Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship

Archive

---

• 2007 Feb - Aug
• 2007 Sep - Dec
• 2008 Jan - Apr
• 2008 Jun - 2009 Aug
• 2010 Jan - 2011 Jun

Bureaucrats, elections, arbcomm

So, it's time for another election, but as I was starting to make the page, I couldn't help but think: it's GW2 beta weekend time, GW2 will be released some time this year, this wiki's activity level is getting lower and lower, and who cares about elections anyway. I have a feeling it's been more apathy than opposition when it comes to doing something other than voting in elections every four months, and I think with GW2 around the corner (for real this time), it'd be good to have a stable bureaucracy and more sysops.

Scrap Arbcomm, letting bureaucrats be bureaucrats+sysop in truth as well as technicality. Scrap elections, scrap terms, and choose afresh bureaucrats who will serve indefinitely. Perhaps use normal RfAs to choose them; maybe even borrow from GW2W's RfA system. Either way, I think these are things that aren't too controversial. pling 17:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been saying this for years now. Definite support. -Auron 18:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

But, but, but ...all I ever do on the wiki these days is vote every 4 months :( (meanwhile, back on Earth - strongly support.) --snograt 21:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding sysops, I think each election period should be used to update the status list. Since december 2011, I have only seen 3 out of 16. Also, I would like to see those users granted with administrator tools make more use of Guild_Wars_Wiki:Sysop_guide#Cultural_reverence_of_sysops rather login to delete only. I have been checking the Recent Changes for half a year now and its non-sysops who do the explaining. Which makes me think that I know what sysop is in theory but unseen in practice. Yoshida Keiji talk 12:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was a long history of that, regarding the use of the word "janitor" being applied to the sysops on this wiki. But like pling said, it's mostly apathy now as many people have moved on.

I support (even though I'm doing what Yoshida said - deletions). If someone would actually create some drama over this, it might actually liven up the place a little. :) -- ab.er.rant 15:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

From the 16 and even out of 3, you are the only one that actually bothered to leave messages refering to background, giving the big picture and explaining further steps to move on (that's why I was thankful). The problem Im seeing is that if regular users leave comments in new user's talk pages; it's good but...since they are not sysops, they don't need to detail or reply in dialogue. And without interaction between users the community itself cannot grow. I would like to see sysops assisting active user and /un-stuck issues that are on halt. I think "Ask a question" is a good example of how the entire wiki should be handle. There are several questions around here and there but left with no answers (same case as drop research sections without tables to fill in = show the way, and users will do). Yoshida Keiji talk 21:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin duties are things like warning, blocking, deleting. Stuff like talking with other users and talking about drop research aren't admin-specific things - it's something any user can do. Even if an admin gets involved in something like that, they're doing it as any normal user would, not in an admin capacity. Civil dialogue and explaining actions are things all users are encouraged to take part in, not just admins.

But this is all beside the point, as this section is about bureaucrats and elections. Feel free to create another section to discuss general admin involvement. pling 21:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There have been no arbcom requests since 2010, and no accepted/resolved cases since 2009. The wiki has been quiet for a couple of years now. It's safe to that the system is dated and ready to be removed, and this isn't including any opinions of whether the arbcom system was any more effective than, say, user committees.--Riddle 22:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I have no opposition to anything said, and would like to say that the past 3 or 4 elections have felt one-sided with the same people being re-elected and only 1-3 people even attempting to run/being nominated. That said, I dislike seeing 75%+ of the list of admin being red in "inactive" and suggest the premise of "# months of inactivity results in revoking of seat" with someone else being put in place - be it by election or RfA. Konig/talk 04:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh. There's your drama, Aberrant. -- FreedomBound 11:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

^-^ Well, the original stand was that once we've trusted someone enough to be an admin, then unless they prove themselves unable to handle being admin anymore, we just let them be, active or not. But that was when GW2 was a long way off. Now, it's highly unlikely that the majority would even consider returning to a more active role here. We could always drop a message on their talk page. Still, if we start trimming our list of admins, should we first try to get more admins? Are there admins willing to step up to maintain this wiki (instead of "stepping up" on the GW2 wiki instead)? -- ab.er.rant 14:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Currently we have enough active admins to keep the wiki in decent order. I would personally support the removal of inactive admins since they're not contributing so don't need the rights :p. Removal of short fixed terms, elections and arbcomm system along with longer terms sounds like a sensible idea for bureaucrats. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 15:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If we're going for indefinite bureaucrats, I don't see a reason to not have indefinite sysops (and I don't consider trimming red blocks a valid reason). Also, Konig, there's no "place" that the inactive sysops are keeping reserved; we can add new sysops whenever we want, without having to remove any inactive ones.

