Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/21-07-2009draft

What exactly are we talking about when we say a request for bureaucracy? Would it be essentially identical to an RFA or would there be substantive differences (eg. an increased focus on consensus and discussion)? *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

GWW:RFA is a policy as well, so this should be answered then with that policy for bcrats.. poke | talk 18:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, but since one of the central aspects of this policy modification is that it alters the process by which bureaucrat status is bestowed, it's hard to discuss this proposal without having some sense of what GWW:RFB might look like. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, with the bigger responsibility given to sysops, RfAs would have more discussion, while RfBs would be simpler if only because it's not that big of a deal (plus it would only select among the poll of available sysops anyway). Erasculio 20:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Term

Why? -- Brains12 \ talk 20:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, never mind - apparently people like fragmented discussion. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Brains, I have also added more about your question in your talk page and in Tanetris' one.

(Just kidding : D). I don't like it either, but if that's what it takes for consensus, so be it. Erasculio 20:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If there's no restriction on the number of bureaucrats, they can be removed through reconfirmation and sysops are going to handle arbitration, term limits seem pointless. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Erasculio 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

May I inquire...

...as to exactly what this draft is trying to achieve? I've read through the discussion at Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Adminship#No_bureaucrats, but I haven't really been able to pick out much of an actual reason behind it. I see reference to "a lot of ceremony", yet at least as far as I see it the election process is honestly fairly straightforward - in fact, it's far simpler than any policymaking that goes on here. If anything, I see more potential for trouble with this proposal due to arguments over who should be on an ArbComm than I see issues with the current election system. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Aiiane that there would likely be more arguing on who is on ArbComm using this system. --Antioch 13:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Making it short, bureaucrats do next to nothing, yet the position has all the trappings of a very big deal: all the large ceremony around who will be chosen, despite how the sysops are actually more important and their elections are mostly left alone; the restrictions preventing sysops who become bureaucrats to continue to be as active on their sysop duties as they were, something that in practive makes the community lose valuable sysops; all those rules about leaving e-mail adresses publically available and having a very short term.

Bureaucrats don't matter. The time and effort spent on choosing one is not worth it, losing a sysop to get a bureaucrat is not worth it, and all the quasi-mystical aura part of the community links to the position of being a bureaucracy is definitely not worth it. By removing the ceremony, most of the rules and most of the roles a bureaucrat has, we highlight how a bureaucrat is basically just a sysop, and how the sysops are the admins that really matter here.

I think it's more likely we will have trouble to get three sysops who want to join an ArbCom at any given time than to deal with multiple sysops who want to join an ArbCom. We already have few active sysops, and the job of being part of an ArbCom is not something all of them would necessarily be fond of. Erasculio 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning to regret posting earlier than I didn't care if this were changed, because I'm finding in reality I do care if this is changed. People gripe about the elections... why? because it brings up a site notice? That is the only thing I can see that changes for the average user because of elections. You may feel the pomp and ceremony surrounding the elections for a position you see as being not worth it, but I see having an elected body that is open to any member of the community to be the final arbiter of problems, as well as limiting who can change user permissions is a valuable position. I do think the the people who make the final decisions in problem cases should NOT be people who have had to have administrative interactions with them otherwise. I also think that holding the position for 6 months is fine. -- Wyn 17:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"I think it's more likely we will have trouble to get three sysops who want to join an ArbCom at any given time than to deal with multiple sysops who want to join an ArbCom." I disagree. Being a bureaucrat for an arbcomm is surprisingly little work - you're there to act and think how you always do. That's why people elected you. You can ask for evidence, read over what people post, then respond with how you feel. It really isn't that tedious for any specific bureaucrat, even though it may seem like that because the arbcomm overall is so tedious.

The biggest problem I have with this is... a big part of arbcomms is the ability to decline them. If the bureaucrats think the case is too trivial or is better solved by sysops, they will turn it down. As history shows, more have been declined than accepted. However, with a large pool of "bureaucrats," the chances of each case being accepted are much higher, since all it takes is three people that are remotely interested in the case to say they'll do it, which, IMO, partially defeats the point of the arbcomm to begin with. Until this draft has something to address that problem, I can't support it. -Auron 15:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Such as the recently removed limit that would allow only sysops who don't have anything to do with the case to accept it, or something like a time limit in which people could possibly accept the case? Erasculio 15:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He means a problem with the pool of people who can accept/decline a case being changed from three where you need 2/3 to accept to a situation where there are like 15 (I'm not going to actually count) people who could accept the case. Misery 15:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm asking what kind of thing does he mean with "something to address that problem" - directly the reduction in the number of eligible sysops (by forbidding those involved in the case, which may lead us to cases in which there are no uninvolved sysops available), or if he believes indirect measures (such as a small window of time in which the large number of sysops may decide to accept the case) would be enough. Erasculio 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those approaches would really solve the problem he is talking about. Typically 2-3 sysops, maybe 4 max are involved in an event, that still leaves a huge pool. A time limit doesn't change anything, there are plenty of sysops who are active daily. Misery 16:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, what exactly does "Bureaucrats have sysop status" mean? Are they as per sysops but they get to change user rights? Am I correct in saying that you're basically just shifting the ArbComm rights from bcats to sysops and then removing the cannot-block restriction on bcats? You also noted willing sysops. What happens if there are no willing sysops? Or it all of the sysops deem themselves "involved" and refused to arbitrate? And lastly, since bcats appear to also be sysops, can they join the ArbComm? -- ab.er.rant 00:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In the current adminship policy, I believe that "bureaucrats have sysop status" means "bureaucrats are sysops, every rule which applies to sysops in general applies to bureaucrats unless otherwise specified". As for willing sysops, I believe that the statement is intended to indicate that three sysops must volunteer in order for arbitration to proceed (in other words, no sysop would be obligated to arbitrate), this is similar to the currnt policy, in which arbitration can only occur if at least two bureaucrats accept the request. I think the requirement that sysops be uninvolved should be changed to a preference in order to handle cases in which most or all active sysops are already involved. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gordon. Changing the draft so it's just a preference for sysops who are not involved. Erasculio 14:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

totally off topic

Is there a reason this is dated for July? -- Wyn talk 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

lol! poke | talk 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)