forums. --Xeeron 12:03, 12 February 2007 (PST)
There are links on some of the forums (e.g. here, which will mean that people will start to swarm. Not as much as when it is announced, obviously, but it isn't an elite vanguard. Ale_Jrbtalk 12:21, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Current bureaucrats[edit]

According to the current version of Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship, Tanaric and Lord Biro are bureaucrats, but they are listed in Special:Listusers/Sysops, not Special:Listusers/Bureaucrats. What gives? --Tetris L 11:17, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Just need someone from server side has to change their status'. — Gares 11:47, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship is currently just a draft and not necessarily in effect. --Rezyk 12:21, 14 February 2007 (PST)
As Rezyk said, this document is a draft. LordBiro 14:27, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Update: They just got promoted now. --Rezyk 12:07, 15 February 2007 (PST)
Current Bureaucrats should be labeled "Bureaucrat Pro Tempore", they didn't go through the selection process in development. They should not automatically get bureaucrat status just because they had it on GuildWiki. Having them as acting bureaucrat until a policy is hammered out is ok, but once the infrastructure is in place a proper selection needs to be done. -Warskull 14:32, 1 March 2007 (EST)
At the moment, as can be seen in the article, Tanaric and myself have a date at which point our bureaucrat status will be terminated. LordBiro 17:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Election process[edit]

Here's an idea for how to approach bureaucrat elections:

  • Preparation: A single page (say, "Guild Wars Wiki:May 2007 bureaucrat elections") is created, which also notes exactly how many positions are to be filled. All activity described below generally goes on that page.
  • Stage 1 (announce candidacy): Anyone who opts to run should create a section header for himself/herself, with a statement about their running. No new candidates are accepted after the end of this stage.
  • Stage 2 (gather opinions): Anyone can post their relevant opinion on each candidate within that candidate's section. Essentially, this takes the form of multiple straw polls -- one for each candidate. These should be relatively short posts; any large discussions that form should be moved to the talk page.
  • Stage 3 (decide winners): The candidate sections created in previous stages are considered frozen and should no longer be added to. The community tries to reach a consensus (through discussion) on who should be considered the winners based on the content of the previous stages.
  • Stage 4 (last call, final judgment): If we reach a completely non-disputed consensus in stage 3, no significant activity here. Otherwise, if anybody wants, ArenaNet is asked to review the results of the previous stages and make the final judgment naming the winners.

--Rezyk 12:06, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I like to take into account the thoughts of ANet paraphrased here. The main points being:
  • Mike had concerns about allowing the entire community to vote.
  • He also had concerns about allowing sysops to elect the bureaucrats, since the bureaucrats pick the sysops.
  • This is something that ArenaNet would like the official wiki to decide on.
I think these points should be the basis of how we set up an electoral college system of voting our bureaucrats. — Gares 12:58, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Electoral colleges are disasters. Given the power of bureaucrats, it is extremely important that the community as a whole weigh in. I would recommend a simple means of deciding suffrage (account must be 30 days old at the time of voting and made at least 20 edits, for example). The details of the election need some thought, but I have a working draft for an approval voting system. This is not a high priority, however. Let us get some of the more important policies and formatting stuff beaten into shape first. S 13:04, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Does anyone have any clearer idea/speculation on what the concerns are about allowing the entire community to participate directly? I'd like to try addressing them but really just don't understand them. I tend to share S's opinion regarding electoral colleges (although not regarding priorities). --Rezyk 12:23, 15 February 2007 (PST)
As I see them, there are several clear issues with allowing anyone to vote (which is exactly the reason why it is restricted over at Wikipedia) and they basically are:
  • Novices - more novice users who don't understand the policy or how it works will be tempted to vote just because they can.
  • Personal - people who have personal issues can spam accounts to try and push a point of view that is not useful or relevant.
  • Vandals - IP addresses will take part (or create new user accounts) to stop someone becoming an admin, just to disrupt the running of the Wiki.
  • Well wishers/friends - people can run for administration, then get friends to spam accounts or use their IP addresses to give an incorrect impression of the actual support.
If we can solve these issues directly, there is no need to restrict it. If not, there is. Ale_Jrb (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2007 (PST)
That's an excellent list, Ale_jrb. If we limited the voting to registered users then we could mitigate some of those problems, but I don't think this would be enough. LordBiro 04:09, 16 February 2007 (PST)
Agreed there. Wikipedia classifies it as "Any editor in good standing is welcome to contribute to a RfA discussion." - while we don't want to copy Wikipedia in our articles and policies, it is very useful to learn from when it comes to things like RfA and XfD. With respect to this, through RfA, we'd have to enforce (in my opinion) certain points:
  • Only registered accounts that have existed for more than <insert time - 10 days? 2 weeks?> can participate.
  • RfA is not done on a vote - this is very important. Numbers don't count - consensus does. Making loads of support comments that are obviously fraudulent, or asking your friends to spam accounts to support you, just isn't acceptable.
That's all I can think of at the moment - obviously, bureaucrats would have to check the request carefully at the end to ensure suspected comments are not taken account of. Ale_Jrb (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2007 (PST)

New Sysops[edit]

