Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Adminship 2007-12-28

Anonymous users

I think it's reasonable to disregard edit count or registration date for the purpose of warnings and bans, but I don't think that registered users should be treated the same as unregistered users. Registered users are much easier to successfully warn, and long-term bans against registered users are safe and effective, while long-term IP bans are pointless and can affect multiple unregistered users. -- Gordon Ecker 02:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My oposition

First off, I think the resting of all the power to the Bureaucrats is really bad. Sysops should be determined by vote, not by appointment. Also, lifetime position is also bad. It will ensure that the same exact people will have the same exact position for as long as GW2 lasts as a game. This is bad, very bad. As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Giving the Bureaucrats term limits ensures they will continue to act fairly, in fear of losing their power. This is such like how the system of representative democracy (mostly) ensures that politicians appease their constituents. Allowing Sysops to be appointed due to direct vote ensures that lack of favorite playing, and help keeps everyone happy and productive.--Mortazo 16:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against reconfirmations every 4-6 months, as all the competent sysops will retain their status. Calor (t) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reconfirmations, not reelections would be the key if that's what is wanted. Also, 6-12 months. 4 months is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar too short a period. An additional reconfirmation could be set up if it's desperately needed, I suppose. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 16:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lifetime positions have proven to work on wikis. Absolute power may corrupt absolutely, but there isn't absolute power here. The power breakup in a system like this would be Users electing Bcrats and sysops and then sysops managing each other with bcrats stepping in as needed and users being able to chime in. Users could then request a reconfirmation for a bcrat or sysop as needed, not on a timed basis. Lifetime appointments are generally very effective. One only has to look at wikipedia to see how well such a system works. They're what, 6th or 9th on the most visited websites in the world? —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A Lifetime position is better than a timed one-Calor you state that giving a timed period of power will mean people will sue this power fairly, when in actual fact the opposite would be true, iof they were timed they would abuse there power towards the end of the period because they won't neccersarily get it again, where as with a lifetime position it's an "ok i've always got the power so i better not screw up so i don't get demoted".*Copy and paste what Grinch said here*PheNaxKian(T/c) 17:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply, as long as you have good bureaucrats, none of the theoretical problems of lifetime terms matter. In reality, abuses of power simply don't happen in this system. In theory, this system might be flawed, but in reality, it works better than any others. Temporary sysophood/bcratship has a negative effect on the wiki. It causes the sysops and bcrats to have to be afraid that someone will disagree with any action they perform. It causes a hesitancy among the admins to do what needs to be done. This is the case on GWW, where the sysops have discretion according to policy, but they're too afraid to exercise it due to the fear that people will QQ(and a few zealots do QQ, even putting the sysops up for reconfirmation, whenever a sysop exercises their discretion according to policy) and they'll lose their adminship. --— Edru/QQ 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is one problem which would be exacerbated by indefinite terms. If bureaucrats form the Arbitration Comittee and are limited in number, a relatively inactive bureaucrat would tie up one of the bureaucrat slots, slowing down the arbitration process. Of course, if non-bureaucrats were allowed to participate in arbitration or there was no cap on the number of bureaucrats, that would also eliminate the problem. As for fixed term durations, I don't think they would encourage bureaucrat corruption, as abuse of power by a bureaucrat near the end of a term makes it likely that, after the term expires and the bureaucrat becomes a regular sysop, he or she will not be able to hold onto sysop status for long due to miscounduct as a bureaucrat. I dislike this proposal, as it will make the admins an oligarchy, which I believe will weaken the administrative mandate for little or no benefit. -- Gordon Ecker 09:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, we could ditch arbcom in favor of sysop discretion. Lord Belar 19:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

An arbitration committee needs to exist in order to question sysop (and bureaucrat?) actions. Prefereably, a certain number of Users are the arbcomm, taking out any possible subjectivity on the sysops'/bcrats' part. -- Brains12 • Talk • 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If we have arbcom to watch the sysops/bcrats, then why are we talking about having bcrats on the arbcom? Lord Belar 19:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would we put people in positions of power(Sysop/Bcrat) that we don't trust to use it properly? — Edru/QQ 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Because we're trying to emulate the fuckup that is GWW? Lord Belar 19:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a matter of safetly. Some users believe that they need someone (in a "low" level of the hierarchy) to watch over those in power, as a sort of failsafe. It does not give power to the arbcomm, but it lets them review the power of those in power. I do not agree to it myself, but all users should be accounted for. And it just so happens that there are some users who think power is a bad thing. -- Brains12 • Talk • 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We have some users who want a dictatorship, and some want a democracy. You can't accommodate everyone, and if you try to, you'll just end up with a gigantic mess. Lord Belar 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so let's go with the one that works(dictatorship). =P --— Edru/QQ 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, oligarchy. Lord Belar 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oligarchy on a wiki is dictatorship of the bcrats and those they appoint to be sysops. It's a semantical difference. In practice, dictatorship and oligarchy on a wiki are identical, due to the inability of one user to handle all the matters that need an admin's attention. --— Edru/QQ 20:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, but oligarchy sounds cooler and has less of a knee-jerk negative reaction with most people. Lord Belar 20:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Don't agree. You may seem that dictatorship in practice is the same as oligarchy but "two heads thinks better than one". Even better if they are three or more. Their actions have at least the consensus of two or three trusted people. And that keeps the things functional. Coran Ironclaw 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Idon't like this proposal either, but three or more heads are not better than one or two.reanor 19:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)