Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Adminship 2007-12-31

Admin names

Can't we just give them normal names? =P —̵SEERINFLOOMES 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes we can, but consider this names a separate proposal, I like these a lot more. Coran Ironclaw 22:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wtf? — ク Eloc 貢 22:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

wtf what? Coran Ironclaw 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

wtf? Grinchy[슴Mc슴]Diddles 03:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer Janitor, Sysop/Admin, Bureaucrat. —̵SEERINFLOOMES 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Janitor is a very ugly term which damage authority. I find Bureaucrat to be ugly also. Coran Ironclaw 23:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sysop, Admin, God? =p. Seriously though how about keeping it Guildwars like or something? Say like keeper of Records for the lowest, Keeper of the City/town middle and Mayor for top? idk something like that? i quite like the idea of it being related to GW in some way though....PheNaxKian(T/c) 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To prevent confusion and cheesy GWs references, I propose

• Janitor
• Administrator
• Bureaucrat

Grinchy[슴Mc슴]Diddles 03:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Janitor is too..."looking down on" to level 1. Perhaps...Managers. Calor (t) 03:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Custodians? —̵SEERINFLOOMES 03:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Shit shovelers. Seriously, all they are is janitors. Name them as such. Grinchy[슴Mc슴]Diddles 04:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How about:

• Sysop
• Admin
• BCrat

Just a thought?PheNaxKian(T/c) 11:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

sysop=admin. There's no difference on every other wiki ever. Janitors are janitors. It's not degrading or anything. They're janitors. Grinchy[슴Mc슴]Diddles 14:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem if majority prefer to remove the "xunlai" prefixes (staying agent, sysop, minister) but I do have a problem using either Admin or Janitor. The first cannot be used, that is the general term for all three levels. And Janitor is very derogatory. About the last one I would prefer not use bureaucrat, (and minister sounds pretty nice)but if majority prefer that term to stay I won't whine. Coran Ironclaw 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What's so degrading about janitor? Lord Belar 22:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well..when I think of janitor I think of a mopey 60 year old white haired man who makes below minimum wage. Not exactly what I'd like to think of for users supposed to be in relatively high standing. Calor (t) 22:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Maid? Custodian? Cleaner-upper? Wiki's Little Helper? Mr./Mrs. Cleans? Enforcer? Lower Sysop? —̵SEERINFLOOMES 22:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we've narrowed it down to 3 choices

• French Maid
• Shit Shoveler
• Janitor

Seriously, arguing this is a waste of time. Janitor isn't derogatory and I pity whomever believes such nonsense. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol@grinch. I favor French Shit Shoveling Janitor. Lord Belar 23:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agents are not a Janitors. Janitors main role is maintenance as agents certainly but they do not posses any authority, and agents do have it. Janitors can't prevent a tenant to use his apartment if they break a rule, they may call a manager or the owner but that's it. Here Agents can block users if they break policy. So, Janitor is a bad term. Coran Ironclaw 09:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I promised myself that I would stay out of policy discussions, but I have to say: not janitor, as with the stereotypes, it can be a very derogatory term, as with the Dalits in India. — Ebañy Salmonderiel 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

tldr above section

Why aren't the first two merged? And wtf is with the names? Something about unprofessional names for a professional job appeals? Armond 22:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you say cheesy? Lord Belar 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

@ Armond: please read the above topic and/or reread the draft. For discussion about the names go to the first topic. Coran Ironclaw 08:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin names poll

Since the Admin names are totally arbitrary, I think the best thing to do is to create a poll. You are free to vote and/or create new options. Coran Ironclaw 09:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin Prefixes

Xunlai

1. -- I like the idea of creating a link to the game. Coran Ironclaw 09:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin

None

1. Fuck no. Lord Belar 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
2. o.O - Y0_ich_halt 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
3. -Sktbrd341 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Less confusing. -- Gordon Ecker 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
5. — Ebañy Salmonderiel 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Third level Admin

Agent

1. -- Sounds interesting, specially if the xunlai prefix stays. Coran Ironclaw 09:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Gordon Ecker 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Manager