I have a bunch of questions regarding Sysops. When making nominations, are there any specific periods to make a nomination or can you do it at any time? Where do you make a nomination? What criteria is used to select a sysop or, I guess more importantly, what is the critera for rejecting a nomination? If its just votes, where does one vote? And could I, for example, nominate myself...create 30 sockpuppets and vote myself sysop goodness? That doesn't seem right, but I could see the potential for that to happen. Vlad 14:20, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Votes are too easily abused, what we had at GuildWiki was a vote page, of sorts, then whatever action was taken at the discretion of a beaurocrat, it gave a general idea of what the community thought, but wasn't taken on only numbers — Skuld 16:30, 15 February 2007 (PST)
I don't think bureaucrats should be given the power to decide if more sysops are needed. I do not want to see a bureaucrat hold up a well supported nominee for inexplicable reasons. (Use your imagination to guess what I'm talking about.) The qualifications of a candidate for sysop appointment is for the community to decide; bureaucrats should gauge the consensus and appoint if consensus is in favor. If the community doesn't want a certain sysop, they should argue against the nominations. If they don't want sysops at all, they should not haphazardly nominate or argue against the nominations stating why new sysops are not needed. Bureaucrats who don't think new sysops are needed should participate in the nomination (though, presumably, they will then recuse themselves from making the judgment call). S 04:16, 16 February 2007 (PST)
A problem I see...(and forgive me if its wrong, its just the impression one gets)... is that the sysop designation seems like its has the potential for an ex-guildwiki clique, where most (all?) sysops know each other from guildwiki, and its going to take a while for people that didn't participate within guildwiki to be recognised. Especially if there are a limited number of sysop positions and lengthy(lifetime) terms for the incumbents. Vlad 07:05, 16 February 2007 (PST)
Well, the thing about the actual Guildwiki sysops is that most of them do have a proven track record. Now, yes, these are different sites, but it's like applying to a job with previous experience on your resume: it counts for a lot (especially since ANet wanted something that could function along very similar lines). As far as I'm concerned, this problem won't happen if the wiki becomes very popular, and it's not really a big deal if all the administrators are also Guildwiki admins while the wiki is still small, as long as the overall userbase isn't similarly constricted. I myself am making a point to question most things Guildwiki does before the're applied here. — 130.58 (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2007 (PST)
(edit conflict) I doubt there is a clique, and I would wager that the sysops who were grandfathered in would be more than welcoming of outside members. The best way to be nominated is to participate. Be visible. Show up on policy and formatting discussions. If you show yourself to be capable, and are willing to help administer the wiki, you would make a good nominee. I am constantly on the lookout for people to nominate. By the way, I don't think there should be a fixed number of sysops. In my opinion, anyone who has contributed a lot and wants to help out should be given the chance, as I don't consider sysophood to be a big deal. It may surprise you to learn that the clearest voices of the community at guildwiki were not the sysops; some of them, such as Xeeron and Tetris, repeatedly refused the nominations because they were possibly afraid of the same cliquish tendencies that you are worried about. S 07:39, 16 February 2007 (PST)
I think I know exactly the clique Vlad is talking about and the forums from which they originate from. But Stabber is correct. While we all know each other and have worked with each other for a while, that does not mean it is a "boy's club, no girls allowed" thing. All are welcome and being a sysop is not hard, nor a big deal. Although, it does mean more responsibility with the added tools. A strong contributor, a level-head, and dedication is my opinion of someone that would be a good admin. You will find after contributing here a while that a lot of the rumors that you may have heard are unfounded or at the most a misunderstanding. — Gares 10:16, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Arbcomm[edit]

Reading through the comments/discussion, it seems that a number of users support the idea of an arbitration committee (at least a number equal to those in dissent). We aren't as big as Wikipedia, but I think we need one here, size regardless. Thoughts? -Auron My talk 08:28, 16 February 2007 (PST)

An arbitration committee seems to be a good way to control admins, while at the same time giving them a freer hand in their day to day decisions. Of course that committee needs to have the clear power to remove sysops and bureaucrats and it needs to be selected by the community in some form of democratic process.
The obvious disadvantage is an aditional layer of bureaucraty and more positions which need to be filled. On the other hand, having an arbitration committee as means of removing admins makes it much easier to argue for long or lifelong sysop appointments, thus reducing the potential workload of re-appointment of confirming sysops regularly. --Xeeron 09:08, 16 February 2007 (PST)
There are a few problems with an arbitration committee - while they may not be problems as such there are certainly a few things to keep in mind.
  • They are all powerful. That sounds a little clichéd, but it's true. An arbitration committee has the power, for example, to permanently ban a bureaucrat account. While this obviously would never happen (well... it could, but won't) it does mean that great care is needed when picking members. They are the highest level of power on a Wiki - what they say, goes.
  • That brings me onto my next point - picking them. An Election simply isn't good enough - just because the community likes someone doesn't mean that they'll be suitable for the job. For some things, community choice is great - but not for people who literally have ultimate power. Over at Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales gives people power. He may be swayed by the election, but it is him who actually elects people. The only people who could possibly have that sort of power would be ANet, and they might not want it.
  • Usefulness is also an issue - do we actually need one? People saying 'Hey, its great. Let's do it!' and whether a need actually exists for one or not are totally separate issues. The committee is the last possible step in a dispute, and they wouldn't get called in for disputes about articles and so on. They take action when everything else has failed, or where there is a significant risk to the structure of the Wiki. Will we ever be in this position?
My two cents. I have nothing against the formation of one, it might be a good idea, but of all the policy discussions on this wiki, the one decided whether there should be a committee should be the most in-depth by far. Ale_Jrb (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2007 (PST)
"They are the highest level of power on a Wiki - what they say, goes." That's the entire point. It's not like the committee consists of one or two close friends that plan on total Wiki domination; they exist to sort out problems, make decisions, and ensure a checks-and-balances approach instead of an all-faith-in-the-sysops approach. -Auron My talk 10:10, 16 February 2007 (PST)
Yeh, I know what they are and how they work :P Ale_Jrb (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2007 (PST)
I think it would be reasonable if their power was in just settling disputes. Under normal circumstances they have no extra powers. They couldn't, for example, wake up one morning and decide to ban a bureaucrat. There had to be some trigger that perhaps a quorum vote of sysops or something that enables the arbitration committee to 'sit' in judgement of a particular issue. There would probably need to be a mechanism for the general populous to initiate the arbitration committee in case of an all-out sysop meltdown. But who would they be? Honestly, I think a group picked from Anet would be the best choice; but I'm not sure how well that would go down. Vlad 10:27, 16 February 2007 (PST)
Just a note: They are not all powerful. They cant ban a simple user, they cant delete an article, they cant make a sysop. They would have the power to veto sysops, but that only if they are called for a dispute. So while they certainly have some power, that power is limited to special cases. --Xeeron 10:30, 16 February 2007 (PST)
(edit conflict) I agree that if it were decided to have them, they would really have to be picked by ANet. I realise they can't just go round banning people, but their whole purpose is to take control in the event that something goes seriously wrong (usually with the sysops or bureaucrats). For this reason, they must be several things:
  • Reliable enough to be able to do this in the event of something like this happening.
  • But so dedicated to contributing that they would be better off as a sysop and so on.
It might even be best if the arbitration committee was ArenaNet (as they fit the bill best, and have control of the servers etc.), but that isn't an option... :P
As for not being all-powerful, they aren't all the time, but once they are sittign they can do anything. That is, after all, their purpose - the last possible resort. Ale_Jrb (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2007 (PST)

