Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Policy/Adminship

I though a main page for discussion about Adminship options only is really needed. Coran Ironclaw 17:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Main Adminship options

Insert them here. I still don't have them clear. But as far as I understand there should be both sysops and bureaucrats, so we need to independently discuss some topics on each one. Coran Ironclaw 17:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to support an Adminship option not based on sysops and bureaucrats, discuss it here. Coran Ironclaw 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

General role of bureaucrats and sysops

I thought the role of these guys were more established but I find now there is a lot to discuss before we start discussing the details of below. The main role of bureaucrats and sysops should reach consensus first. Please on this section do not discuss about any of the topics below unless it has a direct relationship with the role you are supporting. The main objective of this page is to diminish the necesity to be lurking between userpages. Please wrote a synthesis of your ideas and put a link to the full version for details, and try to keep the discussion here and not on the user talk pages. Coran Ironclaw 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

JediRogue version

Role of bureaucrats: All roles of sysops, Sysop mediation and final word in sysop conflicts, Finalization of policy. Role of Sysops: General maintenance and vandalism protection, Mediating user disputes. User:JediRogue

Defiant Elements version

Role of Bureaucrats: All roles of sysops (only to be used when a Sysop isn't around), Sysop Mediation, ArbComm, policy finalization, Sysop promotions, Bureaucrat elections (when consensus is not clear). Role of Sysops: General maintenance, ensuring a high level of professionalism (for the purposes of which they are endowed with semi-autonomy), mediation. I think that pretty much covers the basics. See here for more. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

42 version

Role of Bureaucrats: Same overall responsibilities and authority as Sysops in regards to maintenance and integrity of the wiki. Mediation on issues between Sysops, "higher level" of arbitration of user issues not satisfactorily solved by Sysops, a.k.a. "redress of grievances". "Swing vote" on Sysop (on vote with majority of bureaucrat votes) and Bureaucrat elections. Not to get involved in user disputes until situation attempted to be resolved by Sysops. Ability to demote Sysop to regular user (on vote with majority of bureaucrat votes). Must use facts in decisions, not play favorites.
Role of Sysops: Responsible for day-to-day maintenance and integrity of the wiki. Authority to temporarily suspend regular user account privileges (with cause, must have good reason). Perform housekeeping of the wiki, delete files, etc. Mediate between user disputes. Can request removal of sysop or bureaucrat, must have provable grounds for removal. 42 - talk 20:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats Discussion

After their role is clear we can discuss this:

By how bureaucrats are elected:

• User Elected bureaucrats (as gww)
• Sysop Elected bureaucrats
• Bureaucrat Elected bureaucrats

Discuss:

• Election of Bureaucrats: Hand selected by Anet, Selection may be based off a community poll but should be influenced by the users experiences on the other wikis. User:JediRogue

Ideally, imo, we would have a small number of qualified, intelligent, and unbiased bureaucrats with sound judgment(hi, DE) who appoint the best users for the job, in their opinion, to sysophood. Obviously, community opinions would be taken into account in their decision about that, but it would not be the only factor. --Edru/QQ 19:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there something not obvius on your comment? I am not trying to be rude but (I hope) no one disagrees about admins having those attributes. I think the question is who is going to judge if a person have them or not. On your last sentence are you suggesting sysops should not be elected by user but by admins only? Coran Ironclaw 17:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Edru (hi to you too) is simply saying that the Bureaucrats (who will theoretically -- or at least hopefully -- be intelligent, qualified, unbiased, etc.) should have the final decision regarding Sysop elections. I think this probably belongs on the "How Sysops are Elected" section since it doesn't seem to relate to Bureaucrat elections. For my thoughts on Bureaucrat elections, see the draft of ADMIN that I wrote. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the current method of electing bureaucrats in GWW could be accepted here. There seems to be no issues with that method. I don't think that having ANet appoint them follows the idea behind the wiki of the wiki being maintained by the community that uses it. I do agree that it should be kept to a small number, and that they should be unbiased in their role. They should understand that they may be occasionally expected to find in favor of someone they cannot stand, if the facts prove that person right.

