Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/Inactive Clean-up

Our administration team is, for the most part, inactive.

Old[edit]

Please take a look at GWW:ADMINS. We have no active admins, and only 3 who are semi-active, mostly doing janitorial work. I'm of the mind that we should remove the inactive admins / bcrats, and add some of the more active editors as admins / bcrats. While there is clearly less to be done now than in GWW's heyday of a decade ago, I feel we still need at least a core group of active administrators.

Sysops[edit]

Bureaucrats[edit]

~~Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/JonTheMon~~

New[edit]

I would like to nominate the following users who I have noticed making substantial contributions to the wiki over the past few years, and still appear to be somewhat active (here in exclusively alphabetical order):

‎Falconeye (talk • contribs • logs • block log) (user unavailable)
Infinite (talk • contribs • logs • block log) (user declined)
Justice (talk • contribs • logs • block log) (user declined)
Mist Y (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
‎Ruine Eternelle (talk • contribs • logs • block log) (user declined)
‎Smiley-1 (talk • contribs • logs • block log) (user declined)
Shade the (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
Steve1 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

This list is by no means exhaustive. If you feel you know of anyone else (including yourself) who has contributed to the wiki, and would make a good Sysop, please nominate them.

In addition to the above sections for Sysop, I would also suggest we let our existing team of bureaucrats retire, and migrate some of the existing semi-active sysops to the role, in addition to 1+ from the list of nominees above.

___

Thanks. horrible | contribs 18:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think Alex and Greener have been doing a fine job. Idk if they want more people to step up and help or if the wiki is fine now that it is fleshed out? I don't think it is appropriate for myself and a couple other users on that list to be given any "real" power nor is it necessary. I would recommend Ruine. They are not combative and understand the word compromise. Justice (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to be honest I disagree with the notion of this. GWW has never had an activity policy for the continuation of sysops, its why we had the inactive tag in the first place. Many of the people above formed integral parts of the history of this wiki and the formation and grounding of many of the pages that see constant use, they provided many of the building blocks and governance that helped form this wiki and its the GW2 wiki. In furtherence of this, many of us are still able to return and interveen if widescale bot edits were to happen. The grounds for re-confirmation are rather clear and are much more focused upon misuse of sysop tools, rather than lack of use of said tools.

Furthermore I disagree with the notion of "tidying up", their is not a limit to sysop roles or beuarocrats and people shouldn't really be subjected to a spring clean, as the wiki is not an electroal system. Admin powers are granted based on the ability of the above people to show to the community, that they can be trusted to act reasonably and in the best interests of the wiki. This was done at the time and has continued to be proved to be the case, even despite people's absence. Absenteeism has never been a grounds for a debate of these abilties. It seems like an oddly punitive stance to take and a common misconception that wiki's should act like electroal democracies seen in western poitical systems, which simply has never been the case.

if their is an issue with the current list, surely the better thing would be to re-organise the current admin list into two boxes; with a dormant or inactive list and create a new list of active sysops. That allows any new active sysops, to gain help and advice if needed, from any of the pre-existing sysops who they can still contact, due to them retaining admin privlidges.

This is just my oppinion though, but honestly imho this seems wrong headed. - -- Salome

20:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Over a shorter duration of time, I might agree. However, it's been 8 years. The wiki of today is consistently far less active than the wiki of yesteryear; there's less demand for administration, and by proxy less need for sysops. What purpose is there for keeping people "on call" when there will not be any such call? This isn't being done as a punitive action, purely a pragmatic one. There's no way of knowing if an inactive sysop has any interest in retaining their position, or if they even have access to their account still. horrible | contribs 21:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I am asking in good faith, but in what way is it pragmatic? Also in what way does need, justify admin status? Their is not a finite number of admin posts, these people are not blocking new appointments. So what infact are you hoping to achieve through their removal? What issue does it fix, that you are seeing? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm genuinley curious as to the purpose of this project. As a general "tidy up", doesnt really cover things. So what is it you're hoping to achieve by removing inactive admins and how does removing them attain those goals? I believe thats a reasonably fair question to ask. -- Salome

21:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I started this page specifically to create a dialogue about this, but short of Alex directly notifying people about this I got a pitiful number of replies. If people haven't cared enough to participate the wiki in any capacity for years on end, do you honestly think they're fit to be a sysop? Community interaction is integral. horrible | contribs 21:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