My view on any committee of this nature is that its there for balance. The sysops/bureaucrats oversee the wiki and "general populace". The ArbCommittee would be comprised of people from the "general populace" who oversaw the sysops/bureaucrats in cases of dispute/need. Noting that its not a something that meets on a regular basis but that is called when the need arises so that no, they can't "just wake up one morning and decide to ban a bureaucrat." It might also be useful to have 1 bureaucrat and possibly an ANet rep or maybe Gaile on the committee as ad-hoc members or just to sit in. The reason for that being that the bureaucrat can provide insight into why the disputed action was taken and the ANet rep can been seen as an impartial member/viewpoint. Assuming someone from ANet wouldn't mind helping out in that capacity when needed and assuming such a position was deemed useful. Lojiin 10:40, 16 February 2007 (PST)

I haven't decided if I want to add my opinion to this discussion yet or not, but I would like to point out some details for which seem to fit this discussion. ANet stated:
  • "...ArenaNet might intervene in extreme circumstances, i.e. vandalism by a sysop of bureaucrat, or mass demotion/promotion by a bureaucrat, but he doesn't foresee this happening."
  • "Mike wanted to stress that ArenaNet employees would not have bureaucrat or sysop status on the official wiki."
Not sure if the first statement where Mike says, "...doesn't foresee this happening..." means that he trusts the admin/bcrat team to not do anything foolish or that he would rather ANet not be put in that situation. — Gares 10:44, 16 February 2007 (PST)
The makeup of the committee should probably be decided based on the nature of the dispute. If (for example) the dispute was with the sitting bureaucrats then it wouldn't be reasonable to have them included. I think in most cases outside of dispute with the bureacrats then the populous would automatically gravitate to bureaucrats/leading sysops to be part of the committee. I think, if this committee is going to exist, Anets involvment is crucial.Vlad 10:50, 16 February 2007 (PST)
There is no such thing as a "leading sysop". S 10:51, 16 February 2007 (PST)
I didn't mean it as an official title. I just meant someone that was more visible in the sysop role would probably garner more acceptance on to the committee. Vlad 11:01, 16 February 2007 (PST)
Unlikely, I think. Being a sysop is not a requirement for running for a bureaucrat, nor would sysops necessarily have the temperament to make good bureaucrats. Note that the arbcomm currently proposed is the college of bureaucrats. If you and others here are arguing for a different sort of arbcomm, please clearly state who should be in it. S 11:19, 16 February 2007 (PST)
Huh, when was that change made? Anyway, you are right, I was arguing for an arbitration committee formed by members that are not bureaucrats or sysops at the same time. Sysops being checked by arbcomm which is made up of sysops wrong to me. --Xeeron 11:30, 16 February 2007 (PST)
That change was made on 2007-02-09. You may care to look at the reasoning in #Bcrats? above.S 11:35, 16 February 2007 (PST)
So who is the arbcomm policing? The bureaucrats, the sysops, or both? I thought it was bureaucrats particularly.Vlad 11:36, 16 February 2007 (PST)
Have you tried reading the text of the proposal? S 11:37, 16 February 2007 (PST)
Yes, but I fail to see what the benefit of having something called the arbitration committee made up of bureaucrats is different from what the bureaucrats actual role is. Now something that provides oversight over the bureaucrats in case of a melt down at that point, made some sense to me. Especially if involved Anet. Vlad 11:44, 16 February 2007 (PST)
ANet looks after the bureaucrats, the arbcomm looks after the sysops. Arbcomm *can* include bureaucrats, but should definitely not be *only* bureaucrats. -Auron My talk 11:46, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Because several people are having trouble understanding it, here's what the current policy states:

  • Bcrats may individually gauge RFA consensus and appoint sysops if consensus is in favor.
  • All bcrats as a commitee may examine a rogue sysop
  • If a bcrat goes rogue, all the rest of the bcrats examine the rogue bcrat

Individual bcrats are not empowered to demote admins save through an arbcomm proceeding, where presumably all sides of a conflict will be allowed to present their case and the committee will deliberate and explain their decisions.

If you want to propose that non-bcrat members of the arbcomm, that is still compatible with the above schema. Note: I am not speaking pro or against any particular proposal here. S 11:52, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Yeah... as it stands, there's no point to call it arbcomm, if it's only a meeting of bcrats. If bcrats meet and decide to de-sysop a sysop, that isn't arbcomm; that's a bcrat consesus. Arbcomm brings in members of the non-sysop contributor base. -Auron My talk 11:58, 16 February 2007 (PST)
Currently there are 2 bcrats... and All positions are filled.. I think its rather silly to have a arbitration committee solely made up of bcrats until this changes.Vlad 12:00, 16 February 2007 (PST)
Agreed. The entire point of Arbcomm is a community-driven assurance that disputes etc can be settled... given that the bcrats on GWiki were mostly "afk" for months on end (making no significant contributions, only answering every fourth or fifth message on their talk page, if that). If there is no interest in non-sysop users making up arbcomm, there is no reason it should exist. -Auron My talk 12:03, 16 February 2007 (PST)

The number of bcrats can be increased. Gaile Gray, among others, has voiced favor for an odd number of bcrats. If you want to propose an additional bureaucrat position, please do so after the bureaucrat election process is ratified. S 12:06, 16 February 2007 (PST)

I personally have no problem with 2 bcrats. I have a problem with making a bunch of formalities and giving it a special name when they talk to each other. Vlad 12:19, 16 February 2007 (PST)
No, Gaile is right on this one. There is a reason the supreme court has an odd number of people on it. If you have an even number of people you can have a split decision and are locked in until someone changes their mind. If the number of bcrats is 3 then you end up with 1-2 or 2-1 decisions. It keeps the cogs turning. -Warskull 14:27, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Going to try resolving some of this[edit]

