User talk:Anja Astor/Adminship

Adminship, policies and community

Over the last month(s), we have had quite a stir in our community, with bigger and smaller outbursts of e-drama. Some bad, some good, of course. These also brought some light upon loopholes and bad wordings in our policies, which made me reread and reconsider most of the policies I thought I knew the spirit of, at least.

As an admin, I have felt like I'm standing in a middle ground. We have one part of the community hating our policies, one loving them. One part is accusing the admins of not doing what they are supposed to, while another part is claiming they're doing it too much. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" comes to mind. This would all be alright if I felt I had policies backing me up in what I do. But I don't. We actually have alot of leeway in interpreting the policies, but not a leeway in acting. Which means, if I read a policy "the wrong way", I have a mob telling me I'm a bad person. Which often leads to a discussion about the policy (good), but also alot of mud-slinging. It may just be me, I may be overly sensitive, but it is very stressful.

This has made me reconsider my position as sysop. I don't feel supported by community, nor policies. I can't act without being afraid of what kind of mud-slinging I might cause now. This is not a good thing for an admin, in my opinion.

This is not meant as a drama good-bye-letter, I'm not leaving, and I'm not resigning until I feel nothing else can be done. But the spirit and general feeling of the community is making my time here stressful, and this is supposed to be fun. That's why I felt the need to post this. Also, if you feel pointed out, I want to apologise, it is not the intention. - anja 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

but we need you, anja :( what made you feel like the community's against you? - Y0_ich_halt 14:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mainly Guild Wars Wiki talk:No profanity and Guild Wars Wiki talk:No trolling and the related discussions that followed. - anja 14:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

well... i kinda agree with you. afterall, i think many policies are kinda overkill. imo policies about behavior are just useless anyway, you won't be able to look after everyone keeping them on a growing wiki like ours. sysops should be chosen after their knowledge of both gw and social life, and then get the right to freely ban/block/delete/change/whatever someone/something they see is not quite nice. but let's talk about that tomorrow. i'm writing a class test and it's 23:30 here, so, ya, good night :) - Y0_ich_halt 21:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I know how you feel Anja, I don't know what else to say though really, apart from you're not alone, and hopefully the sysops can support each other with tricky decisions. It is most discouraging when someone starts raging at you for doing something wrong, instead of explaining the thinking behind the "mistake" to further the knowledge of everyone. --Lemming 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lemming. I think this is the worst part of this problem - instead of raging against someone, I wish we got a discussion in place to finally set what the limits on the policies are. But that's not what's happening, so someone who made a "mistake" today (and I use "mistake" on the loosest meaning possible here) could do the same thing tomorrow as no discussion is in place to set the policies in line. Unfortunately, I think Anja was wrong when she stated that "Which often leads to a discussion about the policy (good), but also alot of mud-slinging" - right now all I see is mud-slinging, with a quickly dismissed sketch of a discussion happening before it. Erasculio 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Yo, selecting sysops on that ground and being able to rely on them sounds like a dream world. :) I just think it's hard to get a community as big as this to trust one person that much. Which probably is why we are so restricted.
Lemming, I hope the sysops (and users) can support each other, without being accused of forming an "in-group". Atm I get the feeling every try to make friends is seen as a way to form groups to be able to prove your point better in a discussion. :/
As you say Erasculio, nothing really happens with policy. I don't feel I can accuse everyone else for not changing policy, though, since I'm not doing much to help it myself. Partly because they often end up in mud-slinging, and less constructive discussions. I don't know where all this negative attitude and spirit comes from, or if it's common in every online community, but it is stressful. :( - anja 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anja; the worst thing to do in situations like these is to feel like everyone is against you. Something you take as harmful can have the most innocent of origins, and when I get stressed I find that it helps to think about that. You'll also find in communities like this that, when it really comes down to it, no one really dislikes you personally. Sure, you might not always get along, but because no-one really has a reason for not liking anyone else, one generally finds that talking about it can make you feel better, even to the person you are having the issue with; it's better to get things out into the air.

There's something else you mustn't do: take the most vocal opinion to be the most supported opinion. Just because there is a 'mob' saying you did something wrong doesn't mean that most people agree with them, it just means that the people who do are posting. Take comfort, if there is any to be taken, from the fact that there are loads of people who don't have enough of an issue with it to comment :).