But, again, that's another topic (and these arguments have already been made); this topic's about bureaucrats :P. pling 15:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As one of the currently seated bureaucrats, this act to permanently install me in power is glorious. On a less power-hungry note, I think elections have become more of a hassle than a help; we're not having issues with needing bcrat turnover or fresh blood for ArbComms. To that end, we should have bcrats be permanent until they step down/drop off the face of the earth. Also drop ArbComms, since those haven't been relevant and we're now trusting in our sysops more with discretion. But, to transition things into the new system, we'll need some sort of way to establish the bcrats from here-out, and how to replace ones that step down (likely the same system with different scope). That does imply that we want 3 bcrats, but that would be fine to change or retain. --JonTheMon 16:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

@ping: I know sysops don't have a limit for positions, I was implying we could make. just tossing ideas about. Either way, no opposition from me about improving the admin system, especially bureaucrats. Indefinite until inactivity or stepping down sounds like a good course, for both bureaucrats and sysops. Konig/talk 17:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just my two pence: before shortening the list of admins, please announce this and allow a transition period (like 1 month?) to let people be more active if they desire. Then exclude those who don't like. --Slavic 18:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

@Jon; we could just have them pick "successors" when they feel they're too inactive to be of any benefit to the wiki. We're a small enough community now that everyone knows everyone, and we trust the bcrats enough to not pick dipshits to replace them. -Auron 06:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Three was a good number and unless there's a compelling reason to move away from 3, let's just stick to 3. -- ab.er.rant 14:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The wiki has changed a lot since it started up, and the 4-monthly elections have been obsolete for a while now. As such there is no big problem with doing away with regular elections. However, the number of admins (3) has not shown any downside, so I don't think there is any reason to change that. Regarding the procedure to select bureaucrats, I am opposed to bureaucrat-self-selection. We'll have very long (infinite?) periods soon, so why change a prodecure that will not make any hassle due to overuse anymore. Given that we will not have the downside, what arguement could you possibly make against the current procedure? It works and has never selected bad bureaucrats. --Xeeron 17:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue of inactive sysops very much revolves around how you look at sysops Koenig: If you feel that being a sysop is some kind of reward or present, then it is unfair to give that reward to inactive people. However, if it is a box of tools, then there is no problem with inactive "tool box carriers", since we have an unlimited amount of tool boxes. --Xeeron 17:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Like auron and others said, this needed to be done years ago. I definitely support plings proposal. --Lania 23:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If the entire "process" of electing/appointing "bureaucrats" and "arbcomms" was to "police" the WIKI, the GW gaming community, the "scammers" and other assorted deadbeats, then it's STILL a necessary "occupation"----------after all, "if the cat's away,the mice will surely play". The GW community (both for GW and GW2) will still need it's "won-ton" (or half-pound as the case may be) "enforcement" arm as a "last line of defense" against the "barbarians at the gate". The success that the community has had in keeping GW (and this WIKI) in a "reasonably clean" condition is, in part, BECAUSE of our elected bureaucrats and arbcomms. This game has not yet been interred, all of the questions have not been asked (or answered), and though GW2 "MAY" stand alone, it will be a far poorer place without the GW "foundation" supporting it.

My suggestion is this:

If you are going to maintain an active GUILD (or be a member of an active GUILD) in EITHER GW or GW2, that GUILD needs to maintain an ACTIVE presence on the WIKI, willing and able to serve a term as a bureaucrat OR a sysop----AS NEEDED. (meaning: you run for election AND SERVE THE TERM if elected, or are available to serve when/if a WIKI "crisis" demands additional assistance to resolve (smiting hackers, spammers, thieves and other assorted riffraff)---who knows, you too might get a "green" (energy-neutral) weapon system for your very own use!! 68.59.37.249 17:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

How is that supposed to be related to the changing of beaurocrats to indefinite terms, arbcomms (users being a PitA on the wiki) or elections? File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 18:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I've long thought that the current system was too cumbersome for the current level of participation in the wiki. I'm not sure I like GW2W's system. But I think we either trust our admin team...or we don't. If we do, it's easy:

• Appoint for life; the B'crat team chooses its own successors. Their only specific responsibilities are promotions/demotions and (on rare occasions) dispute resolution.
  • If there are objections, we can hold a reconfirmation.
  • If a chosen successor isn't yet a sysop, then they go through an RfA.
• They should have the same rights/privileges as sysops.
• Issues that require an appeals process can be handled on an as-needed basis by any three sysops. Call it an armcomm, call it a court of appeals, doesn't really matter.

– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Appealing a block and regular ol' discussion is enough for an "appeals process". Let's not define a number required for something to be sorted out. Re choosing bureaucrat successors; I'm fine with bureaucrats choosing their own successors (either by themselves or after discussing with the other bureaucrats). But how do we choose this first group of bureaucrats who will serve indefinitely as sysops+bureaucrat? pling 17:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: # to review an appeal: the point is we don't need to have 3 elections/year to create an independent review panel; any reasonable, but formal system of appeals will do the trick.

Re: which b'crats do we start with. The ones we have now; I don't see a material difference with our current system in which incumbents have always won (except when there was, in effect, a recall movement). Or, at worst, hold the next three elections as scheduled, but changing the terms to permanent.

One thing I forgot to mention is that there needs to be some way to determine if a b'crat has become inactive (I think semi-active is fine, as long as they respond in a timely fashion to queries). I think the easiest system is to allow anyone to suggest (based on recent contributions) that a b'crat is inactive and let the active b'crats choose a successor. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the point that incumbents usually win, while we do have a fine group of bcrats, bear in mind that there are a number of former bcrats (myself included) who simply don't run anymore because of how bcratship interferes with being a sysop. Removing that issue as suggested here would likely see a swell of interest (if perhaps a small one, as some have faded away from the wiki overall). - Tanetris 18:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, I'm agnostic about whether to hold a massive "choose three" election soonish or to stick to the current schedule and elect one at a time. (The latter has the advantage of giving different people a chance to think through their interest in the role...and allow different parts of the community a chance to choose.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Are we ready to agree?

(Reset indent) I see widespread support and no opposition at all to the central ideas:

• B'crats are appointed for life.
• B'crats are special sysops with the power to promote and resolve disputes.
• Arbcom is dismantled. Any appeals can follow the same process as Guild Wars Wiki:Appealing a block.

There are also some issues we seem to agree are beyond the scope of this discussion:

• Do we need to purge the list of sysops so that the "inactive" section isn't so large?
• Do we need a larger number of active/semi-active sysops?

There are some missing details:

1. How do we select the first set of indefinite-term b'crats? One election? or use the next three in the schedule to select the people, one-at-a-time. (I don't think there's full support to grandfathering in the current group.)
2. How do we decide when a b'crat is inactive enough that they should be demoted to sysop?
3. How do we choose replacements?

(1) I'm okay with one big election or sticking to the current schedule to choose. The first gets it done quickly, but the second offers more opportunity for people to participate.

(2) I think we can offer two objective but arbitrary definitions: they haven't contributed at all for 6 months (or 3 or whatever) and/or on more than one occasion, the community couldn't reach them to resolve a timely issue. However, the simplest would be to let anyone propose that a b'crat is inactive and follow the existing RfR process.

(3) In choosing a replacement, I prefer to let the remaining two b'crats choose. Yeah, it lacks a classic balance of power aspect, but we're talking about the wiki, not the government of a new republic. I like the idea above of requiring a new RfA to confirm the choice: that ensures that the person becomes a sysop (as required) and it gives the community a chance to chime in, without making things too complicated. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

1. If nothing else, hold 1 election and the top 3 vote counts get the seats. Still not a fan of elections though.

2 and 3. My suggestion was mostly that the bureaucrat himself would decide when he was unable to continue contributing, and would at that time appoint a successor. Some people (like poke) can get hectic real life schedules, but if called to the wiki for any specific task, would do his best to see it through - but when someone loses their desire to contribute (or oversee the project) they know it's time to pass on the torch. Most people, especially the ones actually serving as bcrat, see the position as a duty to the wiki and not as a badge of honor, and would willfully pass it on when they lose interest in performing the duties. PvX isn't the greatest example of a wiki, but that's largely what we've done over there - I stopped "caring" about the project in 2010 sometime, but I made sure bureaucrats were always around who did care, and made sure they knew to promote people if they ever went inactive. -Auron 09:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm good with that. This revamp effectively says that we agree to trust b'crats to get things right and to take their job seriously and Auron's suggestion builds on that more so than what I proposed. (And, as a backup, RfRs are always available for any sysop, including a b'crat.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree. One point occurred to me (not overly changed by this proposal, but still...) - what safeguards are in place for the unlikely situation that a bureaucrat turn rogue? Always wondered ^_^ --snograt 10:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