A system that lets Sysops or Bureaucrat appoint other Sysops and Bureaucrats allows for too much possibility of abuse of power, the "select few" trying to keep their friends in power, instead of allowing a fair and impartial process. 42 - talk 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

By how much time bureaucrats are on seat:

• Lifetime bureaucrats
• 1 Year bureaucrats
• 6 Month bureaucrats
• 1 Month bureaucrats

Discuss:

• Under the assumption that there will be periodic Bureaucrat elections (since I find that more than likely) I'd say staggered elections such that only one Bureaucrat is up for re-election and such that each Bureaucrats tenure lasts sometime around 8 months to a year. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Permanent, with the possibility of recall or demotion by other bcrats/arbcomm(if we have it), and of course, resignation by the bcrat.. --Edru/QQ 20:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That'd be my first choice, but I somehow doubt that it'll ever happen. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a recipe for disaster. I'm going to suggest election be held every 6 months. If a Bureaucrat is well liked enough by the community and goes a good enough job, they'll constantly win elections anyway and could easily be de-facto lifetime Bureaucrats.--Mortazo 16:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a recipe for disaster. It's worked fine for PvXwiki and Guildwiki. If permanent bureaucrats aren't an option, I would prefer a 8 month to a year term, obviously with the option of demotion by other bcrats/arbcomm in extreme circumstances. --— Edru/QQ 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that a staggered term for Bureaucrats is a good idea. This would ensure that not more than one seat is left empty for any length of time. I do not think that having lifetime appointments of them is a good idea, as it would more than likely be very difficult to remove them if it becomes necessary. 42 - talk 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

By how bureaucrats can be settled down their position:

• By User consensus.
• By Sysop consensus.
• By Bureaucrats consensus (Only if there are 3 or more bureaucrats)

Discuss: I think it should be by a user vote (besides the initial ones).--Mortazo 16:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am presuming that this means how they can be removed from being active bureaucrats. If they are willing, then they can step down themselves, and hold intermediate elections for a replacement then. If this is an unwilling removal, I think that either another bureaucrat or a sysop can recommend removal. But that person recommending needs to have definite proof for a reason to request removal

By How many bureaucrats there should be:

• Wikiboss, just 1 bureaucrat.
• 2
• 3
• so on...

Discuss:

• Assuming we're not doing one (which is really an entirely different setup), I'd say 3 or any other odd number beyond that. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  I agree in the odd number. However, I think we need to know their role first before discussing how many are appropriate to have. Coran Ironclaw 20:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  Meh. As long as the number remains odd, I don't think it's hugely important precisely how many there are. I'm not even sure you need to have a static number. Essentially, you need enough Bureaucrats such that ArbComm can function, policies/RfAs can be resolved, etc. what that number is is unimportant. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the roles do need to be decided, but deciding the quantity shouldn't change that much depending on what they are expected to do. 42 - talk 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

By if re-elections for bureaucrats are allowed:

• Yes, all they want.
• Yes, but limited to a number of times.
• No

Discuss:

• Bureaucrats may stand for re-election any number of times. If the community (or whoever else is electing them, depending) feels that a bureaucrat will do a better job than the other people running for the spot, then they should be re-elected. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--Mortazo 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with them being re-elected as many times as they and the community want. 42 - talk 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sysop Discussion

After their rol is clear we can discuss this:

By how sysophood is given:

• Use/don't use RFA.