I'm a moderator over on the RuneScape Forums: a team of around 70 mods policing a forum that gets over 1.5 million posts per week from a userbase of several tens of thousands... and an average age of about 10. With so many users, you get some that are just unkind - and I know that it can be really stressful. I've had personal attacks of all types, from general insults to people stalking me around the internet saying I should kill myself because I'm such a failure at life (O.o). Whatever the situation though, the important think is that you don't let it get you down. You're a great sysop who I have the utmost respect for, and I bet loads of people do as well. If you feel overwhelmed, go sit with the people who are happy to support you until you feel up to facing the world again.

We expect you at work 9AM sharp tomorrow! ;) Ale_Jrb (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it's a 24-hour job? :p well, as Ale said, I'd be happy to sit with you, not physically of course, since that would entail an expensive flight ticket ;) -- ab.er.rant 03:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the things I tend to forget, Ale_jrb. Just because one group is more vocal, they aren't majority. What I have felt here is not a dislike for me personally, but a part of the community disliking the admin base in general. What's been hard is to stop and actually think realistically how big that part is, and how serious they are about what they say. As things easily get a bit heated when you are discussing personal preferences. :P
It's very encouraging to know that people I get along with are honest enough to actually tell when something is wrong, and when it's not. :) - anja 14:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) one of the nicest discussions i've ever read on a wiki. now i can go mud-slinging again! ;) - Y0_ich_halt 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't that hard to trust someone to use their head. Like Dirigible said on one of the GWiki RfAs: "Good god, we're not marrying the man. This is just about a sysop position."
Anything done by a sysop can be undone. If we give a sysop free reign and he abuses it, he can be demoted/blocked, his edits can be reverted, his deletes can be restored, and whoever he blocked can be unblocked. And that's aside from the fact that none of that will ever be needed, because no sysops in the history of GuildWiki, PvX or this wiki have ever gone rogue.
GuildWiki's admin system is about a thousand times better than this wiki's. The biggest mistake on this wiki is stripping the once-powerful sysop position into nothing more than a mindless drone job. User pages were pretty screwed up in the beginning, but those were rectified. Now we need to fix the same type of problem for sysops; overzealous restrictions placed by well-meaning (but flat wrong) contributors. They screwed up terribly, but we don't have to make their wrong decisions permanent. -Auron 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you undo someone permanently leaving the wiki because they've been wrongly blocked for a week? (Not really the place for this, but...) Backsword 00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That has never happened. We can play what-if games with fake scenarios all day, but in reality, sysops don't go rogue and ban people for no reason. If someone has been wrongly banned by a crazy admin (in the last minutes of his adminship), they'd be stupid to leave the wiki forever because of it. -Auron 01:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems I have with powerful sysops is that, while an action may be changed easily, an idea takes more work to change. Someone who's a sysop and who believes he's a leader (as is seen sometimes with the more powerful sysops) is free to press the community into doing whatever he wants, using both the status of his position and the raw power under his command to force his opinions. Using an example (a "good" one): Tanaric's idea about wipping the builds section on GuildWiki. A brave decision, one I completely agree with, and one that wasn't even done by the "sysop", rather by the "user"; but I don't believe it would have been accepted by the community without the idea that the wiki has "leaders", and that those leaders, who are also the admins, have more say than everyone else. That's a mentality I don't like, and one I don't want here; I would rather have a community struggling to lead itself than having someone who thinks he's allowed to speak for us all taking charge. Erasculio 01:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sysops are leaders, but that doesn't change consensus-driven decisions wiki wide. The community's word on a matter is still very important (hence why Cory waited over a year before deleting the builds section; he waited until he was sure the community was too inept to solve the problem themselves). If sysops were as gung-ho as you make them out to be, the Builds section would have disappeared *much* faster.

The builds wipe wasn't just Cory's idea (in fact, I remember suggesting it publicly in December '06). The wipe was born out of a year or more of complaints from the vast majority of the long-time editors who just wanted to end the edrama; certainly not a Cory-going-vigilante-as-a-sysop deal. When it became blatantly obvious that the community needed a leader, Cory stepped up and fulfilled his role.