Janitor

1. Truth ftw. Lord Belar 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Second level Admin

Sysop

1. -- I see no other good option. Coran Ironclaw 09:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Wow, he's right! Lord Belar 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
3. - Y0_ich_halt 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
4. -Sktbrd341 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Gordon Ecker 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fail Rodent

1. Why not? --GL4S AR00WS 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

First level Admin

Minister

1. -- This name inspired a lot more respect and authority. Coran Ironclaw 09:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

1. Works on every other wiki. Lord Belar 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
2. - Y0_ich_halt 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
3. -Sktbrd341 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep it how it all was on GWW in terms of Sysops/Bureaucrats

1. — ク Eloc 貢 22:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Gordon Ecker 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
3. RT | Talk 14:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
4. -- Brains12 • Talk • 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
5. --MP47 (Talk) (Contr.) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
6. — Ebañy Salmonderiel 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Lyra Valo 16:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Discuss

Why is there a poll in the first place? Policies are not places to throw around gw names and be unprofessional, policies are serious business. The only question is what to call the first rank, and janitor fits it nicely. Armond 10:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Janitor -> Sysop -> Bureaucrat. Let's keep it simple, recognisable and familiar. And as a lot of people are already saying, let's not use silly Guild Wars names in order to name our administrators. If anything, it'll cause the cmomunity to look at them as nothing worth listening to. -- Brains12 • Talk • 14:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What brains said. Lord of all tyria 17:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

/agree. In addition, naming them strangely makes it unobvious what they do, meaning that every user has to read the admin policy to have a basic understanding of how the wiki works, which is bad and conflicts with ignore all rules, which is something that we should have. --— Edru/QQ 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to repeat myself again? Agents are not a Janitors. Janitors main role is maintenance as agents certainly but they do not posses any authority, and agents do have it. Janitors can't prevent a tenant to use his apartment if they break a rule, they may call a manager or the owner but that's it. Here Agents can block users if they break policy. So, Agents do posses authority, naming them as Janitors will damage it, and is a bad use of the term. Coran Ironclaw 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What we've got to so far (aside from Coran obviously) is that using Xunlai in the name fails. Suggest another name instead of janitor then that isn't lame/confusing for the newcomer. Lord of all tyria 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said from the beginning, I don't have a problem on removing the "xunlai" if that is a majority preference, but I see little people interested and actually not a single current sysop or bureaucrat. I will try to gather more people into this. Also please use the poll, not instead of discussion but as an additional argument of the discussion since as I said the naming is mostly an arbitrary decision. Coran Ironclaw 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the names and I don't like a 3 splitted adminship (as I think sysops can easily handle the janitor stuff). So I would prefer the common names sysop & bcrat.. poke | talk 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst custom names may be cool, it would not be helpful for people who are unfamiliar with this wiki and are with other wiki's. I say keep the normal names. --Lemming 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While agents is a cool enough name, Sysops can easily do what an Agent can do. No need for a different level imo. — ク Eloc 貢 11:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Neo pwns agents.reanor 20:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I think about this proposal at all, but if this is what we get consensus for, I'd prefer normal names (Janitor, Sysop, Bcrat) - anja 14:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No poll can decide this. The words are dervided from the MediaWiki software and unless you plan on blocking people for using them, they'll stay. Backsword 09:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Discluding the Admin names

Of all the sugested policies i do quite like this one however i have 3 issues with it-Names being the first one-stick to normal ones, and secondly the 6th month term for the Burecrats (Minsters in the policy)-I think it should eb like the others-Life term but can undergo reconfermation. and finally the fact that Burecrats can Unblock themselvs, if they're needed for Aberation issues after being blockd for Whatever reason, another Burecrat can unblock them (really if they've been blocked they should probably be demoted?). Oh one other thing what Rights do burecrats lose when they change from a sysop to a burecrat (it mentions losing Sysop related rights while a burecrat and i can't really see any diffrence...(i am a dumb ass so you know))PheNaxKian(T/c) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No life term, else there's no check for bureaucrat power. And unblocking for arbitration is reasonable. And they lose the right to delete pages, ban users, etc. Calor (t) 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

3 levels?