ArenaNet can make server-side changes to strip his power, and if he manages to do something bad enough, revert to a backup. Most edits/user rights changes can simply be reverted. -Auron 11:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ty, Auron :) --snograt 11:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How am I supposed to participate in elections? How to make the right choices? If a "new" Bureacrat is to be promoted among current sysops...old election candidates seem pointless as what matters is how much active they have been as of the last months. I have been trying to understand this since the last election. Sysops are just users with three more tools: Block, Delete and Protect. Which means...these should be users who are "very active" in maintenance and bookkeeping on a "very regular" basis. Now the users who are currently doing both maintenance and bookkeeping...none are sysops. On the other hand...the sysops...are not much seen in both maintenance and bookeeping. How can regular users find out? By checking the contributions, being the most seen: Special:Contributions/Auron, Special:Contributions/Ab.er.rant and Special:Contributions/Farlo. And also by doublechecking: Special:Log/block with Special:BlockList and Guild_Wars_Wiki:Admin_noticeboard plus Guild_Wars_Wiki:List_of_candidates_for_deletion.

How to check Bureaucrats activity? By looking Guild_Wars_Wiki:Requests_for_adminship (history) and Guild_Wars_Wiki:Arbitration_committee/Requests. Since there has been no arbitration requests for years and only one (meh) RfA... I don't know if the current Bureaucrats are perfoming (active/inactive) as expected (positive/negative). How can a regular user know if they are doing well? So that we can create an image...and then look back to sysops and think who could do better by replacing a current one? Are Bureaucrats supposed to be only 3 or could there be more of them? I don't see administrator ranks keeping the wiki organized or updating pages such as filling up articles with {{stub}}, checking revisions and fixing lazy/lame edits, participating in talk pages to discuss article issues, etc. Elections will keep coming but I still cannot take part, nor will know the how in here GWW...GW2W...GW3W... and so on... Yoshida Keiji talk 13:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You can still look at past RfAs, discussions, arbcomms, etc, to see how candidates have acted/would act, even if there haven't been any recent situations which require action. You can also ask candidates questions and base your opinion on their answers.

Regarding the three issues above: (1) like Auron, I'm not a fan of vote-based elections. However... it's quick and relatively effortless. I'm not sure whether a big to-do with RfA-style RfBs would be better than simply voting on it. I'll leave that to others to decide. If we do vote, I'd rather have them all at once; I can't see there being more or even the same level of activity after Guild Wars 2's release than there is now. (Tbh, as long as Tanetris is promoted, I'm fine with whatever.)

For (2) and (3), what Auron says sounds ok. pling 23:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm chiming my voice in to agree with Pling. -- Armond Warblade 00:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edging closer to agreement

(Reset indent)

So it looks like we have agreed on:

• B'crats are appointed for life.
• B'crats are special sysops with the power to promote and resolve disputes.
• Arbcom is dismantled. Any appeals can follow the same process as Guild Wars Wiki:Appealing a block.
• The first three infinite-term b'crats are to be selected by election, with the top three vote-earners taking the role.
• A bureaucrat stepping down chooses their own successor.

These issues remain beyond the scope of this discussion:

• The list of sysops marked as "inactive".
• The number active/semi-active sysops.

I think the only issues remaining are:

(4) When a b'crat steps down (and appoints a replacement), do we require an RfA?

(5) In the rare event that they don't appoint a replacement, what do we do?

I propose that (4) an RfA is only required if the person isn't already a sysop and for (5) we allow the remaining b'crats to demote (it's one of their existing duties ) and decide how to replace, i.e. instead of spelling out every possible situation, we empower the b'crats to act for the best interest of the wiki; they can decide whether to hold an election, promote an existing sysop, or even leave the position vacant, as fits the existing levels of wiki activity.

Unless there are objections to the current proposal, I think it's time to write it up formally and move on to speculating about how many editors we'll have here in September. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Draft rewrite

I've proposed a draft version of the new policy. Please make appropriate amendments and/or comment on its talk page. I think the only other change we'd need to make would be minor corrections to the election policy (since it would only be used one more time) and withdrawing the arbitration policy altogether. The original GWW:ADMIN doesn't include specific mention of GWW:BLOCK, but maybe it should. (Arguably the initial section on sysops could be rewritten for clarity/simplicity.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good - although do we want to keep existing arbcomm rulings in effect? (PS thanks for keeping this thing moving, TEF.) pling 16:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean the decisions made by prior arbcomms? We should absolutely keep those; they are accepted exceptions to the general policies of the wiki, carved out to handle exceptional situations or individuals. I only meant we can strike out the text of the rules governing arbcomms, since we won't be holding any more.