The major thing that you're missing is this; in a solely community-driven wiki, if the community is wrong, who will make things right? Cory described his job as just that - when the community was wrong, it was his job to make sure the right thing happened anyway. On a leaderless wiki, if the community is wrong (userspace restrictions, sysop powers, RfAs), nobody is there to fix it; nobody is there to ensure the wiki doesn't get fucked up.

GuildWiki flourished for years with powerful sysops; and sysops didn't guide the majority of the content discussion (unless they happened to be interested, as a user, in the matter at hand). Bexor and others re-worked the entire armor section, Defiant Elements, Rapta and others helped to (try to) restructure the builds section before it fell out of hand, and the skill box/template discussions were driven by non-sysops. If you think the sysop leaders were too powerful, chew on this; Karlos vehemently disagreed with skill page templates (as he's linked), yet they happened anyway. If he was as dangerously powerful as you feared, he would have just forced his decision through. As you know, however, he didn't; he respected the community decision.

Powerful sysops are not a problem. They have never abused their powers directly or abused their status to scare people into agreeing with them. All of that theory-craft of "they might become a problem" fails in the face of logic and empirical evidence to the contrary.

And... have some faith in your Bureaucrats. You elect them, it's their job to ensure sysops don't go rogue. All this restricting sysops bullshit is just saying we're unsure of our elected "leaders." -Auron 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Auron brings up some of the core problems, for me. Alot of people expect us to be GuildWiki sysops (because they think that role is better or are just used to them), but we are not allowed to be GuildWiki sysops.
And apparently, it is hard to trust someone to use their head, since we don't do that here. :/ Maybe we went the wrong way with the sysop role, maybe it's great. I don't know. It is stressful though.
About leadership, some users will always see the sysops and bureaucrats as leaders, no matter what role we actually give them. And some users will never see them like that, I don't think we can do anything about that Backsword. - anja 10:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(Most of the) Sysops here do a good job at what they're expected to do; enforce policy to a T, applying little to no... thought. Either something is against policy or it isn't, and when it isn't, they really have no choice but to wait and hope the ArbComm does something about it two months later.

That is the problem. The job we want our sysops to do is, basically, stupid; definitely not something we want to invest time or people resources into doing. The ArbComm is a great resource, but it should be mostly reserved for user disputes and arbitration; not for everyday stuff that would be much better solved by a sysop. -Auron 13:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

May be it's just me, but the GWW community looks a bit hermetic for the outside observer. In many content discussions most comments are from sysops. So you get the feeling that they're the most active users, and that the wiki is practically run entirely by this group of less than 10 people, all with admin powers. Now, GuildWiki admins are all well-known users who are already leaders of some sort for the community, so you feel you know these people, you feel they are humans like you. Here at GWW it's hard to get your voice out, you get kind of afraid of contributing due to the policy obssessed ambient. I mean, probably one of the first messages you'll get in your GWW talkpage will be a sysop with a GWW:SIGN stamp disapproving your signature. That's not motivating. I think GWW it's too impersonal and needs to loosen up. Sysops should let things be and let the wiki grow first. We can all clean up later.reanor 05:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed hermetic, and the wiki is afraid of people breaking the mold.

On GuildWiki, the admin base was different enough (varied not only in opinion but also in style of presentation) that, although all admins acted in the best interest of the wiki, each of them went about it so differently it didn't feel like a closed operation. Here, on this wiki, the predominant feeling/style is carebear-ship; though that wouldn't be bad in and of itself, it is very detrimental to the wiki considering the lack of any other kind of sysop attitude. Way back in the day, Skuld was the bad cop; before and after his demotion, Gares and Rainith wasted no time telling idiots (and trolls etc) to shape up or shove off. Xasxas, Biro and (more recently) Gem existed as the carebear patrol; an equally valuable "side" of the sysop team. The wiki would never have flourished if one of those sides wasn't present.

This wiki, via bad policies and userbase ignorance, has shut out the bad cop (or even mildly strict, but still likable cop) role, and thus has crippled its potential. A lack of sysops with balls enough to tell trolls to go /wrist, tell dickheads to grow up and ban vandals fast and hard really makes this sysop team lack.

