Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/A3

Proposing a Change

The purpose of a policy should be to reflect a preexisting consensus. Policies should not be a source of discord. While policies may be left open to interpretation, problems arise when two vastly dissimilar interpretations of the policy arise, not only does it strip the policy of the intended precedent it was meant to provide, it creates a situation (in this case) in which, depending on which view you take, actually impedes that which the policy sought to "fix." As written, this policy indicates that "Sysops are granted reasonable discretion;" however, it goes on to say that "they are expected to apply policy rigorously." I've been given to understand that when it was originally created, there was some basic sentiment (among some groups of editors) that the Administrators should not have discretion beyond the limits of policy, and this sentiment eventually evolved into a pervasive mentality that, regardless of the intention of this policy, has cause it to be enforced as if discretion were non-existent. I'm not sure how many times this issue has been raised but, based on the recent evidence I have seen, there seems to have been a shift indicating that Admins should be able to exercise discretion. Despite this shift, there has been no attempt (that I've seen) to re-word the policy in such a way as to make clear, one way or the other. Again, some degree of ambiguity is one thing, but their is a vast difference between running a wiki w/ sysops who have discretion and running a wiki without. The fact is that whether you favor strict literalism or a more "Spirit of the Policy" interpretation, all you're doing is interpreting the policy, and the policy should reflect, one way or the other, the "consensus" (I'm using the term loosely) between these two opposing views. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, no, no tries at all. While there aren't many, we ARE trying to change the wording. - anja 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

stfu nub DE ownzzzzz -- Armond Warblade 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to revive the discussion at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/Draft 2007-11-14#Moving forward. -- Gordon Ecker 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Know this is late, but for further reference, I'd like to point out that the original idea was not contradictory. The word "discretion" was simply not seen as inherently refering to policymaking. 14:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to cleanup clause

This proposal was motivated by this comment: [1].

I propose changing this part:

Sysops are administrators who perform cleanup tasks (deleting pages, undoing page move vandalism) and [...]

to this instead:
Sysops are administrators who can delete pages according to deletion policy and [...]

Sysops are administrators who can delete pages in accordance with deletion policy and [...]

--Rezyk 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer "in accordance with" over "according to". The latter implies that the deletion policy authorizes deletion (also indirectly implying that without a blocking policy, sysops would not be allowed to use the deletion user right), while the former implies that the deletion policy regulates deletion. -- Gordon Ecker 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed the proposal. --Rezyk 03:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. -- ab.er.rant 04:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

GWW:RFB

I mentioned this on Talk:GWW:RFB, but why is the shortcut for bureaucrats RFB? We don't have "Requests for Bureaucrats". Surely something like GWW:BCRAT would be better (to compliment GWW:ADMIN and GWW:SYSOP). LordBiro 11:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not part of the policy, so there's no reason not to change it. Backsword 10:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Double negatives FTW :D yeah, I realise that, but there's always a chance that someone has a persuasive argument that I have not yet considered :) I was more curious than anything. LordBiro 17:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just add another redirect, change the link here and keep the RFB one. poke | talk 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bcrat rights removed from Biro

LordBiro has 10 more days until his bureaucrat term expires. Until then it seems unfair to me for those rights to be removed prematurely by anyone. Please restore them. --Dirigible 12:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As I explained to your elsewhere, Dirigible, it provides less opportunity for potential exploitation of the system (in allowing someone petitioning ArbComm to decide upon a favorable choice of bureaucrats for their case) to transfer the seat when the election results are finalized, rather than precisely 6 months after the previous election. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it's not up to you to singlehandedly decide this. Restore Biro's rights, remove Tanaric's, and start a discussion to amend the policy however you wish for the next election. But it seems to me very unethical for you to arbitrarily end another bureaucrat's term like this, especially since those terms have been respected and followed very rigorously in the past (and may I note, with no such examples of "exploitation of the system" that you are scaremongering with now). --Dirigible 12:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrarily as opposed to what? The elections policy does not actually specify when the seat changes hands. I have provided sound reasoning as to the motivations for transferrence of the seat, but I have not seen any reason put forth by you beyond a short history of tradition (3? 4?). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2007-07 bureaucrat election clearly states that the term is August 1st, 2007 to February 29th, 2008 and Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election clearly states that the term is March 1st, 2008 to August 31st, 2008. -- Gordon Ecker 12:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither of which are the policy.

