Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Requests for adminship 2007-12-20

Discussion should be carried out first, before creating the actual policy page. --brains12 • (talk) • 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

This isnt an actual policy, this is a *suggestion*. --Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) 21:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be up asap. — ク Eloc 貢 06:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't simply port policies over. Do we need more administrators right now? What are administrators for? What should they do? What shouldn't they do? Are we going to even have a sysop/bcrat scheme here?

There are a million questions need answers before a requests for adminship policy makes any sense.

—Tanaric 06:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well of course we'll have discussion before porting policies and stuff. — ク Eloc 貢 07:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You've ported a policy already. Slapping a "proposal draft" tag on it doesn't make it less of a port. Slow down, breathe a little, discuss things with people. Nobody wants this to be a copy of GWW. —Tanaric 07:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What policy did I port? — ク Eloc 貢 07:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh. This one. —Tanaric 07:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see me anywhere in the history... — ク Eloc 貢 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. I just assumed it was yours since you were defending it. In any case, my points stand, my singling you out does not. :) —Tanaric 07:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I think as of right now (not quite this exact moment, but this general time area), we should get some Sysops who will be entirely devoted to here. So far, only a few Sysops have come here or done anything. — ク Eloc 貢 07:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i copied this by memory from the Guildwiki RFA. Not exactly ported, since memory fails. Also, Gwwiki fails. Guildwiki < Gwwiki. --Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) 12:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

...Really now, that shit got old about six months ago. Stop randomly whining about GWW. -Auron 12:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need this policy yet.reanor 02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO since it's already been determined by Anet that GWW admins are being grandfathered here, the adminship discussion should be delayed until both basic discussions and decisions on how admins should be chosen, and a broader community has formed. -- Wynthyst 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

May I nominate myself, or is that illegal? --Homestarunner93

It wouldn't be illegal, or at least I'd hope not :D. But since we don't have the policy actually running yet, it'd be a waste of time. Lord of all tyria 17:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wynthyst, the reason they grandfathered the sysops here is because they figured we'd want to create our own policys here and during that time, we needed someone to block any possible vandals & conflicts. — ク Eloc 貢 21:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the grandfathering of the Wikis less as an endorsement on Anet's part of the current sysops and more as an attempt to allow for a degree of continuity and stability until we can establish our policies. Regardless though, this entire discussion would appear to moot until we decide on an ADMIN policy. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Let it grow, don't port over. Or, better yet, write from scratch. nuke7 19:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I do think that the porting of policies should not be done, as this wiki is not the GWW, and should have it's own standards and policies. They may end up being the same as GWW, but that should happen on it's own. Also, the current policies as used on GWW should not be automatically assumed to apply here. 42 - talk 21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

I do not think that nomination of a new sysop should be automatically be discounted just because official policy isn't set in place yet. I do think that nomination of bureaucrats should be put off until policy is more established. As long as the prospective sysop understands that the policy is expected to be followed once it is established.

That being said, I would like to post an unofficial RFA for GW2W for myself. 42 - talk 21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that you can be trusted with sysop tools, and not sure why you'd need them. Current practice so far has been grandfathering other wiki sysops (as they have had consensus supporting their sysoptions), if the bureaucrat also agrees with that promotion on GW2W. I don't think either of those conditions apply here, I'm afraid. -- pling 21:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to kick another sysop from the roster, nor am I applying for a potential bureaucrat postition. And as many people have pointed out this is not GWW. Removing my name from a list of potential candidates like this is not cool, and should be discussed before you just decide for everyone else if I am allowed to apply or not. I do not have an issue with you posting your thoughts on me not being allowed to be a sysop or not. I encourage you to post why you think I should not get the position. But that is one person, and one vote. You are arbitrarily attempting to decide for everyone what happens, and that is not cool at any time. 42 - talk 22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments, Pling, also have strong implications that everything that is done on GWW (both good and bad) are just going to be automatically transplanted and used over here. So, basically, the attitude from some is "I am always right on the other wiki, so I will do what I have to to make sure that I am always right on this wiki too." 42 - talk 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed you from 'the list' because the page the list is on hasn't reflected the community's thoughts (as partly shown above), and the discussion here is open for input, as are any other discussions on the wiki. The list is unimportant, and likely won't result in anything. Also, I reverted because it's potentially inaccurate - it stated the page will be replaced with official policy, which might not be the case. Removing the draft policy notice also made it ambiguous as to whether the instructions should be carried out for requests - even though you added that the policy hasn't been established, the instructions seem to indicate otherwise. The line at the top wasn't really enough.