This seems overly pointless 2 me (i mentioned on the Policy talk page somewhere my reasons if you haven't seen)-basically you have a 3rd class of "admins" which are slightly less powerful (VERY slightly) than sysops, which is pointless, just have a couple of extra sysops instead.....PheNaxKian(T/c) 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's about spirit of the policy vs. word of the policy. The middle ranked ones are chosen more... carefully (they're not as stupid). —̵SEERINFLOOMES 23:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

as seerin said. Unlike gww we need to give sysops more freedom, but doing that also means that the community needs to choose them a lot more carefully risking to have less sysops than needed to maintain the wiki, so we can have a third level of admins which actually we need to trust just a little in order to help to maintain the wiki. Everything done by an agent can be undone by a sysop. Coran Ironclaw 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So basicly one of these?:

1. The First level (the lowest) would be the equivalent of the Sysops on the other wikis and the sysops here would be more powerfull?
2. The First level is slightly less powerful than the sysops from other wikis, and the sysops stay the same.
3. First is weaker than sysops on other wikis, and sysops here are more powerful than syops than other wikis

i'd agree that this would prove an effective policy in some ways but then you have to think there would be a lot more people running around with more power than a standard user, because you'd need to have your Bcrats obv., then you would have a the normal amount of sysops so they can do sysop duties, and then your lowest power (the janitors or w/e) doing other stuff while the Sysops are doing things that the Janitors can't. But then this would in a sense mean why give the Sysops the same powers as a janitor and more, why not jsut say janitor has this much power and the sysops has this much power but the sysop is the one that gets the more important things. If you understand all that rambling you deserve a medal i think (If you ask around i'm not good at putting my thoughts down-jsut ask around on PvX XD)PheNaxKian(T/c) 23:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically: Agents are less powerful than Sysop on Guildwiki, but just a little less powerful than sysops in Gww. Sysops will be as powerful as sysops (or maybe a little more) on Guildwiki, and more powerful as sysops on Gww. I really don't have experience on Guildwiki so I am guessing from what I have heard. I hardly understood ~40% of the rest you said. Coran Ironclaw 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

=P didn't think you would. Basicly Lowest Rank just go round deleting pages and the one to go for mediation, 2nd level (sysop or w/e they're getting called)can Ban people and are the ones the lowest rank go to if no-one listens to them, then BCrats (or w/e they're getting called...) obv. get the final say (somethign like that), is basicly what i think would happen if you had 3 tiers. PheNaxKian(T/c) 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, Eloc would make a good "agent", while Anja would make a good sysop —̵SEERINFLOOMES 23:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And Auron an absolutely epic b-crat. Naw, more of someone like DE or Aiiane. Calor (t) 03:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this policy. /notsupport. We don't need a 3rd tier for brainless morons who can't do anything except what policy tells them. —̵SEERINFLOOMES 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with floomes. Ghellam 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like a 3 splitted adminship (as I think sysops can easily handle the janitor stuff). poke | talk 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Poke. If we're allowing the existence of "Xunlai Sysops," (which I agree with, aside from the name) why exactly do Xunlai Agents exist? It takes 2 or 3 sysops to keep the category for deletion clean, and wasting time and energy on a "tier" of sysop just to delete pages is folly. If you can't trust someone enough to use discretion, don't promote them. The people that can use discretion can easily clear the del-tagged articles in their spare time.

To sum up; we don't need a low tier of sysophood. It doesn't do any good. -Auron 22:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure 2 or 3 sysops will be enough to maintain the gw2w ? we don't really know how big it will be specially with a good probability of an in-game browser to search (and possible edit) the wiki. Coran Ironclaw 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

nope, but having only two different admin levels doesn't mean we'll only have two admins. - Y0_ich_halt 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I never implied that. But what happens if the community wants to give the discretion privilege to just two persons? since you say very confident "If you can't trust someone enough to use discretion, don't promote them." What if just one person? Coran Ironclaw 23:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You did imply that, even if indirectly.

2 or 3 people is enough to keep the candidates for deletion clear. That being said, there is no need to have them on a separate tier from the rest of the sysops, especially when the discretion-showing sysops can do the deleting perfectly fine as well.