There are some issues here that have been left unresolved for a while. I plan to try resolving some of it by changing the draft to have sysop user rights removed from bureaucrats/arbcomm. Note that I personally don't support or oppose this (I'm actually pretty neutral on the whole issue), but it seems to me like it might be better for consensus. If there is any opposition to my working on the current draft, let me know and I can work on a separate one first (or come up with a better idea). --Rezyk 20:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think such a change will be helpful. I think (please correct me if I'm misinterpreting) that you're looking at sysop user rights the way we did over on the GuildWiki, where sysops are analogous to forum moderators much of the time. I'm interpreting sysop user rights here as merely an additional set of tools with an additional set of policies on when to use those tools.
I'm looking at the bureaucrat role in a similar way -- there's no need to separate bureaucracy from arbcomm, since being a bureaucrat just means you have access to the tools necessary to perform an arbcomm role. Bureaucrats here certainly shouldn't have the autonomy we had on the GuildWiki.
I think, perhaps, that the policy as written, with the exception of our current cap on the bureaucrat numbers, is okay to call policy. I'd like to add an empty seat, toss a policy tag on it, and start the first nomination process for bcrat appointment.
Tanaric 21:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I tend to follow your interpretation of sysop user rights (just some tools, not moderator power). Let me try working out a draft (I'll put it on a separate subpage) before you judge it too much -- I have some extra ideas involved that I didn't detail. Also, I'm not really the one to convince; I'm fine with bureaucrats/arbcomm-have-sysop-rights but it seemed like there was opposition in the above discussion. If it wasn't for those opinions being voiced I wouldn't even care to attempt this new idea. --Rezyk 22:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Alternatively, if anyone wants to see if we already have a strong enough consensus, it could save me a lot of effort. =) --Rezyk 23:28, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I put up a new draft at Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/version B. Right now I'd be most interested in seeing if it makes things more agreeable to those who voiced dissent in the arbcomm discussion above. (If not, there's no need to waste time on it) --Rezyk 22:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

As noted on that talk page, I like this better than what's written here. I support replacing the contents of the current adminship draft with your version B. —Tanaric 03:42, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Tie-breaking[edit]

Having an odd number for arbcomm should greatly help with the issue of ties, but it wouldn't completely resolve it. I expect that sometimes one or more members of arbcomm would not be presiding -- an emergency could come up in real life, or they recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest, leaving an even number again. Some brainstormed ideas to address this:

  • Have an extra "sometimes" arbcomm member that only votes to break ties (analogous to the VP in the US senate example). We'd need someone that's pretty surely available though. ArenaNet could fit this role but I suspect they wouldn't want to.
  • Out of those presiding, the vote of the arbcomm member whose term will expire soonest is used for tie-breaking.

--Rezyk 23:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

My thought is to keep ANet out of it (they've said they don't want to be in it, so stop trying to drag them back (not necessarily directed at anyone, just the general tone of what people have been suggesting)), unless the wiki is about to absolutely crash and burn because of something (all the sysops and bureaucrats, suddenly get rabies and decided to take the wiki down into madness with them).
A possible solution could be to poll the sysops who aren't involved in what the arbcom is deciding (if there are any). Yes I know that is somewhat elitist, but no more so than giving any other random user the tiebreaker vote, also I doubt that the need would arise anyway. --Rainith 23:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't think the sysop vote idea is wise, as theoretically the sysop team, under these guidelines, could be absolutely daft. I'd rather insist that bureaucrats be available for this or they risk losing their position. —Tanaric 06:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Sysop terms suggestion: elected vs appointed[edit]

Random idea: Elected sysops are for life, appointed sysops (whether by Bearucrat or by Anet) are for a limited term. If a sysop is appointed first, and his/her term ends, the voting process can still grant that appointed sysop a life status (or reappointed by a bearucrat). This way we can kinda justify how we just appoint ppl currently when this wiki is still taking off, and transition into the more democratic process when we reach critical mass. -PanSola 21:54, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Nobody's being thrown into sysopship afaik, so what's the point of this? Good idea for a long-term idea, but only if (in the mean time) people are temp-sysopped (I love making up words). -Auron My talk 06:42, 23 February 2007 (EST)
Well, our current set of sysops are all AFAIK appointed. So my idea would make them all temp-sysops, as opposed to being perm appointments. -PanSola 08:24, 23 February 2007 (EST)
The topic of ANet appointed sysops and what to do with them has been discussed throughout this page, and some have said that they would not disagree if there was a RFA somewhere down the line. Regarding the appointment, current admins were asked if they wanted adminship, but they did not have to accept. However, those that did accept were appointed by ANet. — Gares 08:44, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Grandfathering a third bureaucrat[edit]

Since nobody is pushing to start an election/nomination process for a third bureaucrat, I propose we appoint somebody so we have three sitting when we're made official. Naturally, whomever is appointed in such a process would fall under the same "grandfathered" category that Biro and I do.

I think Rezyk would be the best choice. He's not primarily a GuildWikian, which gives the bureaucrat team some much-needed diversity. However, he is a bureaucrat over at Guild Wars Wikia, so clearly he has experience with this sort of thing.

If Rezyk doesn't want the position, or if the community wishes somebody else to fill the post, please post and make your suggestions. Naturally, if the community doesn't want a third grandfathered bureaucrat, that's okay too. However, I think it would be beneficial, especially with the oncoming rush of participants we're bound to get.

Tanaric 19:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I think Rezyk would be a good choice too. I don't know him, but I've seen his contributions all over the wiki, and know his background was with the gw wikia. I agree that it would be a good thing to have someone not from gwiki as an additional bureaucrat. - BeXoR 19:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I've been thinking about this exact nomination for a while now, simply waiting for an appropriate time to bring this up. I very much support Rezyk as a bureaucrat as well. Even before he left GuildWiki he seemed like a great guy, and I've had the same impression of him here on the GWW. --Dirigible 19:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Ack, I was worried about this happening. =) Before more of you support this, please wait until I can post a quick list of points to consider here (maybe a few hours?). --Rezyk 19:57, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Before Rezyk persuades me otherwise, I have no opposition to promoting Rezyk to third bureaucrat. My sentiments echo Tanaric's. LordBiro 20:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Here are some points, some good, some bad, and some both, that I personally see about myself being a bureaucrat/arbcomm:

