Guild Wars Wiki talk:Executive sysops

Deletion

Wouldn't this make the deletion policy pointless? -- Gordon Ecker 00:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, instant-deletion of everything that sysop wants is imo too much power and against the principle of a wiki which actions are based on discussions. poke | talk 01:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

I'm okay with arbitrary blocks as long as they're only allowed for misconduct and have a reasonable time limit. -- Gordon Ecker 00:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not too fond of the idea...

I'm going to assume this is a way to evolve the discussion started here, so, while the policy itself isn't fully written, I would like to say my opinion about what is (or what I understood, at least : P) being discussed. I don't like the idea of giving a few select sysops more power than they already have, as opposed to going with the current system. I believe it's important for the community to be able to manage itself, with admin (be it bcrat or sysop) interference being kept to a minimal. If in one hand we end with sysops who are less powerful, I believe we end with a community itself that is stronger; one that does not rely on admins to solve a conflict, but rather is willing to talk and discuss with the member(s) who's causing conflict in order to reach a solution. This isn't a matter of "everyone has an equal say" - thankfully we don't use voting often here, so what matters is not the number of individuals behind an idea, rather the arguments of those who support it. Which means, experienced members of the community do end with a "higher" say - they are not capable of enforcing their opinion, but they are capable of talking and doing so based on good arguments. I think the wiki should aim at making said arguments as best as possible - and for conflict resolution, these arguments are often the policies we have here. With a good set of policies and a community who's decided to discuss problems within itself instead of just complaining to administrators, I believe the wiki is capable of solving most (the great majority) of problems it could have. It has done pretty much that, I think - looking through the last months, I see only a handful conflicts that have required admin intervention instead of just a discussion between the community (and weee, I was in one of those conflicts, joy >.>).

That, I believe, is far better than a system in which sysops actually rule. We would have as many "drama" problems as we have today, if not more, I think; instead of centering around a few trouble makers (that would find a way to make trouble anyway), it would center around those chosen as sysops. Giving free reign for interpretation opens a large room for different and conflicting interpretations; this would cause not only conflicts between the sysops and those who have been the target of admin action, but also discussion among the sysops as well, given how they would end with different opinions once in a while. Worse, we don't even have a reliable way to choose those sysops - voting has its problems, discussions are long and hard to extract a concrete result from, choosing admins to choosing admins creates a strong bias of who's in charge, and so on. Currently it's easy to choose sysops, and I think one of the reasons for doing so is how unimportant they are - voting has its problems, but the current RfAs work because those problems are acceptable in the context of how their result is not going to change the wiki that much.

There's also the problem of how more powerful sysops actually detract from the community solving the problems among itself. An user who feels insulted currently could go talk to the one who insulted him and then try to solve the conflict on his own, through discussion; but in a context in which sysops are powerful enough to do that role, an user who feels insulted would just go complain to the sysops and avoid dialogue. Much like children complaining to their parents, I feel this is an imature way to solve a problem - one that relies more on punitive action than on dialogue, and one that hurts more than helps the wiki.

(I know, I know, hypocrisy meter rising, but anyway >.>) I think the current system is good enough as it is. The few problems we have had beyond the scope of the community have been resolved (or are being resolved) through ArbComs, which are the "last resort" they were expected to be (at least IMO). I think it's too premature to ask for a change in the system given how the current problems are being solved, and that's even without an experienced ArbCom (as the wiki itself is still learning how the ArbCom is supposed to act). Erasculio 01:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I also wave to camels. Uh - I fully agree. With a working and experienced ArbCom I don't see many problems. But with such powerful sysops who can do nearly everything without discussing anything, which is - I believe - the base of a good working wiki, I see a lot of problems; even if the community fully trusts in those sysops.. poke | talk 01:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

While I think I get your point, this is a bit... well... not nice to read... Currently it's easy to choose sysops, and I think one of the reasons for doing so is how unimportant they are. I suppose deleting unwanted stuff, undeleting wanted stuff, and blocking vandals, spammers, bots is kinda unimportant... >.< -- ab.er.rant 17:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how I meant for it to sound, but you are right, it does sound kinda bad... I was trying to say "unimportant" not as in irrelevant - we all know the wiki would likely crash without sysops to keep everything clean - but rather that we don't have to worry about a completely flaweless way of choosing sysops. If the sysops were all powerful, we would need to be very, very careful when choosing one, given the damage they would do; as things are, the (slightly) flawed method is good enough. Erasculio 00:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(Let me try playing devil's advocate here..)

Regarding the community preferably going to "discuss problems within itself instead of just complaining to administrators", how will that work with the general issue of disruptive trolling? A user-to-troll or community discussion will generally just invite more trolling and no real resolution...then what? I imagine the really out-of-hand cases can be sent to ArbComm, but even that takes some time. And there will always be smaller (and possibly numerous) cases that are not even worth invoking ArbComm for; wouldn't it be better to be able to skip the bureaucracy and cut out the user frustrations right at the base?

