Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Adminship 2009-11-13

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Too soon[edit]

IMO it's far too early to "lock in" official policy before. -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is time to start discussing this, because I have seen on here that rumblings are getting heard from ANet on making this wiki more public. There is no need to lock in policy, but I think if we have something set up and talked about now, it will make it easier later to decide. 42 - talk 06:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Omissions[edit]

This proposal doesn't include any details about the actual election process. It's also unclear about whether the terms for grandfathered sysops and bureaucrats would start when the policy is implemented or when they were first appointed. -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That is kind of why it is labeled a draft. 42 - talk 06:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
So, he's pointing out something that needs improving (or so you don't forget). I don't see a problem with that. --JonTheMon 06:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not labelled as a draft, it's labelled as a policy proposal, the draft tag is {{policy|draft}}. -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Because of the lack of details on the election ... I'm not too keen on this policy. I would be interested to see 42's version of election process as well as the other things Gordon mentioned. -- Ariyen 03:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Any election process at all is detrimental to the wiki on an individual basis as well as a whole, due to wasted time and energy ("Please give 430 reasons why you'd make a good sysop"), a great propensity for drama ("Omg I don't want HIM to be able to banzor me, better get all my friends to vote against him without thinking"), and an implication that every user should have an equal say in how the wiki is run, which is a foolish and harmful idea to propagate. Felix Omni Signature.png 06:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the comment about the missing information Jon. Was just responding. Since I posted that, I have made major revisions concerning terms, and transition period as well. Let me know what you think of the new additions. 42 - talk 07:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2 year terms?[edit]

I don't see the point of this policy arbitrarily proposing a 2-year term of a sysop period. Surely a user who has been accepted through an adminship proposal is trusted by the community, and so, there shouldn't be a limit on the term, unless there was a clear case of the sysop acting badly, in which case it would be dealt with by the local bureaucrats. Similarly with inactivity, if a user is inactive, they can be removed from the list. What was the rationale of the 2-year term? RandomTime 20:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

i can name one person that sums that entire reason for it up into one. but i wont.--NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 20:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, I have no idea who you're talking about then, and if this is the case, why would the user's problem not have been dealt with by the B'crats when it happened - instead of waiting for a period of two years to end (when the hypothetical user is acting disruptivly with their admin powers)? RandomTime 20:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Randomtime, they can be dealt with through other means is necessary. --User Phnzdvn sig.pnghnzdvn 20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)