Furthermore, delaying transferrence of a seat makes the following element of GWW:ADMIN unclear: "Bureaucrats are considered members of the ArbComm based upon the date the request for arbitration is made. If a bureaucrat loses his seat during an arbitration, he still acts as a member of ArbComm for that case until the arbitration is complete. Similarly, if a user attains a bureaucrat seat in the middle of an arbitration, he is ineligible to participate in that arbitration." It is not laid out whether being elected, or being set to bureaucrat status, or having a term as laid out by a given date, is what defines having "attained the seat". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO: a person is elected for a certain period of time (specifically stated on the election page). That makes him/her attain the seat at the starting date mentioned on the election page, and loses the seat the moment the end date mentioned on the election page has been reached. This is common sense for every other election I know of. Sure things can be decided beforehand, but that doesn't mean those results should be implemented right away. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 12:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I was slightly brief about this in my initial response, Cor, let me elaborate:

The situation which arises when the results of the election are finalized but the seat isn't transfered is one in which everyone knows who the seat will belong to in X number of days, and who it belongs to now. Because it is the "plaintiff" of ArbComm cases who decides when to request an arbitration, this knowledge essentially gives those wishing to request ArbComm intervention the ability to choose which bureaucrat is involved in the case, an opportunity which is not afforded to the "defendant". Thus such a situation inherently taints any arbitrations which might be requested during the intermediary period. The simple solution to that is to transfer the seat when the outcome is finalized. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship clearly states "Sitting bureaucrats can only be removed by unanimous votes of the other bureaucrats.", Guild Wars Wiki:Elections clearly states that term length is specified in the election subpages and Guild Wars Wiki:Policy clearly states that policy can only be changed through community concensus. -- Gordon Ecker 13:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Having Tanaric or LordBiro being bureaucrat for those 2 weeks will not make a difference in practise, but disregarding the dates we specified on 2 election pages would set a bad precident which I would like to avoid. I restored the old user rights till we either come to a different consensus here or the 1st of march arrives. --Xeeron 13:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it does not make a difference, but as I've already stated I will leave them in their original state for now. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While I can agree that a problem can arise where a person could choose to go to Tanaric or LordBiro, I don't see that as a problem. It's not like we have chosen a totally different bcrat that will make very extreme decisions, and most importantly, decisions not in the best interest of the wiki. I see your point Aiiane, and I would have nothing against it if consensus was to change seats now. What struck me is that Biro wasn't even informed. - anja 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, seriously, is this that huge a deal? IMO if Biro's fine with it, why are we complaining? Even so... it's 10 whole days out of a 6 month period. I honestly started thinking of the Celestial Ministers in the Divine Path as I read through this... always getting bogged down in policies and rules and regulations to the point where one of them had to step up and seize authority in order to get the ministers to applaud. -- Armond Warblade 17:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am fine with it, but only because it is me. :) If someone else had had their term ended early I would be pretty pissed off. I don't disagree with Aiiane's logic, but I think it is important that we stick to the terms that are set. LordBiro 21:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much about this either way, especially since Biro and I have generally come to the same conclusions on issues that have gone to ArbComm. —Tanaric 23:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't stay awake for another hour, so I am going to volunteer to give up my bcratship approximately 55 minutes early. Best of luck, Cory! LordBiro 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

good bye, bureaucrat Biro and welcome bureaurcrat Tanaric :) poke | talk 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Grats and welcome Tanaric. --Xeeron 23:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I slightly munged my new email address, since listing my last email address on wiki caused me to be destroyed by spam. Hope that doesn't bother anybody. —Tanaric 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this incident was a big deal. An error was made, discussed, aknowledged and corrected within a few hours and no harm was done. -- Gordon Ecker 03:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wonder if that would happen if you type it as foo@bar.com, which shows up as foo@bar.com. — Galil 18:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Most spiders will pick that up, unfortunately. My preferred munging method these days is to put my email address in a Flash SWF, but that's not possible here. —Tanaric 06:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found that making part of an email address text (say, the username) and then the other part an image (say, the "@whatever.com") works pretty well, since the spiders don't have the contextual clues to put the two together to make an address, and parsing either one individually doesn't grant something usable. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing somethings for clarity, BCrats

From:

If a bureaucrat loses his seat during an arbitration, he still acts as a member of ArbComm for that case until the arbitration is complete. Similarly, if a user attains a bureaucrat seat in the middle of an arbitration, he is ineligible to participate in that arbitration.

