Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election/Defiant Elements

Can you please explain in your own words how you see the role of bureaucrats on this wiki? What's their function here, their raison d'etre? Why do we go through the bother of electing bureaucrats so often and why don't they have the right to do administrative tasks? To be clear, I'm not asking if you agree with this state of affairs, but simply if you are aware of what are the intentions that have defined this role as it currently is.

You mention that "change must come from the top". Since this is the second time you're running for bureaucrat, and you haven't never run for sysop, I take it you see the bureaucrats as "the top". Why is that? What places them in such a high piedestal in your opinion? The fact that they can (de)sysop users as per the community's wishes or the fact that they are part of the Arbitration Committee? Or maybe something else completely?

I'll be honest, I'm worried that you misunderstand the current Bureaucrat role on the Guild Wars Wiki, and that though your efforts may be honest in trying to do good, they may be misguided if they are based on that incorrect assumption. But I'll let you answer the above questions first, and we can take it from there. --Dirigible 00:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, before I even attempt to tackle the more general question, why don't I answer some of the more narrow questions. So, why are elections held? And why are they held so frequently? Elections serve two purposes: first (and perhaps most obviously), they provide a means by which the community at large can check the Bureaucrats. Whether or not exigent circumstances exist to provide for the demotion of a Bureaucrat, elections ensure that a Bureaucrat who, for one reason or another, is found lacking will not remain in "office" beyond their short tenure (which also goes to why elections are held so frequently). However, beyond simply preventing "corrupt" or otherwise "bad" Bureaucrats from retaining their position, elections also serve to attempt to ensure that the "best" person for the job holds the office. While a particular bureaucrat may not have done anything wrong per se, there is a very real possibility that someone else would be better for the job. In such cases, elections allow the community to indicate who they believe is the "best" candidate, rather than merely whether or not the incumbent is a "bad" candidate. Finally, under the assumption that without elections, Bureaucrats would be nigh impossible to remove from office, elections provide a recurring, guaranteed method to, if necessary, replace Bureaucrats. All of which is particularly important given the immense authority granted to Bureaucrats by their role on the ArbComm. (Also note that I'm not positive to what degree -- with these more narrow questions -- you would like to see a more philosophical response versus a more practical response... although I suppose the two go together to some extent.)

The reason why Bureaucrats are denied Administrative powers comes back to the issue of checks and balances. Bureaucrats are (and this goes to your larger question to a certain extent) the final arbiters (not merely because of their role in ArbComm, but also because of their... perceived "clout" for lack of a better phrase). It stands to reason then that we would wish that Bureaucrats be completely rational... or perhaps I should say completely unbiased. Allowing Bureaucrats Administrative Privileges poses a threat, it allows for a scenario in which a Bureaucrat finds himself/herself in a conflict of interest as a result of his ArbComm authority (potentially allowing for both bias as well as abuse).

So now on to the larger question. Most immediately, Bureaucrats are members of the ArbComm; a last resort of sorts if you will, and a check to the Sysops. Following this train of thought then, their role is not to micromanage (either the Sysops or the community-at-large), but rather to provide a service when called upon to do so by the community. This is, I would argue, the most important aspect of the Bureaucrat, and, beyond their obvious value (i.e. people with the power to promote Sysops), their "raison d'etre" as you put it. They exist to ensure a proper system of checks-and-balances and to, to put it crudely, make decisions.

Why do I see Bureaucrats as being "the top"? Well, for a number of reasons. Most obviously are the two you pointed out, ArbComm and the promotion/demotion of Sysops. But I think my reasoning runs deeper. Whatever the precise nature of their role, Bureaucrats do a great deal to shape Wikis independent of their effective powers. Perhaps "leader" isn't the word I'm looking for, and I think that's borne out by my analysis of the purpose of Bureaucrats, but there is, as I stated previously, a perceived clout inherent in occupying such a position. In another sense, focusing solely on their role in ensuring checks and balances, Bureaucrats represent the... will of the people, concentrated into a single group. I'll be honest, it's something I'm having a great deal of explaining, primarily I would presume because it isn't something tangible like demoting Sysops, etc. I'll probably end up taking another stab at this a little later when I have more time. Either way, hopefully these answers will tell you at least a little about my views. *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(Assume I'm adding an "in my opinion" or "I think that" after every five words here. I don't want to get another message telling me to use those phrases more.)