That problem is, basically, two-pronged; the policy and the current sysops (and Bureaucrats, by extension) are equally at fault for this failure in the system. The strict adhere-to-policy requirement as expected of sysops destroys their ability to block trolls (by personal discretion, naturally) for trolling (which is, in the end, something they should be blocked for); whilst the expected carebear response of the current sysop team prevents any one of them from stepping out and telling a troll off for fear of chastisement from his own peers. All in all, a very unhealthy situation for the wiki.

As it is, those two problems need to be rectified at the same time. Both the strictly-by-the-book method of sysophood and the overly-dominating carebear style of dealing with problems need to be abolished simultaneously; doing one significantly earlier than the other will create a confused sense of chaos until both have been set into place.

To explain the carebear/badcop balance further... neither style should be more prevalent than the other, but both should be visible. The carebears can suggest taking a calmer approach if a badcop really stepped over the line; if the badcop didn't, the carebear would be overstepping his bounds to suggest cooling down. And vice versa. If a carebear is giving too many chances, it's part of the badcop role to step in and lay the hammer down; and again, if the badcop acts too early, he would be in the wrong.

However difficult it may look on paper, it happens pretty naturally. For example, I didn't agree on Gem's methods of dealing with people; but unless I saw someone totally walking over Gem, I wouldn't interfere. I doubt Gem agreed with my in-your-face method of dealing with people, but again, he never got in the way unless I crossed the line. That is how the perfect sysop team complements each other and makes the wiki secure (even against the obviously-feared sysop power creep). -Auron 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: me waving the banhammer/vote removing tool/delete button seemingly without stop over at PvX, verses DE giving out warnings and such before acting. Think equilibrium in chemistry. Armond 08:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Would making a third role on this wiki, between bcrat and sysop, solve anything or just make it more complicated? Like this, we would have sysops for everyday spam bot blocking and trivial deletions (like we do now), and a middle role for handling trolling, things between policies etc but not serious enough to really need the month long evaluation that arbitration from bcrats may take. And then bcrats for the more complicated/serious cases. This middle role would be given alot more discretion, and I guess they would come closer to the sysop role on GuildWiki. - anja 15:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

that sounds very nice to me. but also kinda fantastic like what i said in my first comment :) - Y0_ich_halt 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds amazingly like a sysop's job =\ Armond 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because they are called the same doesn't mean they have to be exactly the same, right? The most important thing is to get something that works for each community? I'm not saying a middle role is the best way to go, I just don't want it ruled out because "that's a sysop on GuildWiki/PvXwiki". :) - anja 20:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Anja, your suggestion sounds a lot like what was discussed on the Executive sysop policy draft. Erasculio 20:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, we should actually create a "janitor" role instead and use the term "sysop" for the middle level :D -- ab.er.rant 03:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I don't really think a third position is necessary. If a sysop is uncomfortable laying down the hammer on a troll, s/he doesn't have to; as long as he stays out of the way of whoever does lay down the hammer, everything will be fine. -Auron 04:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant that sounds like what a sysop should be. Armond 04:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we just get along and love each other :D?reanor 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish we all could, Ereanor, but when we don't, and thinks get ugly, ArbComm is there. I've been watching this whole discussion progress from the sidelines, and I've picked up on a few things. Firstly, a lot of people sympathize with Anja (I do too, just for the record, having read the whole No Profanity discussion), and a lot of people miss the goodcop/badcop admin system of GuildWiki. In my eyes, at least, we're just sitiing here bickering and reminiscing. But the admins, for the most part, run the wiki. Everyone here in the discussion is acting like the admins are just another role on the wiki, but a bit higher in this e-society of ours. So, instead of having our leisurely discussion and Friday night drinks here, why not do something. The community, in general, is getting used to the sysop role played here now, of "glorified janitor". That wasn't the way on GuildWiki. So start acting like it was on the old wiki. Don't send disagreements to ArbComm simply because it's a user disagreement. If an admin can think of a way to resolve it, then type it up and resolve it. Don't bundle it all up and put it on ArbComm's doorstep. If someone's is trolling the wiki (Readem and Raptors come to mind, but I'm sure better examples exist), instead of having our epic and wonderfully long discussions, just give the troll one chance and say "You're not helping. If you want to help, shape up or ship out!" If the person continues, give the troll a three month ban. Don't have a long discussion on moral and reasoning and ethics. To use the old phrase, shoot first and ask questions later. If you make a bad decision, you're not going to be burned at a stake. AFTER solving the initial problem can we all discuss morals and ethics and reasoning. Calor - talk 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