PS I'd like to see a few more replies to this before making such a big change. I'm hoping that some of the current admins can reply (not to mention some of our current frequent contributors). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no issues with the draft. This was essentially the gist of the bureaucrat role on GuildWiki until it got nerfed with the originally admin policy. -- ab.er.rant 05:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with it. Manifold 15:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Get going with the acceptance. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 23:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I decided to wait until the mass chaos of the GW2 launch is over before taking this up again. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You can just push it through :p -Auron 05:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

---

(Reset indent) Now it's a good time to take this discussion back. We don't need to wait for active users in GW2W who are busy there. What matters to the GWW community needs to addressed independently of GW2W contributors.

I will once again bring up the Sysop's topic...because now there is a better argument that I didn't had before. After watching to see if inactive sysops whose powers were kept in case they eventually returned back.... such theory had failed us since last time this discussion was active. Looking back at time, I think the Community should had elected new active Sysops.

These new Sysops should be able to remain active until the Guild Wars Beyond of Nightfall release and a few months afterwards...then GW itself won't have any other attraction left in my opinion, to which point I don't think the present time users will care anymore at all (at least thats my own feeling). Bureaucrats have had no need to wake-up, we had no need of them since GW2 release so I guess its congrats to the last 3 and no need to have more of them at all. But since new sysops could go inactive after some time... I think it would be wise to have them appoint other users to pass the torch in case no activity is seen from then after a certain period of time. These extra candidates should be given a reference as to why the "new" sysops would think their successors could take place. And once again... remove the inactive sysops, there are of no use to us, the Community. Yoshida Keiji (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no benefit to removing inactive sysops. New sysops can be added at any time if/when there are willing users who would make good sysops. - Tanetris 17:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

New bureaucrat

We didn't really go through any election/RfA process to select the indefinite-term bureaucrats (see above). I want to give my bureaucrat tools to someone else though, since I barely check the anymore (and I was expecting a fixed term when I was elected). Who do you think that should be, and how do you want to go about it? Just choose someone and discuss it here, or create an RfA? pling 19:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Promote the new policy so it's official and then select someone from the current list. If they aren't an admin, call for an RfA. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, did you notice that we merged your draft suggestion a while ago onto this page? Chieftain Alex 22:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

LoL — erm, apparently not. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions: Tanetris and/or Auron. Discuss. pling 18:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll say that I check my watchlist on a more or less daily basis, though I don't generally actually do anything beyond a quick glance around for anything glaringly obvious that needs doing administratively. My impression is that Auron is more hands-on active, so if he actually wants bcratship, he's probably a more logical choice. That said, I'm around, I know the drill, I assume I'm still generally trusted, I wouldn't turn it down. - Tanetris 21:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. The role of bcrat has expanded since I last held a seat years ago, but sysop still gives me more elbow room to bash people around with. Tanetris would be a fine choice for bcrat. -Auron 05:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My suggested requirements: understands the wiki and its community & rules; can manage disputes without creating new ones; is available when needed; pays enough attention to RC to understand if there's an issue. Here's what I think the role no longer requires: constant presence, frequent contributions.

Evaluating Pling's suggestions based on the above, I'd rate both Tanetris & Auron as "strongly recommended." I think both have a lot of positives and, if I were to nitpick, a few minor negatives. In particular, both know when to step in and when to let the community work things out. GWW is lucky to have them as sysops and I doubt things would change much based on choosing one or the other for b'crat.

short story for Pling: you can't go wrong flipping a coin for this one. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Gave it to Tanetris. As Auron says, being a sysop is probably less restrictive than bureaucrat (even if only a little bit), and since he's one of the more day-to-day active sysops, I suppose it makes more sense to keep him as a sysop and give bureaucratship to Tanetris. pling 14:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Bcrat replacement, again

Since Jon is no longer a bcrat, according to the policy, User:Poke and I are empowered to choose a replacement bcrat to bring our total back up to three. This brings up 2 questions: who would be good, and does this make sense? (not necessarily in that order)

I know User:Steve1 has expressed displeasure with the as-written selection method (see User talk:Steve1#Governance). At the very least do we want to write in that the bcrats ask for community input even if not formal voting, since that's happened both last time and this time anyway? I personally am also not sure how important a strict 3-person requirement is these days. Technically we could do with one, but two is better for a 'back-up'. Three was initially chosen for tie-breaking, but I can't even remember the last time that's actually come up, especially with ArbComm done away with.

As of the moment, I haven't discussed the matter directly with Poke, but I'd see the top two candidates out of the current sysop list as Greener and Auron. User:Greener is currently the single most active and involved admin on the wiki, and has been for awhile aside from Alex (who has since left). This is both a plus and minus. A plus in that he shows dedication to the wiki, but a minus in that one of the jobs of a bcrat is being a check on sysops going awry. If he's doing most of the sysop work and he's the bcrat in charge of himself, that's not really ideal. Of course there's still the other two bcrats to keep him in check. That said, Greener's generally got a good head on his shoulders, and he's bcrat over on GW2W, so he's familiar with the tools.