With the utmost of respect, you didnt answer my question. Also you use alot of terms here that need unpacked, such as "care enough to participate", "fit to be a sysop"... what do you mean? Admin status isnt a reward for ongoing work. It's abilities granted to users who show they can be trusted with them and wont abuse them. You said you didnt have engagement with your idea, now you do. I'm asking very politely that you explain the things I asked in my previous message so I understand the issues most prescient to you. (also we really should take this to the talk page for this article but as an involved party, I wont move it incase of perceived potential bias) -- Salome

21:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

1. "in what way is it pragmatic?"

I feel it is unnessary to have so many inactive admins. As I previously stated, there is no way of determining if someone is even still interested in being a sysop unless they're active. Ability as well; a lot can change in a decade. I would be extremely surprised to learn that none of the sysops in the inactive list have had a life-changing event big enough to prevent their return. Last, and equally important, there's an element of risk with having inactive sysops and bcrats. If one of their accounts gets hijacked, the entire wiki could be wiped in a matter of minutes. (While I am aware this can be undone, the ability to undo an action is not a reason to not prevent it).

2. "in what way does need, justify admin status?"

Need is the only justification for administration. If there were no need for sysops, there would be no sysops. I'm not sure I fully understand the reasoning behind this question.

3. "what infact are you hoping to achieve through their removal?"

Reduce the risk to the wiki as mentioned above, maybe even potentially revitilize the now-stagnant wiki community. I also personally feel that having the majority of our administration listed in red inactive is an eyesore.

4. "What issue does it fix, that you are seeing?"

Engagement; specifically lack-of. In order to become a sysop in the first place, you have to show that you're capable of fulfilling the role. In my mind, that would obviously imply continued capability, something that excessive inactive indicates the opposite of.

5. "what is it you're hoping to achieve by removing inactive admins and how does removing them attain those goals?"

While there may not be a de jure limit on sysops, there is a de facto one. If I had proposed adding sysops to the list and not removing any, I would have been told that there were plenty already. Again, this is part of the reason I made this page.

---

Please let me know if you have any further questions. horrible | contribs 22:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer, I would however respond:

1. None of the issues you raised, really determine prgmatism. You have stated your belief that a sysop should be active and then restated why you hold those beliefs, but nearly all of which are based on your personal beliefs of what a sysop should be. Your issues concerning desire to continue and the like are more based on oppinion, than pragmatism. The sole pragmatic concern you raise is the issue of potential abuse of admin powers if an account is in some way compromised; but as the length of time these people have been administrators demonstrate... these risks are low; also the ability to correct them almost instanteous.

2. If need justifies admin status, dependant on a footfall basis... why are you putting forward new sysops? From a review of the current team, their seems to be no issue with current maintainence of the wiki with its current administrators. So as need is the only justification, how does this track?

3. I'm not sure I understand why you believe a more active admin team dictates a more active community or increased engagement. Surely the admin team is jsut representative of how active the general community is? I'm also not sure that your personal aethethics is a convincing reason for widescale review of admin privlidges. I would also suggest that their are ways to adapt this, by changing the presentation of the admin noticeboard itself and thus limiting the view of inactive administators into another box.

4. Again thats an oppinion based decision and was never a requirement of the role. Adminship is not a reward for engagement, its a position given to people who have proven they can be trusted with the tools. One can be the most engaged user ever, but if they're prone to drama, arguments and bouts of anger... its unlilely they would make an appropriate sysop.

5. I'm sorry but i just dont agree with this. That has never been the stance of the wiki and we have never limited sysops based on how many we currently have. If you can point me to a previous instance of people wishing to become a sysop, where it was denied based on current numbers; i would be most appreciative.

I would very much like to see an active admin team and if people wish to run for sysop, they certainly should. I also believe this is more a debate about a policy change of sysop expectation, which is fine but it should be logic and debate led IMHO.

I'm totally happy and open to debate these ideas with you, but might i suggest we go to the discussion page? -- Salome

22:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that you've labeled all of my answers to your questions as opinions, and have shown we clearly have differing opinions, I do not see what benefit there would be to further discussion. horrible | contribs 23:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

“While there may not be a de jure limit on sysops, there is a de facto one. If I had proposed adding sysops to the list and not removing any, I would have been told that there were plenty already.”