  • I've done a fair amount of writing in policy drafts and plan to continue doing so. Arbcomm work can involve interpreting policy, and it might be hard to interpret something I wrote myself in a really impartial manner.
  • I don't particularly enjoy being a bureaucrat or sysop. I'm mostly in it to try and contribute some good examples/practices. So, I will not run for a consecutive 3rd term here (past this grandfathered term and a following elected term) if I were to get that far. This is also to make sure the committee gets some rotation / fresh meat.
  • I'm in favor of giving arbcomm, as a committee, lots of power. In a nutshell, I want the sysop role here to essentially be that of a janitor (gets the keys to the supply closet but just uses it to help clean up noncontroversially), and leave all the potentially-controversial-but-necessary decisions to arbcomm as moderators. It'll be kind of ugly for me to push power into a position while in that position myself. The details haven't been hashed out yet, but here's some examples I'm considering (only my current opinion as a user, I wouldn't assume these powers if consensus is against me):
    • Individual arbcomm members can declare injunctions as a very temporary measure to halt conflict. For example: "For 24 hours, Rezyk is banned from editing articles on alcoholic beverages and/or Junundu riding. If he violates this, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any sysop".
    • If there's a decision with no strong consensus and is really not moving anywhere, arbcomm as a committee should be able to declare a decision if it's important enough. Example: Maybe if we had gotten deadlocked on article capitalization (everyone agrees we should have a coherent guideline, but suppose we were split ~50/50 with what it should be, with no progress).
    • I believe that a lot of arbitration work/discussion should be done in private between arbcomm members. Say, through a private mailing list that includes them and ArenaNet.
    • (Some have argued that my proposals don't put enough trust in the admins that are supposed to be trusted by the community. To me, this is not true -- it's just that I see arbcomm, not sysops, as the real "trusted moderators" and try to leave all the controversial-but-necessary actions to them.)
  • Out of the current sysops, I'm one of the very opinionated and probably the most disagreeing between them. I've been involved in more than one heavy conflict with some at GuildWiki. In terms of general popularity I could easily be last (although that's partially intentional). I'm very apprehensive of big conflicts that involve a bureaucrat but I can't promise to completely avoid any either.
  • Remember that performance as a user/sysop doesn't directly correlate with performance as a bureaucrat. For all you really know, I could be much lousier at bureaucrat work than I am with user/sysop work. I might even be too slow for it. Don't put a lot of stock in the fact that I bureaucrat for GW Wikia, as it's really a piece of cake there compared to GuildWiki or here.
  • I'm arrogant. No, really, really arrogant.

Hmm, that's all I can think of for now. I hope this helps you all make an informed decision. If there is no opposition, I will accept the position, as I do agree it might be for the best regardless. =) If anyone voices opposition/reason against it, please don't think any worse of them; as I've pointed out myself, there are plenty of good reasons for why I may not be best for the job. Thanks, all. --Rezyk 23:17, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Simply stated, I still support. To be honest, I support appointing you more now than I did before. —Tanaric 12:38, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Support. Since the wiki was announced as official ten minutes ago, perhaps we should speed this up? ;) MisterPepe talk 15:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Support. Measured and sensible contributions to discussions, and not a supporter of the status quo simply for the sake of the status quo. Ideal. Fox 15:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Also support, for the reasons outlined above. --Indecision 07:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Appointed. —Tanaric 01:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

lol - well, I've been distracted with real life activities recently ... but I would've ssupported this too had I seen it sooner - especially after seeing his self-evaluation. Simply put, I have more confidence in someone who can look at himself, see potential concerns and acknowledge them. I also like the idea of a third beaurocrat being grandfathered from somewhere other than GuildWiki (partly for the benefits to this wiki, and partly for the PR benefits as viewed by other users). Glad to see this promotion was done! --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Third Admin[edit]

This is just an idea. I just posted on the Builds policy page my idea for a third administrator. There would be, in addition to the two existing admin types, a third type of admin. This admins only power would be to process requests for a builds section, and to create new articles. Only This administrator could make a new article in the builds section. Other people would be able to work on the build, but this would prevent people from making specific builds (e.g. vermin farmer) and let them make broader topics which encompass any number of builds (e.g. Invincimonk). if you have any questions about my proposal, or need anything clarified, simply post your question on my talk page. Jibjabman 19:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it is possible with the MediaWiki software to limit creating pages etc like that. Also, it is exactly the type of thing that goes against wiki ideals. -- Gem (gem / talk) 00:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


Time to get this rolling[edit]

Above section reminded me that we should get this going, especially since Tanarics self-imposed term as bureaucrat ends on april 31st. The world would not end if we dont have a new or newly reelected bureaucrat on may 1st, but prolonging deadlines once set for positions of leadership is very bad practise, so we should try not to start it here. What we need are 2 things:

  1. We need to have a policy on adminship
Since there has been a good bit of discussion on the admin policy before, hopefully we will be able to reach concensus based on this policy or the slightly different version B (also check the talk page) with few or even no alterations. fast.
  1. We need to have a procedure for selecting bureaucrats
So far there has been one proposal (by Rezyk, above), but almost no discussion. We should start collecting views on how this is to be done. Since election of the bureaucrats will be the main way for normal users to influence the leadership structure of the wiki and given the powers of bureaucrats, this is an important task.

--Xeeron 10:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

My election proposal above is rather horrible; I suggest ignoring it. I've started a draft of something that attempts to be less horrible at Guild Wars Wiki:Elections. --Rezyk 00:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I just thought I'd chip in to say I generally support this policy (including the splitting of bureaucratic and sysop powers), but I have some questions/concerns:
  • I'm not overly familiar with the arbitration committee's functions other than what's been discussed on this page above, and I'd love to see their functions/limits provided in the arbitration committee linky.
  • At the moment we have three bureaucrats, will this number change over time? Will we have a maximum or minimum number of sitting bureaucrats (I note "at least one", but a committee of one isn't really a committee :) )? (I support having an odd number of bureaucrats generally, to help break deadlocks).
  • Bureaucrat election policy needs to be finalised.
  • Also, the nomination procedure for the sysops is also blank, and I'd be interested to see what this involves. I'd also prefer the link to it to say something other than: "...see the procedure." but I'm just being picky there.
Hope the above was of some interest to discussions, and to getting this sorted out quickly. Unfortunately, I don't feel quite knowledgeable enough to start implementing the required sections. --Indecision 03:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Removed my bureaucrat powers[edit]

