Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Adminship/Archive 2007

Archive Page - Do Not Edit

One of the things I would like to see changed is RFA => RFSysophood. -elviondale (tahlk) 13:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can do I suppose, but RfA is more widely known. :P

I like the changes to sysophood, but I'd like to make a number of small edits. I'm not at my laptop, though, so I'll make a note to do that later. Armond 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think a redirect to this still should be RFA, cause that is what probably will be used often. --- -- (s)talkpage 16:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine, however admin is a term that applies to both sysops and bcrats. requesting to be an admin therefore is a bit ambiguous. One can't outrightly request to become a bcrat. I don't really care if this gets shot down in the name of convention/tradition/whatnot, thats just my take on things. -elviondale (tahlk) 23:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically, "systems operator" is a synonym for "administrator". I'm not entirely sure which grew out of which, though. Armond 01:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

How does this compare to the softer rewording I tried at GWW? -- ab.er.rant 03:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it -elviondale (tahlk) 05:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is completly different. It's an attempt to merge the systems from GWW and guildwiki by grafting parts of them togheter. But this monster won't walk. Backsword 13:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it will. Have you read it? It works perfectly fine! It's just a slightly toned up version of GWW's sysop system! Just adds the ability for admins to use their discretion and logic to sort matters in a faster and more efficient way which in turn benefits the wiki by having a nice, calm environment to edit things in. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 19:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's like putting parts of a radio and a lawnmower together and expecting to get a combine harvester. You're not MacGyver, grinshpon. Backsword 14:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you might have taken a bit too much from other wikis. Could be a copyvio. Probably will want that sorted out before putting work in it. Backsword 14:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As written, I think there are some minor issues that probably need to be cleared up (and there are some aspects I'd like to see changed); however, I can't see a good reason why this wouldn't work per se. On a side note, the relationship between policy and the autonomy of administrators probably needs to be fleshed out a bit. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering you've written policies for a number of wikis that are successful, gogo DE. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 19:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

Say a non-user becomes a Bureaucrat , after term has expired, what happens. Sysop or User? RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 19:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean to say "a non-Sysop becomes a Bureaucrat"? Personally, I'd guess that once their term expired (assuming that Sysop-hood and Bureaucrat-hood are mutually exclusive) they would revert to normal users given that they were never elected to be Sysops. With that in mind however, I find it extremely unlikely that, assuming the Bureaucrat in question did a reasonable job during their tenure, the community would have a problem with the former Bureaucrat being a Sysop; however, I suppose that since the Bureaucrat in question might not have done such a great job, it's probably safer to have them revert to normal users. Whew... that was somewhat confusing. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

On Barek's note's talk, I'd said that reverting to their previous status is best because if all bureaucrats became sysops after, then there'd be lots of unserious candidates, and if all bureaucrats became normal users after their term, then many of the smartest and best-suited-for bureaucrat users, who are currently sysops, would be very hesitant and reluctant to become a bureaucrat, because they may or may not succeed in a reconfirmation, and the pool for bureaucrats may be of a diminished quality. Calor (t) 01:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing

Bureaucrats should be sysops, not just as a technical workaround. If you trust someone enough to be a bureaucrat, why not make them a sysop as well...?

On another note, I don't like forcing bureaucrats to leave an email address. If a bureaucrat wants to be emailed, there is an "email user" function. Armond 07:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A remnant from GWW, where bcrats are on ArbComm. Having them be active sysops would mean constant conflicts of interests. But it's not needed in many other systems. Backsword 14:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So we're opting for a simple hierarchy of power? Bureaucrats > Sysops > Normal user, with no way of addressing grievances. How do I complain against a sysop? How do I complain against a bureaucrat? Do I even have a chance of influencing their status short of appealing to the clique of power holders and hoping one of them is sympathetic? If you trust someone enough to be a bureaucrat, why not make them a sysop as well... separation of powers help define the role and provides checks. Also, given that this is also an official wiki, I think we will also need to address Anet's concern that users in power do not stay in power permanently and there be some way of replacing or rotating them should there be prolonged inactivity. -- ab.er.rant 04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing I had in mind was that users talk to bcrats about issues like that or there would be a community discussion for a RFD (Request for Demotion) were to occur. Either way, see Defiant Elements' proposal. It's much better than this one with more checks and balances but still giving sysops discretionary power (which is all I wanted to address since that was the thing lacking most from GWW). —ǥrɩɳsɧƴƿıę 05:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

ANet's not involved in our politics. Their concerns are just that, and nothing more. Or has this changed since I last looked? Armond 01:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Difference from current gww

Can you please resume the differences between this policy and the one in course on gww? Coran Ironclaw 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hit history, select dif with the first version. Think that one was copy-pasted from GWW. Armond 07:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)