I understand your request; I just don't think it should be successful. On GWW, the community thought I'd be a good enough bureaucrat to elect me, and while this isn't GWW (I'm very much aware of that fact), their opinions and the system in use here so far (grandfathership) would also indicate that I'm serving a somewhat bureaucrat-related position here. In any case, I have the tools, and I've been following current practice as well as my opinion and discretion.

I'm not arbitrarily deciding what happens - as I've explained above, the draft policy page isn't the place for you to request adminship. As I'd do on any other wiki to determine if someone would be a viable sysop, I've done here. You haven't been around long, so I'm not sure if you understand the concepts of the sysop role (and how to go about acting upon them), if you'd deal with user conflicts well, or even if your judgement would be good enough to decide whether something should be deleted or not. Besides, the community isn't nearly as sufficient enough to decide to take on a user who hasn't been a sysop before and only started being a user on November 3rd, especially when actions would be based significantly on discretion - and as a bureaucrat, I'm not going to risk it, either.

Something that should be avoided, in any part of the wiki, is taking a response to be a vote.

I'm certainly not always right on the other wiki, but that doesn't keep me from trying. I'm not sure why you'd think trying to do something right is a bad thing. I'm also not saying everything will be automatically transplanted here - I'm saying people's opinions and experience with the existent policy structure will influence them to make similar decisions here, and I'm not a fan of that. I think a different, and more successful, concept to "policy" exists, and I hope people would try to see that (though it's not proving successful so far). However, this is getting quite off-track, so I'll stop there. -- pling 22:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)
Pling, I was going to try to collect my thoughts, but it will work better if I respond to each subject specifically as they happen in your response. I am also editing out the things that don't specifically apply to the adminship policy discussion. If you are interested in reading my full comments, check my sandbox page here.

"I removed you from 'the list' because the page the list is on hasn't reflected the community's thoughts (as partly shown above),"
Actually, the text that I had added to the top DID reflect the community thought, as I saw it on here, specifically, removal of porting from GWW, and I did establish, clearly, that this was not official policy.

"the discussion here is open for input, as are any other discussions on the wiki."
And I posted here as well, to try to let more people know I was interested in applying for the position.

"I reverted because it's potentially inaccurate"
Yet having a tag that says this is draft policy, when there is no policy draft there, and no links to potential policy drafts IS accurate?

"it stated the page will be replaced with official policy, which might not be the case."
But what if it is?

"The line at the top wasn't really enough."
So fix it to something that is enough, don't deep six the whole thing because of that.

{quote|I understand your request; I just don't think it should be successful.}}
OK, that is your opinion on this, and I respect that. However, the accepted practice (on GWW, which seems to be how things are being run here) is to allow people to submit a request.

"In any case, I have the tools, and I've been following current practice as well as my opinion and discretion."
Since this is a relatively new wiki, and many people (including me) have tried to make a point that this is not to be a direct replacement of GWW, what exactly is current practice?

"as I've explained above, the draft policy page"
And as I have explained above, despite the tag there previously, there was no draft policy listed there, nor a link to any draft policy.

"I'm not sure if you understand the concepts of the sysop role ... or even if your judgement would be good enough to decide whether something should be deleted or not."
Teach me. I want to learn.

"I'm not sure why you'd think trying to do something right is a bad thing."
I don't think that trying to do something right is a bad thing. I DO think that someone getting stuck up and getting the attitude that how they do things is automatically the only way to do things (as many others have done on GWW, for example), when someone else might have a different way of doing things is a bad thing. I am not saying this is how you are, I am referring to other admins and users there, is all.

"I'm also not saying everything will be automatically transplanted here"
You aren't, but many others are.

"I'm saying people's opinions and experience with the existent policy structure"
That is part of my point. There IS no existent policy as this is a new wiki.