QFT. Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. -Auron 22:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything an admin can do, another one can undo. Delete a page by accident? No problem, just restore it. Accidentally ban someone? Unban and apologize. Click the rollback button by accident? Hell, you can even rollback yourself if another user doesn't get to it first.

A bureaucrat with a bot ragequitting a wiki, however... but that's why we only appoint bureaucrats we trust. Just like sysops. Armond 06:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely true. Even a bureaucrat can't bring back an editor who decided to no longer contribute to the wiki because of the actions of another editor. That said, that's not necessarily restricted only to sysops. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That, Aiiane, is quite possibly the weakest argument against free-reign sysops I've ever seen. I'm sure people like to play theory games with what might possibly happen 0.000001% of the time, but in reality, sysops don't go rogue and... I dunno... offend someone to the level where they leave the wiki. Any user can (theoretically) do that, not just sysops. Should we take away every user's ability to post on talk pages as to reduce the chance that one might flee the wiki because he got offended? It sounds stupid when I bring up the user thing, but it's the same logic you're using by arguing that powerful sysops pose a threat by chasing people away. -Auron 00:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"That, Aiiane, is quite possibly the weakest argument against free-reign sysops I've ever seen." - which is probably why I'm not using it to argue against free-reign sysops. I'd just rather point it out before someone else does attempt to use it to argue against them. Note the last sentence in my comment. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"This has made me reconsider my position as sysop. I don't feel supported by community, nor policies. I can't act without being afraid of what kind of mud-slinging I might cause now. This is not a good thing for an admin, in my opinion."

So... thinking about resigning? Hurry up and do it already. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

Much as I hate this idiot (I'm sorry, I know it's NPA, but I feel strongly about this...) this is a perfect example of what I mean. Stuff like this would earn you a ban on GuildWiki or PvXwiki. Here, he's not perma-banned because policies prevent it. Armond 07:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. There is nothing in the current policies that prevents him from being blocked for a long time. He was blocked for massive violation of NPA and since we currently do not yet have a blocking policy, the length was entirely at he discretion of the sysop. Also, stop violating NPA, it does nothing to help this discussion or your point of view. --Xeeron 12:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So, teh cursed angel herd u liek raptors --Cursed Angel 16:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To Xeeron, there shouldn't be a blocking policy. Somebody on the policy talk page said (paraphrasing) that if some crazy vandal is running rampant on the wiki, nobody should have to go through red tape checking policies to make sure they get the right blocking period applied to the block while the vandal is having all the fun in the world on the articles. Just block, and argue later. And to Armond, I know how you feel (about things like that, not specifically Raptors's post). Something like that wouldn't occur on the other wiki, because of respect for power and the potential punishment. Calor - talk 19:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So, there isn't one, according to you it should work fine atm then? --Xeeron 22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No policy, but more of a guideline, and of course common sense. Obviously, a mild NPA violation may warrant a one day ban, not a three month ban, but somebody creating spam pages and posting links to spyware-filled sites should obviously be blocked for more than one day. Calor - talk 22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be a policy. Sorry, but its a no-no for me that you can get a different length ban for the same offence depending on who blocked you and what kind of mood they're in. Policy is a must, IMO. Ale_Jrb (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see people who destroy like 10 pages and then get blocked for a day or two, they only use their ip number and there are loads of them, they should be banned forever. Also i see people who argue about that NPA thing all day long while having conversations, they are just lame and think theyre more mature than others, who the hell cares, i do not. (i said hell instead of f**k because otherwise i would break your NPA.) --Cursed Angel 23:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This wiki needs to start playing a different campaign. Loosen up, guys!

reanor 00:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ereanor wins the thread.