Discuss:

• Election of Sysops: RFAs used as a community poll, Last word made by bureaucrats. User:JediRogue

Anyone wants to support another option rather than an RFA? Coran Ironclaw 19:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, RfAs aren't strictly necessary, but, then again, as long as Bureaucrats have the final say, I don't see a great reason to argue against them either, and I don't think there are many people who will strenuously argue against having them. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RfAs aren't needed to elect someone qualified, but they are a nice thing to use to tell someone why they aren't qualified. While depressing at first, a user with admin potential would overlook the depressiveness of the RfA results and use what is said to better themselves. Even if the person is promoted to Sysop/Adminship, the RfAs would show the promoted user what 'weaknesses' they have to look out for in themselves and their work. Makes them less likely to screw up on a large-scale. (although, being promoted to sysop means you should be pretty unlikely to screw up big time anyways.) That's just my 0.02$, if you all still happen to be looking for cash you can use it freely. ‽-(eronth) I give up 20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

RFAs I think are needed, because it lets the people have a place to discuss why they think that particular person. It is the equivalent of a voting ballot. 42 - talk 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

By how much time sysophood is given:

• Lifetime, 1 year, 6 months, other?

Discuss:

• Lifetime. Since there's no cap on the number of Sysops, until a Sysops does something to warrant removal, there's no good reason not to appoint them to lifelong tenure. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that this should be decided once we get more people involved. I do not think a lifetime appointment is needed, but 6 months and one year I think are too short, 2 years might be a better term for sysops, with potential for long terms, if they are re-elected.

By how sysophood can be removed:

• By User consensus.
• By Sysop consensus.
• By Bureaucrats consensus.

Discuss:

• Users (this includes Sysops) may initiate a recall and ArbComm may formally examine a Sysop's status. Final decision left to the Bureaucrats. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I vote by user consensus in which users (again, including Sysops) can call for a recall.--Mortazo 16:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that any user can request a sysop or bureaucrat removal, it would then go to user vote, and the remaining sysops and bureaucrats are the deciding vote. 42 - talk 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

By How many sysops there should be:

Discuss:

• As many as are needed to keep GW2W running well. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this should not be a set limit, the best idea is how DE suggested. 42 - talk 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The laid out is limiting

While a separate page could come in handy, the way in which you have laid out the discussion is limiting. I suggest you leave it open for normal discussion as it would be on any other page. -- br12 • (talk) • 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying you can't add new sections to "normally" discuss. If you (or anyone) wants to support an idea of bureaucrats that can't be formed up by the options I am inserting, please explain your idea at the bottom and explain why it can't be formed up. While I might be limiting some options, I really think it is necessary some organization and splitted discussion, at least I really need to read all your reasonings. Coran Ironclaw 18:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it's limiting, the fact of the matter is that it's not helpful. If you managed to achieve consensus on each individual point, and then tried to force all of those things into one policy, odds are, the policy wouldn't come together very well. People's opinions on each section are predicated on their opinions in other sections, trying to break it up rather than having it all as one cohesive statement of what an individual believes in won't lead anywhere. I'd much rather see a number of versions of the ADMIN policy that could then be critiqued and decided between. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the only thing needed before the laid out if helpful is to have the role of sysops and bureaucrats clear or with a reached consensus. Even if that does not happen here I think it is helpful to read the general opinion on each topic. Coran Ironclaw 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a discussion page on proposed policies. I do not see there being a problem with presenting a discussion of the factors that will ultimately affect this policy. 42 - talk 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Death line for an Adminship policy

I think it is healthy to settle a death line, but I feel myself not experienced enough to propose it. Please Discuss. Coran Ironclaw 17:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what a deadline accomplishes. Sure, I suppose if the debate becomes deadlocked it might be nice to have a time at which a final decision is made (which of course brings up the question of who makes the decision when it comes time to do so); however, on the other hand, it also rushes a rather important policy. Content is a ways away yet, so I don't see the need to start worrying about getting this policy finished. So, rather than creating an arbitrary deadline, why not just wait and see where the discussion takes us? *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, you have a point. But I think at least we should state that we must have a final Adminship policy before the release of the GW2 Beta, yes I know we don't even know the date but just to have that in mind. Coran Ironclaw 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Setting a deadline this far from the release of the game isn't a big use. I think that having it closer to the release, like maybe when the beta is let loose. 42 - talk 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DE, do you at least agree that this should be decided before the start of the use as a wiki for the game? 42 - talk 22:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have a core policy which formalizes the policy creation, amendment and repeal processes before we formalize other policies to avoid disputes about the legitimacy of those other policies -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The page is not helpful