"I think a different, and more successful, concept to "policy" exists, and I hope people would try to see that ... this is getting quite off-track"
Show me what your proposal is, and how is this off-track? This is a discussion page for policy.

I would like to consider myself a reasonably intelligent person Pling, and I can be opinionated at times (I know, hard to believe, right?). However, if someone shows me a better way to do things, I am willing to listen. I might not implement that new way all the time, because it might not seem to work from my perspective. But if I didn't understand or agree with something, I wouldn't just ignore what someone else said (with the possible exception of racists). But I also ask that same respect from others in return. I think it can be safely said that we will not always agree on all points on many things, but I am probably one of the biggest supporters of not doing the same thing here as things are being done on GWW. 42 - talk 02:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond to the RfA things here, but not the whole meta-policy stuff - it's not the page for that.

The page is the proposal draft. What's under the proposal draft tag is the draft of what's being proposed - that people transclude the subpage which has the request. It hasn't been fleshed out further than that either because the person making the draft thought that was all that was necessary, or because of the objections to having a request for adminship draft when there's no definition of 'adminship' around (see the comments above). As I said, the page the list was on was not consistent with community thought. I wasn't referring to your text at the top. And I didn't revert the edit just because of your text - it was one factor of many, as I've tried to explain. Besides, for the most part, this specific draft and drafts for an RFA policy as a whole have been abandoned because of it's lack of necessity or relevance.

Current practice is what's happened consistently on this wiki before. In this case, current practice is grandfathering those who have had consensus supporting their sysoption on other wikis. Yes, I'm aware this isn't one of those 'other wikis', but reasons for sysopping someone don't really disappear when coming over here, and I've explained how it's infeasible to promote someone entirely new - even in terms of wiki activity, not just sysop capability. The way you'll learn is through experience - it won't come straightaway. Go on GWW or GuildWiki and watch some sysops do their stuff, and follow discussions. You could say that I've been trying to 'teach' you stuff about policy through my comments, although it probably hasn't been successful. -- pling 15:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sysop tools

Is there any way to have access to some of the tools without becoming a sysop?-- Shew 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that they will allow that Shew. But not being admin, I have no access to them myself. 42 - talk 02:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope they would (though if it's not possible, I understand). I'm on here 24/7, and though I don't really care for any "official" title or anything, I'd like to be able to delete pages rather than tag them...-- Shew 02:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't possible to give you the ability to delete things but not be sysop. - Tanetris 03:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If your concern is deleting files, as long as they are on your user space, I don't think there would be an issue you tagging it for deletion, and having it done by the sysops. If there is something that you want to test out, I know on GWW they have a sandbox for testing, or you could do what many users have done, and make your own personal sandbox page for testing and such. You would, in your browser URL bar type /Sandbox and that would take you to the make a page, or, in your case, click this link User:Shewmake/Sandbox. 42 - talk 03:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

NVM, I see you already have done that. 42 - talk 03:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about ads by spambots and other pages people create that aren't relevant to GW2, and I know the admins get it eventually, but I'd like to be able to get rid of it as soon as I see it.-- Shew 03:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User rights (edit, delete, block, view deleted pages etc.) are based on group membership, which can be assigned by bureaucrats. It would be possible to create a group which grants specific user rights currently restricted to sysops, however it requires access to the servers, a request would need to be relayed to ArenaNet's IT department through Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Requests for technical administration, and we'd need to convince them it's a good idea. Whatever you're trying to do, you should probably try asking a sysop to do it on the admin noticeboard first. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice Shrew's latest post. If you'd like to be able to delete spam and block spammers, you should probably just try to become a sysop. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm in a similar position to Shew, I don't care about titles (either way: if the easiest way is through a title...whatever) and I'm on virtually all the time and trying to help out. So should people like Shew and I just request "Adminship" or should we figure out something else? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 23:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean get an admin policy passed, you'll have to wait for the deletion policy first. It's been 2 years, and that is more important... Apprently. And I do agree we need one, now anyways. --Naut 23:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have one question. Is the page enough for even a policy proposal? Seems more like a throw together page... Like here's where you can get sysops, try your luck - no steps, etc... It's just a puzzle to me. Ariyen 17:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)