There may not have been many big problems with this so far, but let's not dismiss the proposal on those grounds. We might end up going down our current path with the problem growing and growing, and then one day decide "we have to revamp our system from the ground up to deal with this". I don't want that. I'm not saying that we have to fully plan and policy up against every potential problem now, but if we can't see any other specific way to deal with excessive trolling well, it should be considered a solid advantage of this proposal. Let's avoid any simplifications of "okay so far --> no change plz" and "some problems --> scrap it plz" and, you know, accept that both ideals have their big pros and cons that we should weigh here.

For the issue of sysop conflicts, we have ways of dealing with those problems. Any sysop using powers poorly would be mitigated by reconfirmation and/or arbitration if necessary, especially if the usage is abusive. If 2 sysops or a sysop and user reasonably disagree, they'll usually be able to work it out themselves -- and in the rare case they don't, it can be decided by ArbComm. Sysop-choosing being easy is a false savings in comparison; the difference is whether to have more hard decisions/discussions during sysop choosing or during heated community problems.

--Rezyk 07:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the proposed arbitration and blocking policies are much better solutions. If both of those fail to deal with the problem, I think we should consider creating a moderator position with blocking and unblocking privileges and the authority to make short-term blocks (and long-term blocks in accordance with arbcomm rulings). -- Gordon Ecker 09:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion isn't exactly that we're doing ok so far, therefore no change is needed; rather that, as things are, giving sysops more power would, IMO, bring more problems than it would solve. I think the wiki has a huge advantage over other kinds of GW sites (like the fanforums) in that it actually has a true community; in fanforums we get a bunch of people with their own individualistic goals (which often won't go beyond raging against Arena Net), but that is not the case here. The majority of the contributors on the wiki have a single goal - to help build and improve the wiki. Conflicts arise here, yes, but often they are about (or among) users who are contributing to the wiki, instead of just being disruptive (or just trying to be disruptive). Those conflicts should be solved inside the community itself, IMO (I know, : P), as they are not among trolls; rather, among community members who have some kind of problem.

The wiki does have trolls, of course. But I believe those are the exception, rather than the rule; and even assuming all those cases would be dealt with through the ArbCom, I don't believe there is any need to change the current system just because that process would take too long. The ArbCom itself has recently been used for the first time; not only the bcrats themselves are still figuring out how to make the ArbCom to work (so I believe it will move faster, once the wiki becomes more experienced with that kind of thing), but the wiki also took this long to begin "officially" acting against the trolls, without any big problem for waiting to do so. I think part of that is thanks to how trolls may easily fit within the current policies (such as NPA), so sysops are already able to act against them, with the exception of those trolls who take their time to learn so well the policies that they are capable of walking on their fringes. I don't believe those cases will become too numerous that the ArbCom (an experienced one) would not be able to deal with them as they come. Erasculio 12:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the section in this proposal which reads "Individual sysops have the right to ... remove/delete/protect any content as they see fit." The sysops should follow the same content and content removal guidelines as all other users.

My opinion is that many of the issues brought up can be addressed by the statement "following the spirit of a policy is more important than following the letter of a policy". If a user violates the spirit of a policy while technically being within the fringe of not violating it, sysops should be permitted to act to either revert the bad-faith article edits or to apply short term blocks if appropriate (long-term ones should still require escallation to ArbComm).

This could also be extended by the statement "the good of the wiki is more important than any policy". If the community supports an action, even if it's technically in violation of a policy, that action should be given an exemption. If the community supports that action, it's a sign that the policy needs updated or removed.

Back to the proposal ... once this wiki upgrades to a newer version of MediaWiki, I could tentatively support giving Sysops the authority to apply short term article protections to articles that are the subject of repeated vandalisms over a relatively short period of time ... newer versions of MediaWiki give the option to apply a short-term protection that automatically expires after a specified period. Those protections can be set to apply to all non-admin users, or to only anonymous users, depending upon the source of the repeated vandalism. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Barek, good points and well explained. - anja 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Who decides whether on not a particular personal attack is removed? --Rezyk 06:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this serious?

Is this intended as a serious proposal or was it just created to spark a discussion about the position of sysop? -- Gordon Ecker 06:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't support it myself, but I did intend it as a serious way of trying to iron out already-existing proposals and continuing/centralizing the discussions on them. --Rezyk 07:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fail?

Time to reject this one?

1. It's dead.
2. Despite intentions, not taken seriously.
3. We seems to have (near) concensus for the janitorial system.

Backsword 13:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The write-up was excessively shitty. Saying this proposal failed means nothing; it failed because it meant nothing as a proposal. -Auron 01:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, tho' I doubt it. The solution would be to write a better one, then. 11:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)