To:

If a bureaucrat's term expires during an arbitration case, s/he still acts as a member of ArbComm for the duration of that case until it is complete. Similarly, if a user becomes a bureaucrat in the middle of an arbitration, they are unable to participate in that case.

Also, why only have one BCrat? Two is a good number, and three (or any other small odd number) is best as a decision can be made faster. --People of Antioch talk 20:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

All bureaucrats have a say about whether they want to accept the case - if they do, they participate in the arbitration. The case isn't reserved for any one bureaucrat. The sentence above was just about if one bureaucrat loses his seat during an election whilst a case was ongoing. -- Brains12 \ Talk 20:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I'm referring to the line that says "at least one bureaucrat". Why reduce the number from two? --People of Antioch talk 20:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly "reduced from two". It's supposed to mean that the terms attempt to ensure that at least one bureaucrat will be around at any one time. Also, I believe that particular line came from back when we had only two bureaucrats. The rewording is fine, although not necessary (I'm fine either way). The "They are" should be "he or she is" instead though. -- ab.er.rant 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought about the correction of that line too. It's just when I read the first version, I have to read it twice to be sure of what it means. --People of Antioch talk 02:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that after 1-2 months of activity the should auto. go up for a RfC. But I suppose that e-mailing them couldnt hurt. --Shadowphoenix 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Header

So are we going to start adding a header to the site from now on when someone is up for adminship? — ク Eloc 貢 03:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. My suggestion for tip-of-the-week seemed to derail that, thankfully. —Tanaric 06:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Change to Sysop section

I would like to propose a change to the Sysop section that would address the issue of inactive Sysops. We currently have 3 Sysops who have had little or no activity since January (or before) and the subject of 'We have enough sysops' is being used as opposition on new RfA's. While I and I think everyone else understands that 'life happens' and there may be times when people can't devote regular time to this wiki, I believe that denying a willing, active candidate because 'we have enough' on the list is wrong. I would much rather see a way to remove the inactive ones to 'free up the slot'. That being said, since life DOES happen, there should be an official way a sysop can notify the community that they will be inactive for a set period of time (Leave of Absence) where no change will be made to their rights. As part of the proposed change I would recommend that any sysop who has been removed by this policy should need to resubmit an RfA to regain their admin status. -- Wynthyst 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i think you answered your own proposal. We can ask a Request for Confirmation on sysops already, and inactivity is a pretty good reason for it (one which i would support at least). Maybe we should just start doing it?.

(added) On the other hand, we would need a way to speed up RfC's when originated on "inactivity" :/.--Fighterdoken 20:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While Fighterdoken's suggestion is perfectly reasonable, I would prefer to have a formal system so there is no guesswork involved, and people can expect when RfrC's while occur. Calor 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this in IRC and the general response (from the few who responded) was that sysops were promoted because we trust them, and that trust doesn't go away when they do.. so there's no real need to remove them when they're not active. Seems reasonable... and yet, I agree with Wyn; I look at the admin list and want to clean it up. RfCs work, but an inactivity removal wouldn't be a bad thing in my eyes. Maybe we should try an RfC or two and see how the community takes it? — THARKUN 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wyn, these "inactive" sysop are kind of filling up the list imho. Maybe a clause that states that if a admin is aware that they may be inactive for a long period of time, they must inform the community why and the approx. time when they will return or there adminship may be revoked and/or they could get an RfC. --Shadowphoenix 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Filling up the list" ? "Free up the slot" ? "I look at the list and want to clean it up" ? ... Those seem pretty shallow reasons for which to strip sysops from a role that the community has granted them in sign of trust. Especially since it's barely been two months since those three last posted on this wiki.

Wynthyst, "We have enough sysops" does not mean "We already have 14 sysops, thus no room for more". "We have enough sysops" translates to "All that needs to get done is getting done, so no point in getting more sysops".