In all the many discussions on removing inactive admins of the past, this has been repeatedly brought up. However, I am not aware of any evidence that supports this claim. I don’t believe that we ever had a failed RfA because of a large enough administration team. I would actually claim the opposite: During GWW’s most active days, when we had easily more than 10 very active admins, sysops would battle each other with being the first to review a new edit on recent changes. It was a crazy time, yet we still had successful RfAs despite the obvious non-need for more sysops. Yes, we might have been more critical about activity and knowledge during those times but the community was large enough to allow this. In the past years, this is obviously no longer true but we still had some RfAs that would assume that the number of (inactive) sysops was not an issue. poke | talk 23:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I remember those days of racing people to revert troll edits... fun times. Bloody plinggggg would always beat me to it! -- Salome

23:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

<reset indent> So I've been watching these proceedings over the last few days and have gotten a bit of a sense of déja vu from it, as similar things have happened in the past. I do sort of feel that if this is something the community wants to do, it should really be incorporated into GWW:ADMIN that a certain level of community involvement is required of sysops/bureaucrats. Also, I'd just like to point out that if horrible doesn't like red, my vote it to change inactive status to a nice purple. --Rainith (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think personally this should have always been a GWW:ADMIN issue and then if decided upon by the community, the inactive sysops and beuarocrats should have been contacted to inform them of the change and given the chance to rectify the issue, if they wished to retain their roles. As it stands this flies in the face of common sense. A change here being made retroactively, without any form of recourse being available to those it effects. It's frankly nonsensical and irrespective of if we take the literal interpretation of the guidelines as stands or the meaning of them into consideration, it still lacks the fundamentals of simple fairness that were essential in the formation of many of the wiki principals. Also further to this, the fact that so many of the sysops returned relatively instantly upon being contacted on their talk pages, despite a long term lack of posts, showed that many of us were still easily contactable via normal processes (leaving a message on the user talk page) and that we were still willing to check the messages, respond and engage. In my oppinion the concept behind these RFA's fail on their own grounds. Not to mention that subsequent engagement by the sysop team, shows that the central notion is fundamentally flawed. Frankly this should never have progressed to a vote and to have it progress to a vote, in the middle of global pandemic which may limit the ability for some sysops to come back and express themselves on this issue; is frankly shortsighted, if not crass. -- Salome

19:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And what's more, I would vote against 2 of the remaining 3 current "nominations" anyhow. In the end we probably just removing names from a list rather than add any. It really doesn't make sense and reeks like someone being upset about a current admins decision making so they are trying to shoehorn in someone else to "break the monopoly". Idk crazy theory end. Justice (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've taken time to review the 3 remaining entires and their contributions, communication style and abilities when it comes to dispute resolution and the like and I will say that I too would vote against two of the remaining names. It's also somewhat complicated by the fact that the primary user, behind this project has stated that because we disagree, they no longer wish to debate the issue. I have respected that and not pursued it further, as I feel they have a right to withdraw from a debate if they wish.... but as it stands I now seem to have no one to engage with as to what issues are seen to be occuring and what this hopes to achieve. It's all somewhat frustrating. If this had of went through normal and correct procedure and channels and a simple message had of been left on the sysops pages to inform them of it. It would have been open to debate and engagement. Instead you now have multiple "votes" occuring, which overall dont really convey any debate beyond "they've been inactive". Which is fine to say, but frankly was never a requirement and thus not grounds for a vote and never has been. We always agreed on this wiki that changes on user behaviour could not be made retroactively in this way and this whole process seems to have jumped the shark. Frankly the RFA's should be quashed as they are and this should proceed through a policy change process, with proper engagement and logical and objective discourse as to what issues are apparent, what is hoped to be achieved and what people feel need done about it. Thus far, I have yet to see a logically objective argument for these RFA's. -- Salome

20:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Frankly this should never have progressed to a vote" The only reason you know this discussion is even happening is because of the RFAs. Should I have waited another 8 years in the hopes your afk ass might come by to offer input? You're showing a complete inability to look at this from any perspective other than your own, which is disqualifying of a sysop in and of itself. I waited a week between creating this page and then creating the RFAs, to allow for proper discussion; that amount of time has been sufficient in the past.