User:Auron's almost the exact opposite in terms of activity. He all but disappeared from the wiki for a couple years, until the recent wave of inactive admin reconfirmations, but he's indicated willingness to help if needed. He's been bcrat before and is one of the two people Pling suggested for his replacement when he retired in the above section. I also consider him the sysop most likely to yell at me if I'm wrong, which I consider a strong positive.

Looking over the rest of the admin list, User:Rainith's been quietly plugging away at the background of things off-and-on for basically forever and has also been bcrat before. No clue if he'd be up for the job, but he wouldn't be a bad choice either. User:Xeeron was even more inactive than Auron, and though he did return and seems to be lurking around following the discussions, I don't know what his intended activity level going forward is, but he's also been a bcrat before and has generally been a sensible person in the past.

So does anyone have thoughts positive or negative about any of the sysops for potential bcrat, suggestions for users I haven't considered (whether currently a sysop or otherwise), or thoughts on the bcrat selection process itself? - Tanetris (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, any and all of the above listed seem like fine choices. I can't remember any situation (and correct me if I missed any) where Greener has shown anything but strong level-headedness, so my worries about him self-checking himself are pretty well mitigated. On the other hand, Auron has plenty of experience and trust with the community as well. I unfortunately haven't had much interaction with Ranith or Xeeron, so I don't want to say anything out of context.

In essence, the tl;dr for me is that Auron would be the strongest candidate, but Greener could easily fill it if need be. -- Traveler (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I may be old fashioned in this, but I think there should always be a proper check on the sysops. While I could fill the potentially unnecessary role of the third bcrat, I wouldn't do it and leave the "active" sysop section empty. It's healthier for everyone for me to know I have someone watching over my shoulder given the nature of what I do here. I'm fine with there being two bcrats. Or, if you really want to put me out to pasture, find another sysop and then "promote" me. Greener (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on the level of activity the wiki sees, I don't personally feel that we need a third Bcrat. That said, I'd be willing to fill the spot, but I feel that any of the other three suggestions listed are a better choice. I do think there should be some form of community input into this as well. --Rainith (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Community input at the very least should be included, yes.

Third bcrat: What I wouldn't wanna see in a potential bcrat is a bcrat in a stand-bye role who needs to be contacted if they are needed. I'd want someone with a minimum level of community activity. If push comes to shove they'd need to correct the actions of another admin so I feel it should be someone who'D witness that firsthanded.

Auron: If he's going to stay at least semi-active, I think he'd be a good choice. "I also consider him the sysop most likely to yell at me if I'm wrong, which I consider a strong positive. " I think that'S clearly a big plus in his favour. What I didn't like or agree with is his stance regarding ignoring community vote "If the community did somehow simultaneously lose their minds and vote for one of them as bcrat, I'd say that's a pretty good time to ignore it.". I can understand his reasoning but disagree.

Xeeron: If he's going back to being away for the next years then I'd disregard him for the role. If he's willing to be active in the community I feel like he's written some sensible stuff in the past weeks and if those things really reflect his opinion he'd be a good choice.

Rainith: Why do you feel the others are a better choice? I haven't seen anything from you in the past years supporting that assessment.

Greener: He wouldn't be a bad choice. What I'm missing was his ability to make me understand why he did what he did a year ago. Tan and poke on the other hand, while taking very different positions from each other, still were both able to make me see their side. And that's an ability I really wanna see in a bcrat. So while I think he'd be a good choice, I think there are others (potentially) slightly ahead of him. And Tan is right about his activity being both a plus and minus. The wiki clearly needs admins as active as him (Thanks for that, Kevin!), on the other hand it would be kinda weird if he were most active sysop and overseeing bcrat in one. Steve1 (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Went ahead and added the bit about community input for now, since there's really no reason for that not to be there. Of course if anyone feels I've stepped out of line, feel free to revert and we can go through a proper draft.