I'm against this suggestion. --Dirigible 21:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but i don't agree with you in one point. If i stop going to work for 2 months for whatever reason (even if my work is quite pointless right now), i will more than likey find myself without job when i come back. Admins are chosen by the community to perform whatever task they do, and we actually expect them to do it. If they know they can't comply with them for a long period of time, they should step aside (or be put aside), even if doing so accomplish nothing in the long run. I would like to ask them if they really want to keep being in the sysop position, but kinda hard since they are't active :/.

In any case, i think this discussion is reason enough as to why the current RfC process is still the best option.--Fighterdoken 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify, since Wynthyst has brought up the same criticism of my post with the "list" comments: I don't care about the list in and of itself. My wanting to clean it up is just a phrase I used to signify that I don't think we should even have to have an inactive section: if you're voted in to be admin, be one, don't disappear. If you are going away, I don't think the rights should stick with you. Every community I've been in - and every parallel you can draw to real life, as Fighterdoken does - has had such time limits. If you have such powers, and have been shown the trust of the community, part of the expectation for holding them is that you exercise them judiciously and actively. Officers in every guild I've been in have had activity expectations, for example; even though there's no arbitrary limit to the number, it is still preferable to have only active officers (sysops). I agree with Dir that they gained it in a sign of trust, but I at least expect someone to be active in the powers we've entrusted them with or step down, even without a violation of trust. Its not just a matter of having a short list of sysops; I just didn't think that I would be interpreted so literally, and I didn't spell out my actual meaning behind that phrase. — THARKUN 21:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Honestly, I think a better solution would just be to point out that "we have enough sysops" is a silly reason to oppose an RfA. There's no such thing as too many sysops. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

/agree with Aiiane --Shadowphoenix 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We can never have enough Sysops. It doesn't hurt to have more, and it's a lifetime thing, so I don't think it would be fair for Sysops to be demoted for maybe not having access to internet or something for a while. Why not email them and ask if they would like to put themselves up for reconfirmation? — ク Eloc 貢 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Dir directed part of his comment directly to me, I'm going to respond. As Tharkun pointed out, in almost every other community, if you are given a post granting you power beyond others, you have the responsibility to fulfill that 'trust'. I see the disappearance of a sysop as a violation of the trust that was placed in them by the community. If and when they return, they can feel free to resubmit an RfA and see if the community still feels the same level of trust in them as before. As for the terms used, I don't care what the list looks like, and I have pointed out that 'we have enough sysops' is a stupid reason to oppose an RfA. Not needing more sysops because "All that needs to get done is getting done" is also just as stupid, because there is always more that could be done, new members to be helped, images to be deleted, violations to be dealt with. Maybe it would reduce some of the inequities that have been at the root of some of the current issues we have faced. This is not directed at the current inactive sysops in any kind of personal way, and I realize that it's 'been barely two months' (and I think you should revisit their contributions and count again) since at least one of them posted, but think about everything that has happened in those two months. As for Eloc's assertion that 'it's a lifetime thing' please tell me where that is stated, or even assumed. -- Wynthyst 05:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that inactive sysops should lose their status over time. Some of them have clearly stated that they don't play anymore, for example, and will therefor most likely not return. -- (gem / talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) For the last part, GWW:ADMIN#Sysops, 3rd paragraph: "Sysops are appointed for life, but may voluntarily resign. Their status may also be formally examined by the arbitration committee.".--Fighterdoken 05:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Wyn it is stated that Sysops are appointed for life in the policy, however, I think that if they are inactive for a certain period of time their status should be revoked or at least have a RfC. This would call for a change in policy. --Shadowphoenix 05:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it now, don't know how I missed it before. (edit) And a change in the policy is exactly what this discussion is all about.-- Wynthyst 05:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I knoiw Wyn, I was just stating the obvious --Shadowphoenix 05:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dirigible above: As long as a sysop is still trusted, there is no need to take away his sysop status even if the sysop is inactive. If the community does not trust a sysop anymore (maybe due to the long inactivity), a reconfirmation is the way to go. So the basic tool you need is already in place. --Xeeron 09:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got much time as I'm leaving for soccer soon (not that I've been away for the last few months because I've been playing the world's longest soccer game but anyway) but because this obviously involves me I'll quickly say a few things. I can see why having sysops who are not well equipped for the job would be bad but I'm not sure what having too many good sysops would result in. If you have faith in the adminiship process then having too many sysops shouldn't be a problem. Secondly how are you going to judge what "becoming inactive" is and as the game gets older and GW2 gets closer few people are playing GW, does the inactivity scale slide? Having to reconfirm your RFA discourages sysops from returning although from reading the above maybe people are saying good riddance to these people who've abandoned their duty, it may not be an issue at all. It does strike me as strange having to reprove your trustworthyness after having done nothing wrong though. I guess if a sysop never returns then it really doesn't matter if they retain their sysop rights or not, inactive sysops don't do anything and by the same token inactive sysops are unlikely to care if they have sysop rights, it hasn't made me rich and famous or gotten me into exclusive nightclubs so far! It's more of a question of what happens to returning sysops I think.