My term ended, so I removed my bureaucrat powers. I will run for the seat once an election policy exists. —Tanaric 13:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I think we all agree that having 3 bureaucrats is preferable. One more reason to get the election policy done soon. This one here as well, btw. --Xeeron 17:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
If we fail to establish an election policy in a reasonable amount of time, we could see all three dropping off. This needs to be a priority activity - I would hate to see the community backed into a corner of needing to auto-renewing terms so that bureaucrats still exist in the community. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:22, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Is anyone even working on coming up with an election policy/procedure? -- ab.er.rant sig 22:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

How about this: we let Biro and Rezyk dictate an interim election policy. Whatever election policy the two of them come up with, the rest of the community has to agree to until the community otherwise develop a new policy by whatever means we were going to go by currently (by consensus?). Any Bureaucrat/Sysop selected/appointed by the interim policy may be overruled by whatever new policy the community come up with. It is my hope that Biro and Rezyk will come up with some really aweful policy so there is finally incentive for the community to take the whole policy-making process seriously. -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 22:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey, I already posted not just one, but two awful bureaucrat election procedures, AND gave a rough taste of my evil interim sysop appointment style. Don't make me tone up the awful! --Rezyk 23:21, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
In that case, why don't we just go with Guild Wars Wiki:Elections for now and elect another bureaucrat. Then we can actually see it action and tweak/scrap/fix it for the next rotation. If it goes well, we could even adopt it for sysops. -- ab.er.rant sig 00:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I've now put it up as a proposed policy. --Rezyk 03:43, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
The problem with "putting it up as a proposed policy", is we'll have to have consensus to adopt it, and right now there's just too much apathy to really make any consensus meaningful. So, just go talk it over with Biro, and make whatever into the interim policy. -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 03:51, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
But what would give us the right to do such a thing? And I would say it's meaningful if everyone who cares enough is okay with the proposal. Apathy is more of a problem when it results in too little work being done. --Rezyk 20:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Just leave it as a proposal for another day and two, then make it official if no one raised any issues. Any further discussions would just be theoretical and speculative. -- ab.er.rant sig 20:26, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Make it official already![edit]

With the huge influx of new users due to in-game access, shouldn't this be made official already? -- ab.er.rant sig 02:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Ale_Jrb (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. —Tanaric 18:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion necromancy[edit]

I've been going around to the stalled policy discussions to try and get some things moving again =\ Anyway, this policy seems to need only a couple things:

  • The RfA procedure has yet to be written.
  • While up higher, people seemed to support an RfA for all grandfathered sysops, I don't see anything saying that that would actually be done. We should probably decide on this (I'm very much for it, btw).
  • We probably need to change the RfB portion to just explain what a BCrat is, list current BCrats, and link to Guild Wars Wiki:Elections.
  • While we're at it, we should probably keep cracking at Guild Wars Wiki:Blocking policy. I attempted a necro on that one too, but I seem to have failed ;) Since that seems applicable to deciding who should be a sysop (due to limitations, it could open the field; sysops would be glorified janitors rather than moderators).

Thoughts/questions/concerns/snide remarks/death threats/ideas? MisterPepe talk 06:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In order:
  1. User:Rezyk is currently hammering out a draft RfA policy.
  2. I also completely support putting grandfathered sysops through an RfA process, as mentioned above. Once we have an RfA policy, I think all grandfathered sysops should put their name in the pool if they're interested in keeping the position.
  3. I added the link to elections and the current bcrat election. As far as removing other information, I'll wait for more input.
  4. Sysops are already glorified janitors, in general. I think application of blocks so far have been in keeping with whatever our blocking policy turns out to be. I'm not saying hashing out the policy isn't important, but it certainly isn't critical.
Tanaric 07:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Extension of terms for the next couple bureaucrats[edit]

We can't alter the terms for the current bcrat election, so I'm basing these dates on the new term coming up.

We've got six-month terms and three bureaucrats. This implies to me that a term should be ending every two months. It took us a while to replace me, so the current term dates are off. The new bcrat's term ends at the end of December 2007. Thus, when LordBiro's seat is put up for reelection, the term should be stated to end in February 2008. That means the term will go from August 1, 2007 - February 29, 2008, a period of seven months. Similarly, whoever gets Rezyk's seat should be in office from September 1, 2007 to April 30, 2008, a period of eight months. Once the terms are arranged in this manner, standard six-month terms result in an election every two months, which I think is what we want.

If we go this route, there's no need to add this to the policy page -- we just specify it when creating election pages for the next two.

Tanaric 14:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Staggering by 2 months makes sense, so not all bureaucrats are replaced withhin a small timeframe, agreed. --Xeeron 15:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-visit limits[edit]

Off-topic here ... but now that we're seeing more how this is going to play out ... to me, we really need to re-visit term limits. I would love to see some discussion on this once the current elections are over. A month long election process every two months means that the site will be in election process every other month - roughly 50% of the time an election will be in progress. This has great potential to become tiresome very quickly.
In my opinion, we need to either extend the terms to one year, so elections are every 4 months, or lump them together all at once. My preference would be to not risk 100% turnover in bureaucrats at one time (to maintain some stability), which bunching them together could risk a mass change. Another option would be to add a fourth bcat position, and stagger the elections so that two are elected at a time. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
We can also revisit election phase lengths after this election is completed. If 90% of the nominations occured within the first 3 days, we can reduce the phase to 3 days, etc. If we can cut the election process down to two weeks, I think that would also effectively solve this problem. —Tanaric 18:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Having the site notice up a few days earlier would also help if shortening the first phase. Get people prepared, and add leeway if someone is taking a short break. - BeX 04:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If we do that, we might as well allow nominations over the whole period. —Tanaric 13:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think letting people know in advance when there's an upcoming election really equates to having the nominations open for the entire time. If you have nominations for 3 days, and the notice of a pending election for 3 days before then at least people will know the start date, rather than showing up midway or missing out entirely. - BeX 13:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't a 4th bureaucrat cause the ArbComm to be at an even number? But I'd go for a longer term, just so we don't have to enter into elections every 2 months. -- ab.er.rant sig 13:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think four would be an issue - the policy currently reads "Additionally, the group of bureaucrats, as long as there are at least 2, form an arbitration committee" - so an ArbComm takes two to form - a third is only needed if the first two are deadlocked - the fourth could be a spare in case one is unavailable or withdraws themself from the discussion due to conflict of interrest or other reasons. We would need to define a means of determining which of the two remaining bcats would be selected (maybe based on seniority of current term) so that users don't hand pick the deciding bcat that they feel would be most sympathetic to their side. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I share aberrants concern about even numbered bureaucrats. With an uneven number we are asured there will be no deadlock, so we should aim for an uneven number whenever possible. --Xeeron 16:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My admin rights[edit]