As far as the promotion/demotion of sysops goes... isn't it true that it isn't the bureaucrat that decides who gets to be sysop and who doesn't? Isn't that the community's decision? Isn't the role of the bureaucrat in that process simply an interpreter's, of someone who's goal is to just see what the community consensus is and make sure it becomes reality? As I've said elsewhere, if anything, the bureaucrat is a check on the election system in this context, not on the sysops. Why is such a role more "the top" than being one of the guys who actually have useful extra user rights, and use them to keep the wiki working properly, even by blocking disrupters and vandals? Why is the clerk-ish role of bureaucrats more important? Simply because they get to press the "sysop"/"desysop" buttons whenever consensus tells them to, every once in a blue moon when there's a RfA going on?

As far as the ArbComm goes, I agree that it's an important role, and yes, in this case by design they serve a sanity check purpose towards all admins (both sysops and bcrats). However, it's a committee... It's never single bureaucrats playing this role (except as temporary injuctions). Would the role have the same importance if there were 5 members in the ArbComm instead, as it has been previously suggested if the number of cases should rise? What if that task was shared between 7 members? 9? At which point would being part of the ArbComm start being "No Big Deal" ? When would that "clout" be spread too thin and become insignificant?

I feel I need to directly contradict your statement "bureaucrats represent the will of the people, concentrated in a single group". They do no such thing. The ArbComm policy clearly points out that they speak for themselves and not for the community. After all, how could my opinions and those of Aiiane represent the will of the same community? How could Biro's opinions and yours represent the same people? Simple, they don't. We all speak for ourselves. During the last ArbComm case, that against Raptors, the community was still discussing giving him another chance, while the bureaucrats disagreed and proceeded to decide on a six month ban. It is very important for everyone to be clear about this. One entity representing the concentrated will of a wiki with 25 thousand users? It's just not going to happen, so don't expect it.

And now, the clout and the main reason why I'm going to vote against you in the election. Having such influence is unavoidable. I dislike that such influence exists, especially after the amount of effort that has gone into trying to keep this admin role limited within specific boundaries (that of the ArbComm on one hand, and of obeying to consensus for RfA decisions on the other). Unfortunately it still exists.

