Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Adminship 2008-03-28

Comments

I disagree. We had some discussions before if we want any 3-level adminship policy but iirc most people were against it (including me). And the job of the "Specialists" is really weird, they sound better as the "janitorial" sysops but are "only" allowed to block and delete. Just leave it to the sysops alone, I still don't know why people want to split the sysop job.. poke | talk 19:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I will tell ya why. Some people are ready for adminship, but not quite ready to become a sysop. Yes I read teh other proposal; and I did not like the idea he had. I think that the position of a specialist would be for minor things on this wiki, that the sysops on GWW or this wiki do not have time to do (yes most of the time when vandals or others are report4ed no sysops are online); I think we would have more of these then sysops. --Shadowphoenix 19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The two most "dangerous" tools an admin can have are delete and block. If someone isn't ready for adminship, they most certainly aren't ready for those two. Even if you want the Specialist, they should be able to have unblock and undelete, to sort out any mistakes they might make. But again, that's still not something I want in the hands of someone who isn't ready for adminship.

As Poke says, though, I'm generally against splitting the sysop role - if there aren't enough admins online to sort out vandals or to delete pages, simply promote more. There are always people who can fulfil the role of an administrator, it just depends if they have a request for adminship/are promoted by the bureaucrats/how ever we decide to promote sysops. -- pling | ggggg 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"I think that the position of a specialist would be for minor things on this wiki" - minor things like blocking and deleting? I think this is the main work of sysops. And if you think that there are not enough sysops for specific timezones, then it's not a problem with the adminship policy and missing "Specialists". And I don't think blocking sockpuppet XY who posted only one time is that important that I always block it immediately. And it seems as if you are not around when there are many vandals at once are around; alone those situations prove that there are enough sysops.. poke | talk 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, blocking might be a bit much; Ima gonna remove it. Ill fix it up a bit and see how you like it ;) --Shadowphoenix 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You can change whatever you want but as long as you maintain a 3-level adminship, I'm against it. poke | talk 20:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone doesnt want to share there adminship rights :D --Shadowphoenix 20:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the conclusions reached elsewhere about 3 tiers of administration. I've seen that admins are more than capable of keeping up with deletion tasks and if more people on the ground are required it is invariably to ensure there is someone there at the odd hours for vandals and blocking tasks - which a third tier of administration as you have defined it will not supply. I'm actually rather fond of the admin draft that Rezyk is working on in GWW - it is very clear, legible and it covers areas of sysop discretion which I think have been highlighted as important by earlier discussions here. --Aspectacle 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok my reasoning for adding three is this, the wiki is supposed to be under a democratic rule correct. So I was thinking why not make it like one of the worlds democratic ststems; I went with the way he U.S.A. is based with three diffrent levels of government, one seems more powerful than the other but they are equal; that kind of thing. I want to know why is it such a big deal with having only 2 levels? Do we want less admins? Imo we need more, maybe some that can preform cleanup tasks that the sysops (since most are in diffrent time zones) do not have time to do. Here is how I was thinking, alot of Specialists, more sysops than we have at GWW but not to many, and 3 or 4 Bcrats. Well, thats just my thought. Have A Nice Day! :o) --Shadowphoenix 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, no one has decided whether the wiki will be a consensus-based democracy, a dicatorship, an oligarchy, or even an anarchy. Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Policy has lots of discussion based around that, but it's still open-ended.

Secondly, I don't understand, if you say that there are not enough sysops to deal with cleaning up, why you don't promote more sysops. That is part of their job - on any wiki, seeing as the MediaWiki sysop comes equipped with the necessary tools to do so. -- pling | ggggg 17:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Apart from that I would never try to compare a wiki with maybe 2000 users with a state like the USA.. That simply doesn't fit. poke | talk 17:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Before, I had seen a three-tiered system of extended user rights as a great idea that would improve the speed of operations on the wiki. But now, I see that it is unnecessary. You, Shadowphoenix, may see the way the current admin system works as nonviable. But if you think about it more, I ask you: Is it really the system that you see subpar, or is it the admins' style and quality of work? Because I believe the system works fine, and any flaws are human, not structural. Admins: That is not any sort of shot at you, as I believe you perform your job very well. Calor 00:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

cough cough -- pling | ggggg 01:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The wiki is more definitely not a democracy as mentioned above. I disagree with the three tiered system, it just adds unnecessary bureaucracy to the system. --Lemming 13:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)