There's no point separating them. If the wiki wanted to withhold that power of discretion from the vast majority of its sysop base (as you were suggesting in your "what if" scenario), it would be making the same mistake GWW did. -Auron 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How is that the same as gww? If you are refering to bureaucrats then no, bureaucrats are not even supposed to use sysops tools. Coran Ironclaw 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not say this policy was the same as GWW's. I said, response to your "what if" scenario (as much as I hate to respond to "what if" scenarios, as most introduce insanity into previously sane arguments), if GW2W restricts discretion from most of its sysops, it would be then making the same mistake GWW has already made.

This policy is pointless. It does not solve any problems, but simply creates more via excessive bureaucracy and unneeded sysop levels.

As I've said before, the lowest level of sysophood is not needed. When you have a solid base of sysops who are perfectly capable of deleting and blocking, why do you need to add another tier of sysops with less powers? :/ -Auron 00:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) I agree with Auron. The distinction between an agent and a sysop here is a fine and fuzzy line. I foresee arguments on what falls into agent scope and what doesn't. Supposedly they can block and delete pages. But the thing is, blocks and deletes are sometimes not so straightforward. So in the end, you'd need to trust that the agents have some level of tolerance and understanding and not be zealous in whatever they're doing. If we require that agents follow policies literally, then, as noted above, they are no more than janitors and security guards.

The important question is this: Can we not find enough users to fill the standard 2-tiered adminship using a more traditional bureaucrat-sysop arrangement? Even on GWW, with just a few sysops and a few of them mostly inactive, we don't have any backlog on clean up and vandals. If there's a group of users who are given more power than other users, then that group of users should also take on the added responsibility of carrying out maintenance.

But just so to look at things from different perspectives, I'm also seeing the possibility of having an agent level - not as a separate tier, but as a probation-level role. Perhaps all new admins take on the status of agents, to let them ease into the role and to put less pressure on users new to such a role. These agents are allowed sysop tools and discretion but are expected to defer to full sysops in cases of ambiguity. Something like that, but still keeping to two-levels. Worth a thought. And lastly, I kinda like the new "Xunlai" names originally proposed by Rezyk since they give a GW flavor to the wiki admins, but since most people prefer to just stick to tradition, I'll go along with the majority. -- ab.er.rant 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

@Auron: I always knew you were not referring to the current draft but the scenario I presented, but you still didn't tell me why it would be the same. @Ab.er.rant: I really appreciate your comment.

I must admit that I don't have sysop experience, but I need to bring just two more things. 1) The main intention of the three levels is to give the community the freedom to select how much power they want to give to their admins, Does the community want to give the discretion privilege to a certain person or don't? If the answer is "no" that person may still be very useful to the wiki with the admin tools. So does this freedom of choice from the community counts?

2) wouldn't more agents be more healthy for the wiki? Imagine that we have 5 active sysops, and maybe that is enough to maintain vandals, deletions and such on the wiki, but wouldn't 10 more additional agents be better? more people looking into different places and faster fix of things? Coran Ironclaw 06:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I do like ab.er.rants idea of a sort of probationary level of sysophood, you could think of it as on the job training or something. In response to Coran's comments I see what you are saying, but for example on GWW there is no limit on the number of sysops we were allowing, more of a lack of people putting them self or being put forward for the position. --Lemming 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is not the allowed number that worries me, it is the "if you don't trust him enough do not promote him". If we want sysops with more discretion freedom the community should (or may) be more picky on them. Coran Ironclaw 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone supports?