However, just because such influence exists, that doesn't justify actively taking advantage of it. I'm going to vote against you because I don't want a bureaucrat that purposefully tries to use the influence that bleeds from his role as part of the ArbComm to have an advantage over other editors in policy-making. The bureaucrat role on this wiki was written up explicitly to avoid them having influence over policies and content. Your plan of action goes directly against that. --Dirigible 12:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right when you say the number of edits are irrelevant. There are plenty of users who have tons and tons of edits who shouldnt even be an admin. So its not about how many you have, but really about earning the reputation and trust of the community for this role. I see no reason to trust you really. Not to say you are untrustworthy either. You just seem like someone who wants to change things to how you think it should be. For the elite to rule. I think that is very anti the community spirit that wikis are supposed to be about. This wiki runs fine for me and 95% of the other users I imagine. I dont see any major problems, nor need any change in the admin way of being. That is just my opinion but I still haven't been told of a single situation where the admin policy needs to be changed how you say it should be (meaning, how your change would prevent the problem when current policy wouldnt). Could your changes work here? Yep. But why change for the sake of change if things are pretty much fine already. I seriously think a person running for this position shouldn't be motivated mostly on the desire to change one very narrow minded aspect of the wiki. Especially when that person isnt really a part of the community in any shape or form except for this single issue. Its a tad odd really and I wonder what motivates that. But in the end this is the wrong place for what your goal is.--riceball 00:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As to reputation and trust, I have no answer, I'm in no position to answer those concerns to be honest. Whether or not an individual trusts me is an entirely personal choice, and I have no idea what my reputation is on this site. Now, your second point. I suppose that I come off as something of a one-issue candidate, the proverbial third party nominee. Do I think that change in some areas would be a good thing? Yes. And I think it's unfair to characterize me specifically in this regard, there is no such thing as an unbiased Bureaucrat as far as having some vision for the Wiki goes. Whether or not you agree with my views or not is an entirely different question. As to whether or not I believe the "elite should rule," while I have advocated increased discretion for Sysops and while I happen to have my doubts about elections, etc., from a philosophical standpoint, I don't think I've ever advocated removing checks and balances from this Wiki (although on a side note, the elite do rule to some extent, on this Wiki just like all others, the power of the people to check them notwithstanding, by elevating someone to an Administrative position, we proclaim them elite and give them sovereignty -- albeit limited -- over the Wiki). I suppose that I've earned something of a reputation in this regard (eg. my management style on PvX)... but rambling aside, let me try to get back to the questions you raise. The next point, about you not seeing any major issues strikes me as a simple disagreement, one which I won't try to debate, some people believe that no change is necessary (or that change would not be beneficial); I disagree, and that disagreement is too fundamental I think. I will say however that stagnation that results from apathy: "why change for the sake of change if things are pretty much fine already" is not a good thing. As to my motivations, yes, I'd like to see certain changes, but your view seems to ignore any other qualifications or motivations for the position, a desire to improve the Wiki (however that manifests itself) goes beyond any one issue. Whether or not you see me as a part of the community is another beast altogether, but either way, when you say "What motivates it?" I can naught but respond that I believe I have something valuable to contribute, and I think that's reason enough. Reading this post over I probably rant a bit too much... but, hopefully the message got across. Cheers. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add on a bit to this thread. Riceball says, "This wiki runs fine for me and 95% of the other users I imagine." I can understand that. I don't, however, understand your concern if that is the case. Someone like Defiant Elements coming to "power" and guiding the fine-tuning of the sysop system isn't going to change Joe User's interaction with the running of the wiki. It'll be the same for that perceived 95% of the people on the wiki. Most things work well. Only a few don't. Fixing a poorly-conceived sysop system (with too much emphasis on fear and mistrust of the sysops and bureaucrats) will not ruin any of the things that already work well; however, it will change the things that don't. Image policy, guild policy, user page policy, signature policy; all that stuff will remain unchanged. We just need to work on the stuff like making trolls unable to bend policy to their whim and hide behind specifically worded clauses while powerless sysops just look on and sigh. -Auron 14:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Auron, nothing concerning policy changes requires a bureaucrat to motivate or spur on a change. Policy changes are chosen by community discussion - Average Joe User is given the same weight as a Bureaucrat. If someone wants a change in policy, it requires the community (Users, Sysops, Bureaucrat, whatever) for reach a decision. The Bureaucrats don't even have the final say on whether a policy is finalised. If Defiant was willing to make a draft of what he thought was the perfect Sysop system on this wiki, I'm pretty sure that would have more impact on changing GWW:ADMIN than applying for the position of Bureaucrat would. This method may not be how you like it, but that's the way it is - again, it you want the Bureaucrats to have the Final Say, propose it for goodness' sake. (That's not to say I disagree with a "stronger" sysop system - in fact, I pretty much like Defiant's draft 2 on GW2W, but applying for this position is not the way to go about it.) -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While Average Joe User may technically have the same influence as a Bureaucrat, I'd still contend that a Bureaucrat has greater actual influence. That aside... I have been meaning to propose another version of ADMIN... *goes off to write.* *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perception is always greater than reality, especially here. Calor (t) 21:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

On another note... Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/Draft 2008-02-06. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This can be really simple. The main reasoning behind all this seems stem from chang in admin ability (sure you may have other issues too, but this seems like the big one). That admin's should have more freedom and basically go beyond a policy and do as they please. Will someone please give me one example where this extra freedom was necessary to deal with a situation that the current policy is not able to handle. Thats it. Just one tangible, real example. If you can't all this is smoke and mirrors.--riceball 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[1] See Auron's comment. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for at least pointing to something for me. I do have some problems with it, but it might be because im an idiot.

1.Auron says, "Me. I should have been blocked for trolling and NPA countless times. I was aware of policy, and my trolling was disruptive behavior."

-How is that a failure of admin policy? Do we not have an NPA policy? If someone didnt act on it, its a failure of the admins, not their ability.

2."Skuld. NPA and random outbursts. Taken to ArbComm because sysops didn't just block him. When one finally did, people bitched at him for it. That's a weakness in the system."