I don't see how this is particularly helpful. Forcing people to re-state their ideas (for instance, mine already exists in the form of a proposed policy) isn't going to accomplish much more than the fragmented user pages would. I can't imagine that the decision will emerge from the discussion on this page as opposed to the discussion on actual policy proposals. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes yours and another 10 and more could come. Having the overall idea of the available options is extremely difficult in this situation. I think we need a place with synthesized versions where we can concentrate the discussion of the options. Maybe the final decision won't emerge here, but the intention is to create a concentrated discussion for fair consideration on all the options prior to the actual policy proposals. Coran Ironclaw 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviuosly, I agree with DE here. This is the same thing I tried to tell you about. What I think you are missing is that these options are uninteresting in themself. They are parts of a system and it's the product of the full system that is of interest. Backsword 08:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

These options are not the point, the point is that this is where people can express their opinion of the accepted policy for this wiki. These guidelines are for this wiki, and the system in use on another wiki do not necessarily apply here. 42 - talk 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

When editing this page

Could you at least go to the big edit at the top of the page, instead of clicking on every little edit section and putting your replies? It's clogging the recent changes majorly. Not that we have anything else to see, but I'm tired of looking through those (diff) (hist) . . Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Policy/Adminship‎. Thanks -- br12 • (talk) • 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Time to start this again

After an initial flurry of activity, the discussion on this seems to have come to a low now. By now we have a pretty big amount of proposals/opinions/general user comments (like Backsword's culture poll). I feel it is time to pull all the strings together again to get a centralised discussion going, hopefully bringing in and bringing together all the opinions out there. --Xeeron 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

::crickets::

What would you like to talk about?

At first glance there seem to be two big areas which want discussion;

1. Administration structure - 2 tiers vs 3 tiers, who makes up arbcom.
2. Role of policy in moderating sysop discretion - how much to define and not define.

Are there other key topics anyone would like to discuss? I could launch into a summary of the different opinions and approaches which have been suggested but I want to know if that's worthwhile and that there are folks interested in the discussion! :) --Aspectacle 23:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My main hope is to condense the different drafts into one draft that could eventually be passed. The question is: How different are the opinions out there, where is the common ground, where are big differences. --Xeeron 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on our current administrative drafts is that Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship 2007-12-27 would be the most effective. Being the middle-ground of Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship, Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Adminship/Draft 3 and gw1:Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship, it's not an extreme of either completely autonomous sysops or restricted sysops. I think it would be the most effective, out of the four, giving sysops the ability to maintain the wiki to the best possible level without fear of either incompetant admins or irresponsible admins (that's not to say that any of the current wikis have either, but saying those are the extremes of a sysop system on each end of the scale) .

The Bureaucrat system for Draft 2 should also be effective, giving a select few the authority to manage sysops, wiki disputes or the wiki in general. I think it includes the extra responsibility that Drafts 1 and 3 lack in terms of a higher authority making executive decisions when deemed 100% necessary, where 1 and 3 are simply sysops with the ability to promote/demote sysops. -- Brains12 \ Talk 16:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It'd be nice if draft 2 had more paragraph breaks and was written a little more clearly. It should have a few more details on elections and information about recalls on bad sysops also. Maybe if it was the Feb 06 2008 draft of the admin policy on GWW. :D

I think that draft 2 is ok, but it lacks some of the details and polish necessary. Do you think that it is necessary to grant the bureaucrats full sysop rights? --Aspectacle 04:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)