After pointing all my arguments, Does anyone supports the 3 level adminship idea? Coran Ironclaw 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

After looking over this discussion, I'd say no. However, most people do like the idea of a probationary adminship, much the same as your agents. Lord Belar 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your arguments make a lot of sense in principle and in practice -- 5 people is really not good enough for vandalism-blocking coverage. On the other hand, I also agree that 3 tiers might represent an unnecessary level of bureaucratic separation. I don't see much of a good reason to keep your sysop level separated from the bureaucrat level; there's not much call to be so untrustworthy of the elected bureaucrats, especially with term limits keeping them in check. --Rezyk 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO, Berurocrat <-- SYSOP. As many users as possible who are trusted by the comunity may become SYSOP and a few are beruocrat. RT | Talk 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't support the 3 level thing. According to the poll, most of the people support how it was at GWW. — ク Eloc 貢 23:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From looking at various discussions I'd argue that people preferred it as it was on GuildWiki, with some supporting the PvX way of doing it, but the point is the same. Armond 09:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, then I proceed to reject the policy, It was a healthy discussion. If gw2w becomes very large, we might reconsider this, but that should happen first. Coran Ironclaw 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, just adapt the "agent" part into a probationary type of adminship, and it will probably get more support. —̵SEERINFLOOMES 18:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

mmm, ok I will try. Coran Ironclaw 18:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agents as probationary level for sysophood

ok, the proposal has changed. Coran Ironclaw 18:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the only way 3 tiers would be do-able is if you said the Lowest (agents in this case), only existed when the other admins were too busy with more important things (for whatever reason) so a select few jsut get a few "powers" for a while untill the site can return to normal or something-But the idea for a "trial" period is quite good (have soon to be Sysops as Agents for a litle while and see how they handle it)PheNaxKian(T/c) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why, though? It's never proven itself necessary in other places. Armond 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they don't trust their sysops? Lord Belar 21:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we do. -- Armond Warblade 22:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you speak for everyone? Coran Ironclaw 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

He speaks for a lot of people. Calor (t) 03:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A probational level would allow for more sysops, as it would allow the promotion of borderline cases, rather than taking a better safe than sorry approach. Backsword 09:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway Backsword is right, is not about we trust or not on our current sysops. Coran Ironclaw 16:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't be true (at least not with the way that this policy is written) since users would vote with the understanding that in 1 month, the person would likely be promoted to Sysop. Really, it's as if you were voting on an Request for Sysoption, but the person, when elected, would go to Agent at first, and then Sysop. *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to this policy in spiecific, but more to the general idea Aberrant had. Backsword 12:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone has an argument against the Agents as probationary level? Coran Ironclaw 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do, or... at least, I question the value of the position as written. Consider: let's say I'm RfAed and promoted to Agent. Now, the people who vote for me do so realizing that there is a chance that I will become a Sysop, thus, they vote fully understanding that I may gain discretion. Now, it's a month later and I'm being evaluated. On what am I being evaluated? On how much I use the Admin tools? On how active I am? If the purpose of probation is to ensure that the prospective Sysop has these qualities, then why not simply re-evaluate new Sysops after a month and do away with "Agents" all together. If the question is actually "how" the Agent fufills those duties, I find it hard to believe that I can gauge someone's performance as a Sysop (i.e. a person who can use discretion) based on their performance as an Agent. If Agent were, as Aberrant seems to desire, a position whose purpose would simply be to allow new Agents to ease into the Admin role, that would be one thing, but it seems to lose all meaning if being an Agent doesn't prepare them to have the discretion that the Sysop role entitles them. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was gonna say "besides the fact that it's unnecessary?" but DE beat me to it. -- Armond Warblade 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly different, but related point, people who get suggested for adminship are usually those who already are engaged in sorting out conflicts (as users) and the like. Making them agents seems to cut down exactly on that. I feel having two sysop groups with the same technical powers, but not the rights is not going to work well. --Xeeron 10:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

have to agree, so -> rejected. -- Coran Ironclaw 02:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete

This is not a system in itself, as it makes no mention of policymaking. It's obviously not intended to work with something like GWW:POLICY, leaving the question open. As I mentioned before, that's not really an issue that can be seperated as they will interact in different ways. Backsword 09:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither GuildWiki nor GWW mention anything about policymaking in their Admin policy, can you clarify what you are suggesting? Coran Ironclaw 15:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but those are intended to work in tandem with other policies, such as GWW:POLICY. The effects of this one is highly depenant on such a policy. Backsword 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What is needed to be known from GWW:POLICY in order to properly set an Adminship policy? -- Coran Ironclaw 00:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)