-Isnt this the same thing? This is a weakness of the people not the system? I dont know the details but it sounds like he should have been blocked, wasnt (should have been), finally was, people bitch about it (who cares if they bitch?). How is that needed more subjective power?

3."Karlos. Alienated a bunch of users, was disruptive in discussions (i.e., would target users and their views on totally unrelated pages, seemingly held a grudge against pretty much everyone, etc), broke policy a bunch (near the end) and was only blocked once (for 2 hours) for a minor violation."

-I actually read some of this stuff some time ago. I still dont see how this warrents subjective powers either. Karlos was being stupid and being a jerk. People should have controlled him, no one really did. Notice the "broke policy", its not policies fault people dont really pay attention to actually enforcing policy. Thats basically a black stain on ability of all admins, not their lack of power. Pattern im seeing with this so far, need better admins.

4."Erasculio. Endless trolling in countless policy discussions - started back with Karlos, hasn't stopped yet."

-I may be wrong, but isnt trolling regulated by policy? If not, how is that even possible? Trolling has existed since the formation of human civilization. Still see no need for subjective admin powers here.

5."Raptors. This one speaks for itself. He has danced around blocks for months exploiting loopholes in policy. Afraid of repercussions, nobody just banned him for being an asshat. Thus, he was allowed to take things as far as chasing Ryudo away. Outside of the blocks for NPA, he should have been blocked for trolling way earlier. Lemming64 had the right idea, but placed too short a block (too short by about a year)."

-What loopholes? I have read some about this person, and they to seem like a tumor. I dont see how this needs extra power. If they were trolling, being absuive, etc.. they should have been dealt with and again only point to a failure of the admin community and not the policy itself (at least until im told of these sepecific loopholes that were alluded to).

Conclusion: Admins need to get better, or be replaced with better admins. Policy doesn't seem to be a problem yet with any of this based on what this says to me so far. Perhaps I missed the point, if so, please make things clear for me.--riceball 23:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize in advance, because I don't have enough time to read through your whole post; however, looking at your conclusion at least, I'm inclined to say this: when it comes to the ADMIN policy as it is now, the primary problem is that while policy (if interpreted in a specific manner) would have justified the Admins to ban users in the cases listed above, the current ADMIN policy allows strict literalism, such that, even in cases where the ban is warranted, it's remarkably hard for Admins to actually use their powers. I'll try to explain this more clearly when I get a chance... but I'm in the middle of something at the moment. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that is whats tripping me up. Because any policy has its literal meaning which gives rise to its spiritual meaning. The spirit of the policy is based off of what it literally says. A policy about NPA or trolling does not need to list specifically every type of NPA or trolling event. Its a rather common sense thing, trolling is trolling. You know it when you see it. I am willing to bet a policy of this nature is usually about context as well in how its applied. That if its a really awful troll or NPA, they get banned quick. If its somewhat more gray or minor you warn first, and if they keep it up ban then then. I dont mean to say policy is absolutely literal. But saying one goes beyond policy is to mean to goes beyond its actual spirit to me. And I simply do not agree with that notion, but thats me.--riceball 23:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the blockee does not realise (or chooses not to recognise) the spirit and clings to the literal. But I have a feeling this belongs on ADMIN and not on a bureaucrat candidate page. -- Brains12 \ Talk 23:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also wanted to add, Auron did mention with their own words "broke policy" a handful of times in that post. So I am still under the impression this is an overall failure of the admins, and not the admin policy. And I dont think this will make any difference over in ADMIN, I think enough people have already said they dont agree with me for it to not matter :P--riceball 23:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it broke the spirit of the policy. The literal, however, is not the same. I am pretty sure Auron uses the former context. Changing the admin policy allows admins to cover both aspects and for any action to be respected and expected.-- Brains12 \ Talk 23:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You would think it should be worded differently then. That you still are not going beyond policy, but actually living up to the common sense meaning behind the policy.--riceball 23:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Common sense is relative. Blocking a troll, from an admin's perspective, is common sense. From the perpective of the troll, trolling is not covered in any policy in a literal sense (and as someone has mentioned on the new policy draft, a new proposal takes donkey's years to be implemented) and so the admin is breaking ADMIN. Some will agree with the troll, some with the admin. Drama, argument ensues. Nothing effective happens because some people have different views on what policy is and isn't. Improving an admin policy to include that the admin can indeed block for he thinks (and is allowed to think) is harmful to the wiki takes away confusion and allows time to be spent on improving the wiki, not arguing about what is policy and what isn't.-- Brains12 \ Talk 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually dont feel that way really. I think trolls even know they are being trolls. They do also travel in packs and tend to support each other in that "drama" they may cause. But just because they have people agreeing with them does not make them valid or correct. Common sense of what a troll is isnt that subjective. Let the trolls bitch about it, let the community say "um, no, your wrong troll" and call it a night. Cant let common sense be run by the prisoners. And I still dont think you need anything more than the spirit of the policy to do this, not beyond the policy.--riceball 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Conclusion: Admins need to get better, or be replaced with better admins. Policy doesn't seem to be a problem yet with any of this based on what this says to me so far. Perhaps I missed the point, if so, please make things clear for me." You did. By a mile.