As I see it sysops all play the same role, we may have different background and different things we enjoy editing but we don't have specialised duties. I didn't have any qualms about my absence, the sysops and bcrats I was working with all seemed perfectly capable to me so I didn't have any worries about stepping back. It's a bit different to a job where you're paid to perform a certain task, I don't think that if any sysop disappeared the day to day running of the wiki would be effected terribly much, which is how it should be. If anyone is curios as to why I haven't featured on the Recent Changes much, the answer is pretty boring. I don't spend much time at home on the net and in the past I've done most of my editing at work but my current job has blocked access to the site. I'm currently self studying so I can hopefully find a job I enjoy more but I cannot say when that will happen. It is of course a community decision but I thought people might be interested to here some quickly typed opinions from one of the 3 of us currently in the red!. --Xasxas256 11:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the original problem was not the inactive sysops, but the reasons we are opposing new ones. As we say inactive ones do not do any harm, I think we are using double standards when we oppose new sysops because "we have enough of them working already". That was what caused me to bring this up in the first place, I just figured out my own double standards (not all of them! :P), so to speak. - anja 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/draft B would remove the details of the appointment and removal policy due to redundancy with their in-depth coverage at Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship. I think that any changes to reconfirmation should be covered through RFA, and that any revisions to this policy should wait until draft B passes, fails or goes stale. -- Gordon Ecker 00:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the oppose reason is not directly "We have enough sysops" like the list is long enough (or full) but more like "the current work for sysops is done fine"; I don't think people would say, that we have enough sysops around when only 5/16 were active. poke | talk 09:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the topic

I propose we also remove sysop powers from User:Ab.er.rant. He's supposed to be watching the UTC+8 time zone, but lately he's been oversleeping, so he's on the wiki during Bex's shift instead. Clearly, that's a violation of community trust. We need accountability, can't have people coming and going whenever they please. I suggest we fire him and let Gaile know to stop sending him paychecks, and then we can find someone more responsible to watch that timezone.

In other words, I think this is nuts. Sysop tools are just that, tools. It's not a job, they don't actually have to do anything, including enforcing policy. They're not getting paid for this. They're not getting something for nothing. They're not using up any resources. Nor are the sysop tools a privilege for which they should need to prove constantly their worthiness and that they are deserving of the great honour of being able to delete spam. It's just tools. The community has shown trust towards these users before, and that trust shouldn't be lost just because that's how it would be on other communities or in real life.

Oh, right, we should do as Gem says and remove those rights because they don't actually play the game. We should probably add that to the bureaucrat requirements too, so we don't end up electing three of them that don't even play the game anymore. Oh wait, too late, we've already done that. Whoopsie, big deal. (Actually, we should really do this; it'd be a fun reason for which to take down Defiant's nomination). --Dirigible 11:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, nice Dir :D

Actually I have to agree with that; I don't see a reason to remove rights only because sysops are inactive or don't make use of the tools. Especially as the sysop right was applied for life, it doesn't make sense that we try to remove them now. As long as inactive users don't do any harm or are not abusing their powers (which is very rarely when they are inactive..), I don't see a need to remove the rights.

Our room for sysops is not limited, so there is no need to "make room for new sysops". When there are people who want to become a sysop, they can always do that. And just because we currently have enough sysops to do the work, that is not an argument to say we don't accept new sysops.. poke | talk 11:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to discuss with you if your tone would be suitable for it. I hope you intentionally "misunderstood" my point and taking it as if it meant that playing the game would be a requirement. What I meant, and how you hopefully understood it, is that if a sysop has been inactive for, let's say, a year, and he also stopped playing the game year ago, there's little reason to keep them as sysops. I know very well that some of the active sysops/bcrats over the history of GWiki and GWWiki have actually not played the game ehile being active on the wiki.

