Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Adminship 2008-04-22

Lemme say thıs flat-out. I don't like the idea of adding another layer to an already established system. So, no judges pls. NUKLEAR IIV 18:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat > Sysop. Deop solves those conflicts pretty damn quick. Lord Belar 22:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why you don't like the three layer system; it is far more efficent then GWW current system... imho. Anywho, the problem with our current system is we are basically open for a... well wiki civil war between the admins; so I feel that we need a higher power to help make final descions. Honestly we need someone who is completly neutral towards all situations and can freely consider the community's comments and concerns. This system is a mix of both democracy and a somewhat partial monarchy, and it gives the commmunity more of a say about what happens in the wiki. --Shadowphoenix 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wiki civil war.. when has that ever happened on GWW? (Even if it has, it obviously wasn't troubling enough..). Anyway, any "civil war" between the sysops can be sorted out by the bureaucrats. If there are problems with GWW's system, it's with how much "power" and discretion bureaucrats and sysops have, so that'll be what you improve -- you don't simply add another rank. As Nuke says, the two-tiered system has been successfully established on various other wikis. Improve the administration policy by improving the two-tiered system, not by introducing a whole 'nother rank which probably won't work in the end. -- pling | ggggg 07:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(Sort of an EC with Plingg... but mostly me writing this over a long time) Wiki civil war? That is quite dramatic speculative reasoning for three tiers, Shadow. I've always thought that on the whole sysops were pretty reasonable folks and put in a sysop position because they've shown themselves to have just that quality. I don't know whether efficiency is a big issue with the existing system - I mean everything in wiki politics seems to move in slow motion *especially* if community input is required as part of the decision making process. I don't think that having another level which adds *another* election, undermines the authority of the bureaucrats (who would have already been selected by the community to make important decisions on our behalf) and opens up yet another avenue for disruptive users to appeal the rules and decisions made against them is necessary. --Aspectacle 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, because you guys don't like the three lvl system I will axe the third lvl. However, I will still make this policy with the community in mind I want to give the community more of a say. You say that it will cause the disruptive users to appeal the rules; well I am not saying if one person says it is bad then it has to be undone, I am saying if the majority of the community feels it is bad, then it should be undone. You know there are more good users than bad on GWW. Like I said I will axe the third lvl and clean it up a bit and see what you guys think of it. :o) --Shadowphoenix 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you need a third tier of sysopness, you need to rethink who you've made Sysop/B'crat, imho. Sysops should function on their own, and if they can't, the B'crat will have the final say, sort of. --- -- (s)talkpage 18:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll post a reply later why the 3 level system is bad. -- NUKLEAR IIV 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Better?

I axed the 3 lvl system and re-did it cleaned it up a bit and hopefully you guys will like it better :o) --Shadowphoenix 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This now differs from Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship how? Lord Belar 21:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting can overthrow an sysop's actions; RfAs have a set limit. Bureaucrats can delete/undelete; 12 month terms. There are a few other things I think, but the basics are generally the same. -- pling | ggggg 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, those are compared to the GWW admin policy; that GW2W one is quite different -- sysops are considered fully autonomous, bureaucrats are also sysops. -- pling | ggggg 22:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. This one is decidedly worse than Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship. Lord Belar 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that voting on sysops decisions is dangerous. With a community voting system to arbitrate sysop decisions you may as well drop the Bureaucrat arbcom altogether. What don't you like about the bureaucrats making decisions for the community, Shadow? My understanding of our voting for the bureaucrats and them forming the arbcom was that we (the rest of the community) didn't have make difficult decisions. Personally I'm quite glad of this. They are a small section of a fickle often disagreeing and unreasonable community set up to reach clear, fair consensus decisions for the community. I believe that because I can vote them in myself for a short term they can adequately represent my POV for such decisions. --Aspectacle 22:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry I understand what you are saying, I am going to re-work this a bit where it gives the community a vote as well as gives the bcrats discretion. Oh, and the point of the deletes and no blocks is because I can understand why no user blocks but since ArbComm has nothing to do with content they should get the right to delete. --Shadowphoenix 00:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried about the bit about bureaucrats being overthrows with unanimous vote. That's.. kinda bad. Bcrats need total autonomy. We do not have a democracy, but a dictatorship here. -- NUKLEAR IIV 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, GW2W is currently an Anarchy and I have always viewed GWW as having a democracy "feel" to it (since concensus decides all). Of course it is not an exact democracy; kind of a rep. democracy I guess. But, GWW is far from dictatorship imho. --Shadowphoenix 00:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)