Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Requests for adminship 2010-08-15

no nominations for GW1 sysops

What are you trying to do with this? - RFAs should not be started for: someone who is sysop on Guild Wars 1 as this should not be another advantage or disadvantage and would allow players to feel more secured in things being fair. Am I interpreting you right? -> you don't want existing GW1 sysops from either wiki becoming a sysop here? If I understand you right I don't think you'll get much support for such an unfair unreasonable restriction. -- Aspectacle  03:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite fair really. You don't want people who have sysops on both ends to get the big head in that I have the power there and here, etc. I feel it'd be more reasonable. If the player/sysop/contributor/etc. as he/she would be... If the player can show that power means nothing, but maintenance tools and tools in emergencies, etc. only used when needed and necessary and not an advantage I'd change that. :-) To me, power or no power, we are all users and I prefer to be fair to the players themselves. Ariyen 04:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have concerns with basically any of the inactives (specially for long periods) and I am thankful for Check User for the sysops that are often active to use... However, there's a tinsy problem or well concern more than anything... I have seen and I look at many many in-actives there... (info) There are hackers, etc. people who could find out what they want. If they knew they could take control of someone with special abilities and things on a wiki - you'd never know what could happen. (Scenario) What if someone took control of an inactive, banned the other admins, etc... (hence why I placed some of what I did and I feel that I am not the only one with this concern) The only person or people who could do something about it are the Anet staff, but they they'd be alerted to a security risk with the wiki (well maybe? or maybe far fetched, but anyway, remember this is just my thoughts. I'm not sure on what I say, but anything can be possible, I myself have not really messed with a wiki of it's own to it's full potential, well can't with things I'd like to try, because I'd need more than one ip address, etc.)... (Anywhoo..) So my thing is, while it may be fine for inactives to have sysops, etc... Wouldn't and doesn't it pose a security risk? That's just my thing and why I posted my statment as I did... I don't want someone get so busy with one and forget the other or busy with the other and forget the one... Or someone who gets inactive on both with sysop... and stay inactive for what over a year? It's not just being fair to the users, but trying to play a safe net. tbh... Ariyen 04:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

RFAs on GWW have been denied in the past for nominated users who happen to have an active moderating role on another wiki(s). Henceforth, sysops and bureaucrats on GWW should not request for the same position on GW2W. That's how I see it anyway. - Infinite - talk 05:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you trying to stop these people from being sysops altogether? You end up excluding some of GWW and Guild Wiki's most qualified, trusted and active admins as a result. You're telling gw2w's current sysop team to get stuffed - I think they're doing a fine job and would rather them at the reigns than most of the other active people here at the moment (including myself ;).

@Ariyen: I agree that there are inactive members who are sysops in this wiki who may never return to being interested active wiki members. But your fairly weak concerns around security and the idea of power-hungry egos and unfair clauses in the requests for adminship policy isn't the way to set up an inactive admins policy. I suggest you find somewhere else(adminship policy?) to deal with that aspect if you feel that inactive sysops are a problem. -- Aspectacle  05:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"RFAs on GWW have been denied in the past for nominated users who happen to have an active moderating role on another wiki(s)." I don't see any reason why sysops should have this position on both wikis, they're two completely different games AND wikis. They can swap GWW for GW2W, but they'd still have to put up an RFA (though I would not ban them from doing so, to be very honest). As long as GW2W doesn't turn into the dump GWW has turned into, I can't really object anyway. - Infinite - talk 05:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about this subject is moot at this time, considering how we don't even have an Accepted Adminship policy. We can't make a policy about choosing admins if we haven't even decided what admins will be. Erasculio 05:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask Ariyen about an aspect of the policy she was working on I thought was strange and I didn't agree with. I realise now that I misinterpreted her intention somewhat (not to completely prevent previous gw1 sysops from being sysops here, but only to prevent people from being sysops in two places at once). Worth discussing while I was in the mood to care. :) -- Aspectacle  05:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@Aspectacle, Thank you and I hope it's clear now. @Erasculio While Admin, etc. has not been defined. I'd say from the looks of most of them. It will be similar to the previous. Ariyen 07:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't mistake me for agreeing with your perspective - just for understanding you more and therefore not quite as opposed to the idea as before. :) What I said about your concerns with inactivity, security and ego still stand, they shouldn't be a part of this process. -- Aspectacle  08:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Wait, why can't people be sysops at both wikis simultaneously? --Riddle 08:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why they can't, though I wouldn't be against them having to RfA again. Most of the GWW sysops do a great job, and I think they should be allowed to do so here if they wish. ShadowRunner 10:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, the GW2W community should still have to approve of whatever candidates wish to be sysops. --Riddle 21:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't see a point in trying to discuss a "request for adminship" proposal without having an Adminship policy, I have made a new Adminship proposal. Keep in mind how something like that would impact something like this proposal. Erasculio 00:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey I gotta an idea! Why don't we actually decide what a policy is, how it works, and how to properly follow them before we start making them? Sounds like a plan to me! *cough* --hnzdvn 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What good would that do? We already know what policies we need. One for the admins. One for User pages. One for Npa, etc. As for Erasculio, I like what Defiant has the best out of all of the Admin policies already proposed. This rfa doesn't hurt be here. Defiant's Admin policy is (in my opinion) for what a wiki is and how one works with admins involved - rather it's what we need. This in so many words is what I feel we need. I will add a link to my first post that I made, but didn't save in time as I will post it on my page in sandbox. Ariyen 04:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

DE's adminship policy needs more paragraphs or bullet points or something.

