Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Adminship 2010-08-16
From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
"while sysops are encouraged to be active, innactivity over a period of time is not grounds for losing the position." That to me is a security hazard here and has been on gww. I know enough about hacks, etc. that it can easily be possible for anyone to get into an acocunt. If someone really wanted to - might could easily log into an account with the tools avaliable and if it's a sysop or b-crat account, could be messed up - at least if it's one inactive and original ip, etc. isn't logged with checkuser... Wikis aren't that safe and though we are lucky to have the staff, etc. if need to restore things... I feel it'd raise concerns to them (if this did happen) and that I don't feel would be a good thing.... Hence why I don't like to have sysops just leave and keep their tools - when they may not plan to use them for a long time (like over a year). If I leave like that on other places, I'd be like - I'd like to give up my tools temporarily until I feel I'd have the time, etc. to spend here. That's why I'm against things like this that to me leaves a feeling of uncertain and concern, etc. I don't think anyone would want someone who could be angered, etc. who knows all this , etc. for anything similar to happen. Hence, I prefer to be preventative, but at the same time to have good faith in the sysops we promote. I try to be optimistic, to view things from different angles and so that's partly what I'm doing here... I don't want someone to treat this as their wiki - this is a wiki for a community of Guild Wars 2... But that's how come I'm uneasy with this draft. Ariyen 00:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- the fact that it has never happened on GuildWiki or GWW shows how unlikely that kind of thing is. Besides, there isn't much a "rogue" sysop could do, actually. Scenarios of sysops banning all other administrators and becoming dictators are not really possible since only bureaucrats can change the user rights, so banned sysops and bureaucrats would be simply able to unban themselves. and the bureaucrats could then remove sysop rights from the "rogue". Deleting content could also be easily undone by other admins. Erasculio 00:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Guildwiki is least likely, because Wikia keeps a watch out on those types. Also, possibly least likely that they have very few admins that's inactive, unlike GWW. Reason on gww is possibly, because 1. it just hasn't happen. That doesn't mean that it won't. I am surprised a little, but always a possibility that has never taken into facts. I think more so, because the majority of the mood that I sense from that place is the lack of careness... Careness for consistency on things, etc. - actual contributes. Instead, it seems to cater towards trolls... (when there's many articles that does need fixing)... I think with it being so poor in attitude... It makes it not worth while in contributing, you'd have many jumping down another's throat - while as here... we do try to do discussions... Despite that it's hard and then you have people, who get into disputes, etc. that's hostile. I'm not perfect and have been at fault, but we often keep forgetting to comment more on the content in a positive manner, not negative and also we keep forgetting to not attack other users... while this is derived from discussing about the content and more on a view... I'm going to swing it back to content. I feel if we can treat a wiki like a guild (similar) that it might help... Most guilds kick after 2 or 3 months of inactivity... I think we need a balance... between the active and inactive of sysops... a time limit, not to have endless inactive sysops compared to active... would that look right er do alright? Ariyen 01:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Chinese haven't dropped a nuclear bomb on my head yet. That doesn't mean they wont, but I find the likelihood of it every happening to be so remote that I don't take the necessary steps to prevent it from happening (e.g., living in a bomb shelter my whole life) --Riddle 06:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Facts first. If you look at the Guild Wiki admin list, you will see the number of inactive admins is 4 times the number of active admins. With the Guild Wars Wiki admin list, you will see it is 7 active admins to 9 inactive. "Also, possibly least likely that they have very few admins that's inactive, unlike GWW" is invalid. Second, this wiki is not a drama-fest because there are very few individuals that are participating and most are intelligent and mature. This will change when it gets closer to release.