I'm also curious why you feel you wouldn't be as good a choice, Rainith? - Tanetris (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I feel like this edit is going to end up sounding like some weird sort of campaign speech (damn election season...) or maybe the inverse. Okay, why Rainith wouldn't be as good a choice as the other suggested candidates:

• I don't like writing up long explanations of things (no Walls of Text). As much as this edit may make it look otherwise, I dislike having to do this sort of thing, or going into long explanations for my actions.
• I'm not on, nor am I ever likely to be on, any sort of off-wiki thing. We had an IRC channel at one point right? You never saw me on it, don't care about it. I believe we currently have a wiki Discord? Yeah, I'm not on it, if you've ever seen anyone on there claiming to be me, it is an imposter and feel free to nuke them. I think I remember someone (Horrible? or maybe Steve?) saying they thought Admins / Bcrats should be more active on the Discord and interact with users more there. Not going to happen for me, I'm old enough that I don't really care about the flavor of the month chat / social / whatever service (old enough I had to change ICQ to IRC when proofreading this).
• I'm not likely to be on the wiki more than I currently am. I don't play the game, don't even have it installed anymore, and I haven't for years. If you want someone who is going to be on, someone who is going to actively participate in a lot of discussions, look elsewhere. Truthfully, I don't know if that is any of the listed folks, but it sure as shit ain't me. Which isn't to say I don't care about the wiki, I want it to be good, I'm just not that interested in the subject.
• Which brings me to likely the most damning reason the others would be better. I think the time is coming, in the not too distant future, that it will be time to wrap up the wiki. Yes, as far as I know, Anet has given no indication that that the game is going anywhere, and honestly they have added more to it in the last ten years than I would have ever expected in a "dead" game. That said, I personally think that at some point in the next five years or so we should have a serious discussion about slowly wrapping up the documentation process. In my mind this would start with disabling anon edits (wiki-sacrilege, I know), but still allowing people to sign up. Then setting a date to put the wiki into read-only mode (with the option to turn it back if something were to happen of course, 20 year anniversary and they release a new campaign or whatever). I realize that much of this is outside of the scope of what we can do, but I totally understand if some folks would object to someone in a position of power (ha ha, so much power) even having this sort of opinion.

Anyway, that's my platform there. "Vote for me and I'll shut us down." --Rainith (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that you've said it, shutting down edits does kinda make sense. As it stands, this is definitely one of the best video game wikis in existence. Focused on a single game, very thorough and clear, with plenty of care and attention heaped on it over the years - most wikis never come close to that level of quality.

WRT activity, I'm in the same boat. Last time I played was probably 2013 or whenever they added my NPC. Nothing is really enticing me to reinstall, so my "day-to-day" presence would continue about how it did before. If the community wants a bcrat here every day (favoring activity over... all the other traits that make a good bcrat) they should probably start a few nominations. I highly doubt anything is going to make inactive bcrats active again. -Auron 02:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This game is no longer receiving any updates? I say lock it down til they add new content (which will never happen). As Auron said I don't know of any wiki thats gotten this far. I also don't know of any that are still editable this long after the game stopped receiving updates. The activity of this wiki being where it is do we need three Bcrats? Drogo Boffin 03:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The game is still receiving updates, and this is absolutely not the correct place to talk about locking down the wiki. This needs to be its own discussion, and it's a very important one. It should not be discussed further here. horrible | contribs 04:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Why not here? It goes hand in hand with is a third bcrat is needed (no). Drogo Boffin 06:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to convince me not to vote for you, you have to try harder, Rainith, that sounded eminently reasonable. Plus, depite you being here forever, I can't remember a single bad action. Might be my memory failing, but still a good sign. --Xeeron (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we definitely need another bureaucrat, though I can see benefits in having a standby, third bureaucrat. It would be the most impartial input to quit-your-bullshit disputes where the active bureaucrats are either too involved or being confronted with community outcry. Personally I don't foresee this type of situation, because it's been years with both poke and Tan sailing smoothly (for the most parts). I trust Poke implicitly with the wiki and his bureaucrat conduct, in particular.

What I do think we need to address is that current bureaucrat behaviour needs to more strictly adhere to point 4 of the Bureaucrat section, Adminship policy. As per Rainith's comment above, I am also not present in any third-party platforms pertaining wiki goings-on and it irks me that parts of discussions are located there (and only there). While I can't dismiss the need to ease communications between wiki users in general, I will suggest that any and all bureaucrat discussions (and possibly sysop as well) regarding GWW should be made public on the wiki for all users to read. A universal chat log of some sort. This will be difficult to supervise, but if we apply AGF it shouldn't lead to any problems in enforcing. In extension of this I would feel peer pressured to keep certain talks behind closed doors if I were to accept another nomination for sysop (if it would conclude successfully), while that transparency is not in place. Without pointing fingers after the fact, this manner of conduct was also present on GW2W and I did not like it one bit. I don't want to immediately push for a suggested change in policy without reading community input on this matter first. - Infinite - talk 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with all points of Infinite above.