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

This most certainly does not belong on this page -- this is probably an ArbComm issue, and no ArbComm contact place yet exists. I'm not sure I should still have sysop powers on the wiki. Current administrative policy suggests that a bureaucrat is not a sysop. When I lost my bureaucrat seat, I probably should have stripped myself of sysop permissions too. That said, I was grandfathered in, and, as I both a sysop and a bureaucrat on the GuildWiki, one could argue that even though I've lost my grandfathered bureaucrat status, I retain my grandfathered sysop status. I'm not sure which way this should go. If ArbComm wishes to handle this via their own channels, I am completely okay with that. If instead you'd like to make this a public matter, I'm okay with that too. I just want to make sure my sysop authority is legitimate. —Tanaric 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider this an ArbComm issue (as in requires the group to convene/decide as a committee), as it's more a matter of user rights rather than user conduct. It's up to any individual bureaucrat to make a correction to user rights if appropriate according to community decisions. Anyways, here's my interpretation:
You were grandfathered in as a sysop on February 7, and then grandfathered in as a bureaucrat a week later. At that point, there was no policy keeping the groups mutually exclusive, and you would be considered to have both "grandfathered sysop" and "grandfathered bureaucrat" status.
When the new mutual-exclusion policy came into effect, it effectively immediately revoked your "grandfathered sysop" status...but this is just a temporary revoking (as stated in the policy) and it even says explicitly that "any revoked sysop status is reinstated at the end of the bureaucrat term". So at the end of your term, your revoked grandfathered-sysop status was automatically reinstated, and that is what you hold now.
--Rezyk 22:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
In addition to Rezyk's sensible clarification, if your sysop status were to be revoked I would submit your RFA. Or, more likely, someone would beat me to it :P LordBiro 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

"Bureaucrats have some extra user rights, such as editing protected pages and viewing deleted pages, but are forbidden from executing page deletions/undeletions or user blocks/unblocks (although they may unblock their own account for arbitration purposes if necessary)."

So Bureaucrat's can't delete/undelete pages or block/unblock users? I want to make sure I know as much as possible if I do become one.--§ Eloc § 08:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it is at the moment. There was a small discussion on whether to remove the ability to block/unblock, delete/undelete from bureaucats here, but nothing conclusive yet. -- ab.er.rant sig 09:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Aberrant is correct; deletion/undeletion/blocking/unblocking are actions that should be carried out by sysops and not bcrats. At the moment they do have the ability to do this, but at least the ability to delete and block should be removed at some point. LordBiro 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh, you've stumbled onto the reason why I would decline a nomination for becoming a bureaucrat (if I were ever nominated). While bureaucrats technically have access to perform those tasks, the policy currently denies them the right to use that ability. The only things they are authorized to do is to promote/revoke sysops - but policy dictates much of that process, so bureaucrats are effectively community bots for that task; and to form an arbitration commity - an important task to be sure, but one which is rarely needed. Personally, I feel that I can make more day-to-day impact on the well-being of the wiki by being a sysop instead of being a bureaucrat (but that's just me). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it will be an easier job that Sysop.--§ Eloc § 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Barek put into words why I declined! His statement is a lot more descriptive than my "it sounds dull" lol... - BeX iawtc 03:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess the thing is that if some major stuff goes down then that's when the bureaucrats would have to step in. So it's probably the same as being a normal user 99% of the time but having to be the "tie breaker" could be stressful. If there was some major policy that the community couldn't decide upon and the sysops were up in arms and a decision had to be made a bureaucrat might have to step in there. Or a highly controversial user arbitration case where tensions are running high and no matter what the arbitration committee does is going to anger many people. Another thing they may have to decide upon is the desysoption of an admin, bureaucrats don't have to perform their duties as often as a sysop but when they do it might be for something pretty important.
This is just me but I think a bureaucrat should be someone highly respected amongst the community because they, along with Anet's staff are the ones governing it and have the final say on various issues. Even if policy says that these 3 people should be sysoped on this date, someone has to have their finger on the button and it's the bureaucrats that do. So they need to be trust worthy and assertive, what they say is final.
A bureaucrat should be eloquent and diplomatic, sometimes the decision itself doesn't really matter that much. If something goes to the arbitration committee, not banning anyone or banning one or multiple people for a short duration doesn't really change that much, it's the way the decision is handed out. A bureaucrat has to make sure they've listened to both sides, what the community has to say and be even handed. Those involved may not necessarily think the decision but hopefully people a left with the impression that the decision making process was fair to all parties.
The above is pretty obvious but an additional point is that I think it's important for a bureaucrat to be respected by the sysops. They're going to be making decisions on matters that have escalated beyond the sysops and a bureaucrat may have to overrule the initial sysop decision. This doesn't mean that a bureaucrat has to befriend all the sysops but a bureaucrat that isn't respected by the sysops is going to cause instability for the whole wiki. Similarly the bureaucrat team itself should also be able to get well too.
So in short a bureaucrat should be respected amongst all levels of the community, have a strong understanding of what's required for various decision making processes and have the capability to firmly hand down a judgement with aplomb. To me the big problem with being a bureaucrat isn't that it's boring (are people really applying for sysoption because it's exciting!?), it's the fact that it's a thankless job which can unexpectedly take up a lot of your time with something where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Biro must have a thanked for creating good icons to thanked for being a good bureaucrat ratio of 10 to 1! --Xasxas256 07:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but no matter who your are, your bound to be hated by one part of the community or another. For example, MisterPepe is hated by the Raptor Vandals. As for me, they Raptor Vandals tend to like me but some members here don't.--§ Eloc § 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Um... the raptor vandals are vandals... they are NOT part of the community... -- ab.er.rant sig 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Please also note that "liked" is an entirely separate issue from "respected". Certainly, some of the respected members of the community can have abrasive personalities at times that others may dislike, but they're still respected for their knowledge and hard work. - Tanetris 03:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I can state with some authority that being a bureaucrat often sucks. That said, just being a well-respected member of the community often sucks too. —Tanaric 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally there are times I feel just being sucks, but thankfully not that often.  :P Now this conversation has been completely hijacked... --Rainith 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"I think therefore I suck"? I concur! LordBiro 21:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Note to self, start quotes user subpage asap... Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbComm[edit]

Time to start sketching out a policy designing how the ArbComm will work, guys and gals. There's quite a few questions that need answers, answers which us at the ArbComm feel uncomfortable giving, as they should be up to the wiki and not us.