- The Chinese haven't dropped a nuclear bomb on my head yet. That doesn't mean they wont, but I find the likelihood of it every happening to be so remote that I don't take the necessary steps to prevent it from happening (e.g., living in a bomb shelter my whole life) --Riddle 06:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Guildwiki is least likely, because Wikia keeps a watch out on those types. Also, possibly least likely that they have very few admins that's inactive, unlike GWW. Reason on gww is possibly, because 1. it just hasn't happen. That doesn't mean that it won't. I am surprised a little, but always a possibility that has never taken into facts. I think more so, because the majority of the mood that I sense from that place is the lack of careness... Careness for consistency on things, etc. - actual contributes. Instead, it seems to cater towards trolls... (when there's many articles that does need fixing)... I think with it being so poor in attitude... It makes it not worth while in contributing, you'd have many jumping down another's throat - while as here... we do try to do discussions... Despite that it's hard and then you have people, who get into disputes, etc. that's hostile. I'm not perfect and have been at fault, but we often keep forgetting to comment more on the content in a positive manner, not negative and also we keep forgetting to not attack other users... while this is derived from discussing about the content and more on a view... I'm going to swing it back to content. I feel if we can treat a wiki like a guild (similar) that it might help... Most guilds kick after 2 or 3 months of inactivity... I think we need a balance... between the active and inactive of sysops... a time limit, not to have endless inactive sysops compared to active... would that look right er do alright? Ariyen 01:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- With that said, being afraid of an admin's password being cracked is not something that should be worried about. No one has super god mode where their account gets hacked and the wiki shuts down. Everything can be countered. On top of that, I doubt anyone is ignorant enough to create a simple password, tell their password to another, or be subject to social engineering. Also, I don't see a reason to strip an inactive admin of their tools. They can and always will pop back on and will help when they are on with anything (see Rainith on GWWiki for example). I can't think of one disadvantage that would come from it, other than keeping our sysop list clean of red (inactive). — Gares 14:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Gares, I don't see much of a problem with having inactive sysops. As Eras pointed out, its extremely unlikely for an admin's account to get hacked and even then we have counters for it. Are you really worried that someone is going to try to dictate the wiki? That wouldn't really be possible with all the ways we have to stop it. --
hnzdvn 15:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Gares, since I'm not going to respond to any troll-baiting - I'm going to respond to Gares, I am more so trying to gear this towards having more active sysops than not. More so, I prefer to treat this as a guild in so many words... Let's just give an example ... And I'm thinking b-crats should be the leaders , sysops officers, etc. kinda a system like that. Leaders who are promoted by not only the members (I'm planning on how I feel Bcrats should be done) but officers too. Anyway I'll have more on that, but I'm thinking with this and the way I'm going for this is to have most sysops active so we don't have so few who get stressed out, etc. trying to do a lot. Share the loads... And My thinking is if we have more inactive than active the load shifts making it harder on inactive. if it was a job. the lazy people would loose their positions... Where as with a guild. they would loose their position more so if they become inactive for so long and the leader doesn't know... I know from being in a few guilds that the leaders (and this is common among most) strive to have most of their officers active at least within a couple of weeks - they prefer that the officers let them , etc. know if they are going to be a way for a while, etc. incase they'd have to demote and choose another, but that one would be allowed again when they feel like returning, etc. I'm more so trying to think of ways such as that. Because I have seen systems like that work well in gw... I'd like to have a system like that here. I feel it'd work well. I don't have problems with inactives, except the work loads, etc. and I prefer to see things like that be distributed better. Like well wyn took on a lot on gww and others hardly joined in - they didn't know some of the things she did (like the guild historical for one) and you've seen the stresses, etc. I'd like to see more than one sysop be able to do many things that's required or that helps more than realized.... I'm just more so thinking of with this an ease on sysops in general. Rather than trying it in other ways. -.- I hope you Gares least of all who has sysops, b-crat even, etc. can understand. You know what tools you all use, some of these others here don't and that's an advantage you have to helping with nominating and making this proposal to where it'd help get in the people we'd need for sysops, etc... We wouldn't want, in my opinion, people who won't do much of anything, etc., cept possibly do the simplest tasks that anyone can easily do that most all would know of anyway, when becoming sysop... Ariyen 07:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Gares, I don't see much of a problem with having inactive sysops. As Eras pointed out, its extremely unlikely for an admin's account to get hacked and even then we have counters for it. Are you really worried that someone is going to try to dictate the wiki? That wouldn't really be possible with all the ways we have to stop it. --
- With that said, being afraid of an admin's password being cracked is not something that should be worried about. No one has super god mode where their account gets hacked and the wiki shuts down. Everything can be countered. On top of that, I doubt anyone is ignorant enough to create a simple password, tell their password to another, or be subject to social engineering. Also, I don't see a reason to strip an inactive admin of their tools. They can and always will pop back on and will help when they are on with anything (see Rainith on GWWiki for example). I can't think of one disadvantage that would come from it, other than keeping our sysop list clean of red (inactive). — Gares 14:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