I think it is probably worth clearing the table of the proliferation of three year old proposals and restoring only those which have someone to actively improve and update the policy when discussion occurs. -- Aspectacle  05:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Eras is correct, but disregarding an admin policy solely for this discussion, I find this whole sentence, "someone who is sysop on Guild Wars 1 as this should not be another advantage or disadvantage and would allow players to feel more secured in things being fair", to be odd. Almost to the point of being suspect.

I am not seeing how being a sysop on any of the Guild Wars 1 wikis is advantageous. None of them have anything to do with each other besides potentially having a similar user base. Now I can see a disadvantage as being more work to moderate ,but as long as a sysop is active on both, I would see no problem with that, i.e. User:JonTheMon on GWWiki and GWiki.

I also have to ask how would players feel more secured in things being fair? I don't feel that it is a good start to imply that the selected GWWiki and GWiki admins that were grandfathered to GW2Wiki are corrupt in some way, to the point of not being fair. If admins were not trusted by the community, they would not have been vetted into sysophood. Although I abhor the popularity contests, even those serve to show an amount of trust placed in an individual. If there are specific examples why players would not feel "secure", this would be the place to bring it up, otherwise it should be omitted as per my reason above.

I will agree with Ezkeial, in that everyone will have to go through RfAs again. It is only fair that we do it here. Ideally, such RfAs and any new RfAs will occur towards release when there are more active contributors to participate, as it did with GWWiki. — Gares 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"I will agree with Ezkeial, in that everyone will have to go through RfAs again." I agree and that's why I made this proposal. Well, more of the many reasons as to why. Ariyen 17:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oligarchy

[1] - Pling has mentioned this word often enough when it comes to sysops/bureaucrats and in essence depicts a group of authorities distinguished by (in accuracy of the term;) royalty, wealth, family ties, or military control. Obviously, in this case we would alter it to effectiveness and efficiency of the powers that lie with the individuals (Wikicracy). Question that rises here (for me) is: If we run a check-up on all current sysops and bureaucrats and dish out those we know handle their positions well, then have them decide whether more sysops/bureaucrats are required and have them decide on whom these tools should go to, would it not counter the very problem of RFA's turning into popularity contests? I am sure we won't need RFA's and that we can all decide (once) on which people are efficient at what they do. If anything, I find nothing wrong with Pling's mentions and ideals and it would reduce the bureaucracy on the wiki where it is not required.

So, for the tl;dr: Why not ditch RFA altogether? - Infinite - talk 23:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem being "effective sysop" can be a relative term.--Emmisary 23:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Also popularity doesn't necessarily determine RFA's. Generally RFA's aren't determined by voting, but rather by the arguments proposed by the members. Then the b-crats decide yes or no. This way popular trolls with many supporters don't end up getting sysop status. This has been and still is working well so I don't see why ditching RFA's will help. Plus, there is always going to be a rotation of people coming and going which necessitate the need for more active sysops. Of course we can also just have the b-crats appoint people to be sysops without the RFA. And the person can either refuse or accept the position. --Lania 23:38, 08 September 2010 (UTC)

"Of course we can also just have the b-crats appoint people to be sysops without the RFA." <-- Exactly what would occur after the initial group has been decided on. Admittedly, if we (re-)elect the wrong bureaucrats, we're not going to have a pleasant authority core. - Infinite - talk 23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem with such system is that we are going to end with an admin core that basically shares the same ideas, without too much room for changes or innovations. In a system like the one we had at GW1W, as flawed as it was, it was still somewhat common to get sysops very different from each other and with very different points of view, thus capable of helping the wiki in different ways. Erasculio 00:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Erasculio and that is why I feel this to be effective. Ariyen 00:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

But didn't we also come to terms with sysops/bureaucrats not being "above the user" when it comes to using the tools those positions offer, but rather deciding based on what discussion has laid out for them to base action on (i.e. consensus)? - Infinite - talk 00:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I think consensus is more fluid than that. I think consensus is "if someone is being a troll, deal with it", not "if someone calls a contributor an idiot twice in a single comment, block him for 24 hours if it's the first time, with an increase of 6 hours per number of previous incidents, up to a maximum of one week". There is always room for interpretation in the role of admins (as it should be, otherwise we would need books and books of policies), so having a team with different points of view tend to be useful. Erasculio 00:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Dare I say we should elect a varied team the first time and still go with a Wikicracy, then? If variety - in time - fades away due to sysops/bureaucrats dropping out we can always re-roll the idea for RFA as it stands on GWW (as according to users, that system is not broken either). - Infinite - talk 00:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

@Infinite (after my post - not last one.) That's how come you elect people or get people who can use the tools and not be changed due to it. Rest of my response is here [[User:Ariyen/Knowledge]]. Ariyen 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you do not trust the unbiasedness and efficiency of the current sysops and bureaucrats at this point in time, Ariyen? If so, that would be exactly as to why I'd propose electing a proper team before thinking anything along the lines of a Wikicracy. - Infinite - talk 00:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

God wiki wars with policy nuts are boring as hell. I can see why people enjoy trolling now.--Emmisary 01:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Some, I trust. Some I do not, but most that's active here are benefiting more so than causing drama, etc. Ariyen 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm

I'm not so sure this should be moved or refuted even. Nothing in it's subject indicates a policy... It can be linked to gw2w pp and changed up to better suite gw2. After all, not me, but I feel it could benefit for later on. Seriously, we have many in-actives that I'm not keen on and I'd like to keep the actives, but I'd like us to decide who would be best for what (as long as they'd accept)... Ariyen 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Linking it from the practices and processes article would imply that the RfA process actually is already an accepted practice on this wiki, which it simply isn't. So even if we might later do something similar to RfAs to appoint administrators, it shouldn't be written as a practice before it happens. poke | talk 19:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean as if it's accepted, but a proposal still for pp or the like. A consideration for us to still talk about. Ariyen 20:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)