Also, Cursed Angel, if you said "who the fuck cares," you would not be violating NPA. -Auron 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ereanor easily wins the thread. I suppose I'm outnumbered in policy vs. no policy, at least on this talk page, so I'll simply secede. No need to start the "mud-slinging". But on the blocking policy page, Xeeron, you yourself brought up the points of variation of blocks, and admin habits. I absolutely agree. I want blocking to be standardized, but the one thing I was worried about is that an admin may "overkill" by a week or few days on the block and a ten-page long argument ensues on somebody's talk page, and the "mud-slinging" gets started again. Nobody wants that, so originally I believed that we should steer clear of any policy about blocking or admin-only duties. But the more I look at it and read discussions, I see that a guideline to help admins make decisions on blocks would benfit those admins. Calor - talk 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

At the moment there is a policy and a guideline about blocking being worked on to exist in tandem. If you want to state your opinions on them you should do so there! And as for infinitely banning IP addresses, for non-static IP users, it would suck if you showed up to the wiki and were banned from blocking because some bot used your IP to vandalise. NPA violators are always more serious than vandals, because vandalism can be reverted by anyone in two clicks (one for a sysop) but behaviour that drives other editors away can't be undone. - BeX 03:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Aye, the discussion did kinda get out of hand here. I've made my point, and there's the blocking guideline proposal in place. Time to relax a bit. .. 03:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What has occurred to me while reading and discussing here, is also that I never felt comfortable in the GuildWiki community. This may well be because I joined late and never got to know people. This may also be since I'm a person that likes to know what should and should not be done, and GuildWiki has significantly less of that written down. It's more of "learn as you go", which makes more insecure people like me feel uncomfortable. So, just copying GuildWikis style of leadership and policies would definitely not be the best solution either, imo. I'd say much of the policies made here from the start was a reaction on what people felt went wrong over at GuildWiki (and what was right was mostly copied. Obvious statements, no? :P)
What is good for this community? There must be reasons some people went to this wiki, and some people stayed with GuildWiki. Are we trying to merge these two communities "against their will" or are we building two different ones? - anja 14:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

They are already different, way different. I am not the same contributor here that I'm at GuildWiki, and since I don't have multiple personalities, that's gotta be just a case of same genes, different ambient.reanor 16:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Anja there, I think that a bit of it has to do with just being new to a wiki. I'm sure new editors here feel just as intimidated when they see GWW's core group of editors. The members of those core groups being sysops is the same with both wikis — generally those who contribute more care more about the health of the wiki and thus want to volunteer to do even more. It was just that the atmosphere at GWiki is kind of like a sysop can do a lot more to you and your contributions than a GWW sysop here could (not that a GWiki sysop would do anything, but it was scary nonetheless). - BeX 07:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why have a blocking policy or a blocking guideline? Promote people you trust, trust them to do their job. That's what the entire discussion is about. If you promote people and then tell them exactly how to run their jobs, what kind of a promotion is that? Hell, just promote everyone in that case...

As for "NPA violators are always more serious than vandals, because vandalism can be reverted by anyone in two clicks (one for a sysop) but behaviour that drives other editors away can't be undone" - let's stick to what actually happens in the real world, please. Armond 09:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not promotion. It's 'entrusted with extra tools'. This wiki is intentionally run without "leaders". So, yes, we can make everyone we trust a sysop. Backsword 11:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true, admins are just users with a batbelt, real social power comes from and feeds leadership and trust, among other sources. The scary feeling wich I talked about before, and Bexor remarked, is a real problem, a problem that can be solved if we trust in these users with extra tools. It's not about changing the way sysops work in paper (i.e. more policies), it's about changing the way they are seen as users by the community.reanor 15:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No promotion? So let's give everyone the ability to do admin jobs, because obviously trust isn't a part of the issue. I refuse to believe trust is a prerequisite of adminship if there is no promotion. Armond 10:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a very simplified way of looking at it. For instance, someone comes to clean your house. You let them use your broom to do it. You're trusting them not to break, steal or lose it, but they aren't getting any more important for having it. - BeX 11:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There is trust, but it's the trust that someone will do a good job, not the trust that they will represent your views well. Backsword 11:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)