Rather than trying to shortcut the process which has been suggested - I made RFAs. if you're unhappy about that, I suggest you act like I didn't make them; go back to being absent for another 8 years. There's literally no point in continuing to whine about what the "correct" way to do this would have been. horrible | contribs 20:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No; discourse is happening because a user left a message on the talk pages of every sysop. The same could have been done asking for our input on policy, it just wasnt. Also disagreeing with you is not an inability to engage with the subject matter. I am quite able and prepared to do so, you however have been defensive and unwilling to engage, which makes it problematic. I will however say that your constant use of provocative languge, such as whine... is unhelpful to the debate at hand. I am trying to see your point, but thus far you have simply stated that sysops should be active; something that has never been the case. -- Salome

20:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Directly soliciting feedback from sysops has never been a requirement of RFAs or policy changes. If you feel that it should be, I suggest you make a discussion regarding a policy change. horrible | contribs 21:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nor is that what I said. You said people had returned due to RFA's, i was pointing out your error and that instead it was due to direct communication on talk pages. Furthermore what I find odd, is that you have decried a lack of engagement and now seem hostile towards the engagement you sought unless it agrees with you whole heartedly. I have yet to rise to the bait of your tone or the continued case of you assuming bad faith, nor will I. I however will restate im genuinley open to debating the reasoning behind this process with you. If however you are going to continue to see my disagreement with your ideas as a personal attack, im not sure if this will help. Kind Regards -- Salome

21:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It was a mix of both in this instance; some returned due to RFAs - before the talk page notifications. As for engagement, I should clarify that I mean it should be initiated by the sysops and bcrats, and should not have to be solicited, as was the case in this instance. horrible | contribs 22:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the way these RfAs (or RfRs) were started was suboptimal, and didn’t follow the exact written procedure. It certainly would have been nicer to contact the people in question first before creating the RfA page to collect “is inactive” responses without a chance of the person in question to even state whether they would like to retain their role or write a candidate statement.

But here we are now. Things happened the way they did and we will progress from this position here. Since the people were contacted, a few of them already came back and answered in one way or another, and some of them showed that they still care a lot. I consider that already a good thing.

As for whether we want to require a certain level of activity for admins in the future, that’s probably something we will have to discuss eventually, albeit I believe we should do that separately. For what it’s worth, if we agree on that, I don’t believe we should impose this retroactively, and I would also be careful to make this safe in a way that a wiki of this general activity and community size can survive. Regarding that last point, I think having admins that may be inactive but can be summoned with a simple message on their talk page is a very good thing. Such a wiki can survive without visible admin presence (as shown in the past) but steady admins are useful when the actual community might be fluctuating. So maybe we want to allow for a mix of admins that are made up of people from the current active community and people from a “long term trusted user base who have shown that they care for the long run” (or something like that). poke | talk 23:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

<reset indent> Hello Salome, flaws in the recent approach aside: Aiiane wrote"sysop status isn't a medal/award that it's unfair to take away; it's a tool" - what is your take on this? In case you agree: What would you like to achieve or do with the tool in case you keep the toolset? In case you are of another opinion: Would you be willing to share? Thanks, Steve1 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Aiiane, in that its not a medal or an award for participation, which is why their was never a requirement for constant activity, for said tools retention. Instead it is a tool given to users who have displayed that they can be trusted to act in the best interest of the wiki itself, when they are available to assist with the wiki's operation on a voluntary basis. As for what I would do with the tool, with its retention... I'm not sure I have conveyed myself clearly on this point, so allow me to clarify. I havent yet decided if I wish to retain my position at all. As a sysop and as an indiviual, my primary issues were always one of fairness, objective applictaion of wiki guidance and policy (in a practical manner but also in keeping with its spirit) and the continued effort to make sure that the wiki could be a safe and functional space for contributors to engage in a productive manner. My issues here arent that a process was skipped and that I'm in someway outraged by the fact that the minutaie of the process wasnt followed. I'm not angered at horrible in anyway, for not understanding the rules that were set up over a decade ago on this wiki; as thats understandable. My issues are that a retro-active change to policy that determines judgments on existing users, with no recourse to adapt ones behaviour; is a terrible precedent to set. It is obviously and blatantly unjustifiable to take the stance that in effect states: "hey that rule we didnt have before, well we have it now and you've fallen afoul of it.", as it clearly lacks a grounding in any form of fair process. If my last act as sysop on this wiki, is to ensure that bad practices such as this do not set a precedent for future decisions; then I will be happy to render that service to the wiki.