In addition, since my name was mentioned: If this wiki needed bureaucrats in the sense of impartial outsiders, who step in and moderate conflict, as the role was probably intented initially, I might make a good choice. However, I think that bureaucrats these days are less arbcom judges and more soft morale guidance. And that requires at higher activity level than I had in the last years and forsee in the coming years. Plus, making somebody who was inactive for years bureaucrat right after a months-long discussion about inactive sysops seems ... not optimal. --Xeeron (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Still waiting for User:Poke's rl to clear enough for him to surface to at least give some sort of opinion, but for the record, my leaning is toward User:Auron as a compromise middle-ground between an active third bcrat (which, would be difficult to say the least) and no third bureaucrat. Also my computer (and my rl in general) is currently apparently hanging by a thread, so apologies if I'm not pushing some things here as hard as I might otherwise. If I suddenly go dark for a bit, well, feel free to worry, but I'm doing my best.

As a brief response to the off-wiki-communications-platform tangent... I feel this is more a perception issue than a genuine issue, as a misunderstanding of how off-wiki communication is used. Certainly I have never shied away from explaining my bcratly actions to anyone who asks. There have been no hidden reasons for any adminly action that I am aware of on either wiki over the course of my tenure. If there is something you feel has been shrouded in mystery, feel free to ask on my or the relevant admin's talk page. Take that as you will. - Tanetris (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So, to be perfectly clear, poke's busy with real-life stuff, you're busy with real-life stuff, and you want to appoint someone who's explicitly said they're not interested in the wiki as the third bcrat? horrible | contribs 15:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So I'm honestly curious, what exactly would you prefer here horrible? No one can be forced to do this, nobody is getting paid for it, do you have a suggestion for a more active person that you'd like to see in the position as I've seen nothing from you on that front that I can recall. --Rainith (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I've not put any suggestions forward because I've been doing my best to avoid the administration side of the wiki for the past month or so. I don't like being used as an excuse for things taking forever.

I laid out a few suggestions for Sysops as part of my clean-up proposal, but given the difference between the roles, I'm not sure any of them would fit as a bcrat. I would be much more willing to put forth people who I know are active in the community as a whole (both GWW and GW2W).

I'm absolutely okay with bcrats appearing less active than sysops, but, again, I feel community engagement is important. So the two main things I would want (in order) are (1) Someone who is an active (or semi-active) member of the community here - or have history here & are active on gw2w, and (2) Someone who has experience as a sysop/bcrat on a GW wiki (PvX wiki, GuildWiki, GuildWiki.de, GW2W, etc). Naturally this is a short list, but there's a few people who fit. horrible | contribs 16:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay - so make a list. If activity is a more important benchmark than any of the other bcrat skills, let's start with that and see who's on it. We're past the point of hypotheticals and theoretical best qualities in a bcrat. -Auron 18:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You make the list. I was directly asked for suggestions, and instead gave metrics for picking suggestions. Selecting a bcrat replacement isn't a vote, and I don't have any say. Given how discussions where I supposedly do have a say have gone, I think I'll pass. horrible | contribs 18:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice dodge. -Auron 19:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I asked for suggestions for users I haven't considered in my initial post, so feel free to consider yourself authorized to make a list. You get a say, just not the final say.

Auron's stated he's willing to put in the work, I know from past experience with him that he is fully capable of doing so, and the general responses to both his reconfirmation and this section indicate continued confidence in him by the community. Greener has stated that him being a bcrat would interfere with his sysop work, so that's a non-starter. Rainith would also be fine by me, but given he's noted he wouldn't be fully comfortable with it, I don't see a particular reason to lean him over Auron. The response has been generally positive toward not bothering with a third bcrat, which I'd lean to if there were no qualified candidates willing and able, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have one more capable person just in case bcrat rights are needed and Poke and I are unavailable. Hypothetically, someone who's reliably active would be nice, but I can't think of anyone who is and would make a good bcrat. But the whole premise of this section is that I'm open to suggestions. - Tanetris (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I’m sorry for the long silence on my behalf. I’ve been meaning to post here over a month ago but you know this is quite a year…

Anyway, I kind of have to echo Tanetris here. I personally think that we would be fine with just two bureaucrats. We have been fine for all this time now and since there hasn’t been that much of a workload for bcrat activities for a while, I don’t see why we couldn’t continue like that. But obviously, being one of the two bcrats makes this somewhat biased so I want to clarify that I would be more than happy to have someone else join as well. In the end, I would like the community to have the say in this, whether you are comfortable with just Tanetris and me being there, or whether you want someone else to keep us in check. After all three makes a good number for decisions.

As for whom to pick, the mentioned names Auron, Rainith and Xeeron all sound good to me. They all have a good track record of caring about this wiki which is something that I personally value a lot over things like activity. If you are able to come up with other alternatives, I am also happy to consider them as well. poke | talk 14:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)