General process[edit]

Rezyk suggested this as a possible general outline of how the process should work, quoting him:

  1. Dispute starts.
  2. Someone asks for arbitration.
  3. Individual bureaucrats might issue temporary injunctions, as a purely preventative measure against the dispute getting much bigger during the potential arbitration case.
  4. Bureaucrats, as a committee, decide whether or not to accept the case. (requires a strict majority?)
  5. If accepted, we go through the hearing, get statements from both sides of the dispute, etc.
  6. Bureaucrats, as a committee, (and probably with some private discussion) decide what rulings to decree. Some rulings might only be favored by a strict majority but still pass.
  7. Sysops and regular users enforce the rulings as necessary.

Everyone alright with this?

Other points[edit]

  1. Should the discussion between bureaucrats happen on the wiki or via private email?
  2. If via email, how should the discussions be reported back to the wiki, summarized or complete transcripts (minus details which would be inappropriate, such as privacy concerns)?
  3. ...

--Dirigible 13:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The general process is ok. I think that the discussion could happen privately (e-mail, in game, ...) as long as a summary is posted to the wiki. -- Gem (gem / talk) 13:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The process looks ok. Regarding the questions, I'd agrue for discretion of the bcrat, since there is no way any non-private mail policy could be enforced. --Xeeron 14:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
If you'd rather hold the conversation on a publicly viewable page (which isn't always feasible), might I suggest using a full-protected page? Since BCrats have sysop power atm, they'd be able to edit it, we wouldn't have to worry about vandalism, and it would keep conversations on track. Just a thought. MisterPepe talk 19:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think conversations should be kept on-wiki as much as possible. In cases where real-time communication is preferable, a log of said conversation (with a nice summary, preferably) should be provided as soon as feasibly possible. As far as protection goes, I don't think it's necessary. We can revert occasional inappropriate edits like we do everywhere else. —Tanaric 09:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe there should be one impartial observer to log the conversation if it's in IM or in-game form, however I don't think that any more people than that should be present... as Karlos said himself, we're not into public floggings here. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I would tend toward structuring it such that all steps except #6 would generally go directly through the wiki, but also having a private medium between all members of arbcomm that can be easily used for the bulk of #6 (and also available in general) that is not transcripted. --Rezyk 21:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer a summary of whatever private (off-wiki) discussions that's been had. To me, since it's an arbitration, it doesn't really matter how the decision came about, I'm just interested in the conclusion. The whole transcript can be optionally posted if a bureaucrat wishes it, but the summary is the important thing, preferably having all the bureaucrats echo an agreement about the summary so that it doesn't look like it's just one bureaucrat posting a summary. -- ab.er.rant sig 03:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Resign sysop role[edit]

Not a big deal, but I hereby resign any status I have as a grandfathered sysop -- specifically, that which has been temporarily revoked while I serve as a bureaucrat. I expect that this means that whenever my role as a bureaucrat ends, I would effectively not be reinstated as a sysop unless I have an accepted RFA. In the meantime, I am continuing my role as a grandfathered bureaucrat.

This is just to cut down on the grandfathered roles hanging over our head. I suppose I could just submit an RFA for myself but it seems more appropriate to do so when sysophood would be useful to have on me. --Rezyk 01:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. —Tanaric 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Email[edit]

The sysop section said that I have to supply a "publicly reachable e-mail address or other means of private contact". Can someone clarify what that means? Does the wiki's "email this user" count? Or does it have to be something external to this wiki? -- ab.er.rant sig 01:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd assume that "e-mail this user" counts, unless we're still using that admin mailing list (in which case we should probably update that list somewhere). MisterPepe talk 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
To make the link more visible on my userpage, I added a link that's coded like this:
[[Special:Emailuser/Barek|E-mail Barek]]
That puts a link at the top of my userpage that reads E-mail Barek.
But, I haven't searched other sysop pages to see how everyone else is handling it. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've got the link on my sidebar, my user page, and my user talk page =P If anyone needs the actual address for something, I have no problem giving it out either. That e-mail user thing is great, but it won't work for a mailing list (if we're still using that). MisterPepe talk 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well it says for sysops it's "expected (but not required)". You have a far better chance of contacting me on my talk page than via email anyway. If I am on the computer, I'm checking the wiki! I already have the email this user set up and I'm planning on making it more obvious on my user page also. - BeX iawtc 03:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I set email up after becomming sysop, but unless it is private questions, I prefer contact via talk page. Easier, more convenient, checked more often. --Xeeron 11:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a clarification change[edit]

In light of the revelations on what quite a few of the more active contributors think about sysops, I feel a clarification of the role of a sysop is necessary. I would like to propose that the following paragraph be inserted into the section on sysops:

"Understand that a sysop's adminstrative duties do not confer additional rights or weight with regards to content contributions. When sysops are involved in content discussions, their opinions should be treated with the same weight as any other valued contributor."

Or something like that, feel free to help me reword it as necessary. I'm also wondering if putting up some general behavioral criteria of what is expected of a sysop might be useful (things like be responsible, patient, calm, etc.). -- ab.er.rant sig 05:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm and patient etc aren't required for the position. Again, even we're being confused here; sysopship is nothing but a set of tools. Anything beyond that clouds the true image of the janitorial nature of the job. -Auron 05:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That clarification sounds useful. --Xeeron 09:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

website democracy[edit]

wow guildwiki is setting up a real democracy! awsome! im totally into this idea. i think its great!-BuG-

Huh? What does the happenings in GuildWiki got to do with adminship?
PS: You use ~~~~ to sign. -- ab.er.rant sig 04:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)