To answer your question more directly however, as I don't like to sidestep questions, if I did decide to retain the role of sysop after these proceedings; I'm happy to take on whatever standard duties present themselves realistically for a wiki at this current juncture within its life cycle. I would also consult with fellow sysops and the community to see what additional admin duties they feel are being neglected and are needing assistance with. I have however in my oppinion, always attempted to be fair, objective, reasoned and as demonstrated am quick to respond when contacted. You stated earlier that you had problems with a sysop earlier in the year and you had struggled to contact another admin to discuss this issue with. I would suggest that having experienced administrators, unfettered by pre-existing notions of who somebody is as a contributor, allows users to contact an admin who they can be assured will work to assist them with any issues they have, in a manner which is untarnished through previous notions of who that person is and instead will help work through the debate with them in the hopes of finding a suitable solution given the issues that have arisen, for the parties involved and most importantly the wiki itself.

You asked expressly about utilisation of sysop abilites, but I will go further and make it clear however, I do not intend to engage in rewriting widescale content pages to demonstrate "activity". I am ill suited for that role, as I am dyslexic and adding alot of spelling mistakes at this juncture is to no one's gain. My interst as a contributor, rather than as an administrator, has always been the armour pages. If you review the armour pages, you will see about 40% of the current content is directly attributable to a project that I was a solo undertaker of, however since the close of the GW1 Test Krewe (which I was a member of at the time), I am no longer able to continue with that project, as I discovered upon my return. If their was someway to regain access to the GW1 test server, I would probably finally recommence that project and finally finish it... as its something thats annoyed me for years. I would probably give Linsey a shout, I know shes no longer lead on the live team for GW1, but she may know of some way I could re-access the servers to complete the armour project as she was aware of my work on it at the time.

If their is anything else you desire from me to answer, please feel free to ask. In the interest of candour, I have end of year medical examinations in 13 days, which I am currently preparing for. So my focus at the moment will understandably be on them, but I will get back to you ASAP around those commitments. -- Salome

21:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Salome, thank you very much for taking the time to write such an exhaustive response, especially since important RL matters are awaiting you in less than a forthnight. I'm currently (likely for the rest of this month) borderline inactive on the wiki myself - so if some further questions manifest themselves it might be a few days.

I do have to agree that retro-active effects of law or policy changes are a slippery slope.

Anyway, hope your preparations go well and best of luck/success with your exams. Steve1 (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you steve. Take care, stay safe and its a pleasure to meet you. -- Salome

21:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Likewise! Was good "talking" to you. Steve1 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

<reset indent> Salome, it's been 9+ years since you've marked yourself as inactive on the list of admins. You can't really expect anyone to post on the talk page of an inactive admin and hope for a response, that's usually not how it works lol. Inactive pretty much means you're unavailable for help. Also can you clarify how your future work on the armor pages will require sysop powers? Thanks. --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I've covered alot of this above already. So I'm not really sure what you want me to clarify, but I will try my best to answer.

With all due respect "how it works" is exactly whats up for debate at the moment and what people are debating... as the assumptions people made about what inactive means, in effect differ widely between users. We're seeing with the number of sysops who have recontacted the wiki after being messaged, that inactive didnt mean uncontactable across the board and maybe that was an expectation that needed clarified back in the day. However we are where we are now, and thats what we need to deal with. In addiiton to that your secondary question; it was a clarification and an attempt at candour with Steve, who seems like someone who would appreciate a thourough and rounded answer. As the issue seems to be a possible new requirement on activity, I wished to be upfront about what things I may be active with and what things not to expect me to be active on. However I totally agree with you, what I choose to edit as a user and contributor, has very little to do with sysop powers or abilities... which has been the point ive been making since the beginning. If I can help with any extra info, please feel free to ask me. I will try to get to it but as I said, I'm answering inbetween revision at the moment. -- Salome

10:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/Inactive Clean-up

Old[edit]

Sysops[edit]

Bureaucrats[edit]

New[edit]

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

support

Tools