The admins are fine, for the most part. I trust their ability to use discretion (with the exception of one or two of them), however, consensus was against me; every time an admin would try to enforce the spirit of the policy, they'd get bitched at. They were made to fear the community's retribution for blocking based on discretion.
You pretend like it would have been a small deal to just block one of the users I listed; that couldn't be farther from the truth. If Joe Admin blocked me for my borderline NPA (or blocked instead of a fiftieth warning), he'd have quite a large number of people whining at him; not really defending my actions, but complaining because they don't understand why the admin did it and partly because they're scared a long-time (some would even say "respected") contributor got banned.
It's a scary thought for some, but the huge movers and shakers (while theoretically subject to all the policies Joe User is) get a much lighter treatment than usual. It isn't necessarily bad or evil, it's just the way small wikis work. You would be intensely disliked (and eventually made to feel unwelcome) if you went around, as a sysop, banning all the long-time people based on "policy violations." Sure, they broke policy; a ban isn't totally out of the question. However, you'd have to be either incredibly thick or incredibly apathetic (to the point of stupidity tbh) to go around banhammering people with no regards to their standing in the community or to the reaction of the community at large.
It would be foolish to pretend that the word of a policy could be nearly as effective as the spirit. Words are manipulated by every person that reads it; people generally call it "wikilawyering" when you try to bring up specific clauses to defend against a ban. By that time, you've read the policy and are either A. too damn retarded to comprehend it, at which point a ban wouldn't go totally amiss; or B. a troll, and are actively trying to dodge the spirit of the policy by bringing the words in to defend yourself.
Enforcing the spirit of policy was something this wiki was scared to do - from the beginning. People were too focused on policies being the end-all solution, when all it took was a troll with higher-than-room-temperature IQ to really stir shit up. Closing loopholes shouldn't be the focus of any policy write-up. Closing loopholes is a job for the sysop team, clamping down on each "loophole" by upholding the spirit of the policy in each separate case.
That aside, it was by no weakness of each individual sysop that their system was a failure; the failure was the weakness in the policy that granted them power. The userbase had some kind of trip where they forgot what the entire damn Bureaucrat position was for, and basically reduced their "theoretical" powers to nothing while ignoring the fact that every person in the community looks up to them for advice and guidance. The age-old Bureaucrat responsibility of promoting suitable admins was thrown out the window as a plain "democratic" vote was implemented; failure all around.
Again, it was no fault of any single admin that the above cases were allowed to continue as long as they did. It was the fault in the policy that reduced them to mindless drones - and in the mindless drones that zealously supported said policy, so much so that the admins lived in fear of carrying out the spirit of the policy over the word of the policy. -Auron 08:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But you know, "Cant let common sense be run by the prisoners." is probably the wisest thing I've heard on this wiki in awhile. -Auron 09:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

DE, I posted some questions for all candidates at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election#Questions for candidates. --Rezyk 23:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done my best to answer; if I misunderstood the intent of a question, feel free to correct me. *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I generally like you and what you stand for, DE, but I dislike the use of the bureaucrat role (or any position of respect) as a tool for making yourself heard. I can't in good conscience support your candidacy. —Tanaric 05:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. - BeX 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with that. -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)