And currently I have to disagree with 'sysophood is just tools'. It is not, sadly, although I'd like it to be. For what I've been following, the situation hasn't changed much during my inactivity, and a part of the reason why I went inactive was the ridicilous debate over sysophood and whether it's just tools or tools + status. -- (gem / talk) 11:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That was uncalled for and just.. insulting, Dir. You made your point already. - anja 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anja that Dir's response was harsh, but I don't think it was his intention to insult Gem. While the role of a sysop might be more than just tools it is certainly not a job. The trust that a person is given by the community does not disappear when they leave the wiki. If they were to come back years later and be a total dick then that's a different story, and maybe if this starts happening I could be persuaded that adding terms to sysops would make sense ;) But as things stand I think it makes most sense to allow sysops to come and go. It does no one any harm. LordBiro 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the trust given by the community to a person changes, because the community changes. Same as policies (i mean, just look at policy enforcement and liberty of action given to sysops), the community that is here today is not the same that was a year ago. And what was valued as "enough of a reason for being sysop" then may not be enough today. That being said, i am making a formal request for a RfC on the three inactive cases we have.

Oh, and Dirigible, you should know that "sarcasm" doesn't work on internet unless you use the respective /sarcasm tag.--Fighterdoken 18:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Biro, I didn't think (or say) that Dir insulted me, but his tone was nasty and not suitable for real discussion. -- (gem / talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My response was mainly to Anja, Gem. I don't think his tone was nasty. Sardonic at worst. LordBiro 21:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Gem, I understood your point very well, and I still disagree with it. You are saying that there is a connection between someone's dedication to the wiki and whether they play the game or not, and I'm of the opinion that such a connection does not exist, especially so for someone who has dedicated enough time and effort to the wiki to become an admin.

Fighterdoken, if the trust given by the community changes because the community changes, then shouldn't we be having regular reconfirmations for all sysops, regardless of their inactivity? Regardless, starting up a reconfirmation for this issue is certainly your right, they were meant for this kind of stuff. As long as there's nothing hard-coded in the policy regarding inactivity, I'm happy.--Dirigible 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dir, you are being a bit rude with your "sarcasm". We are saying, what is the point of them having sysop powers if they are not here to use them? The way I see it, when you are given admin tools you have an "oblogation" to fulfill. If you are not going to fulfill your duties, what is the point of you having the tools to do so? I think that if the go over 1.5 months of inactivity that a RfC should be started. --Shadowphoenix 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an observation that I've made in the past, that people tend to disappear from the wiki when they stop playing the game. There are good examples of people who haven't, and I understand that it's not a 1:1 correlation between stopping to play the game and leaving the wiki. -- (gem / talk) 23:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Gem, inactive ppl can't exercise symbolic power, that's not a good argument.reanor 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Should I put myself up for reconfirmation then, since I agree with Dir? And along the same lines, I would like to propose yet another inactive clause, this time for non-admin users: "All users who become inactive for more than 2 months shall have their account permanently blocked by a willing sysop." Why not? If admins should have their admin tools removed due to inactivity, editors should have their editing tools removed due to inactivity as well.

Admins do not have an obligation to use admin tools. Stop treating it like it's a job. We use them because other users believe that we will not misuse them. If that is not the reason, please put me up for reconfirmation - I refuse to be held responsible for not doing something when I don't want to do it. There's a very fine line between voluntarily doing something and being obliged to do it.

And as for the ridiculous example of comparing wiki admins with company employees, I can't believe there are users who actually agreed with it. Someone please write me a cheque for at least half a year's worth of salary for the "work" I'm supposedly required to do on this wiki. And along the same reasoning as the first paragraph I wrote above, please start "firing" all those registered editors that haven't edited for more than two months, after all, they registered an account and are obliged to contribute, why else would they want to register? "If you don't want to use your account, then you don't need to keep your account" - that's exactly what some of you are saying: "If you don't want to use your sysop tools, then you don't need to keep your sysop tools".

A much stronger reason would be needed to convince me why respected and trusted users should be stripped (yes, that's what I see it as) of the tools that contributed to that respect and trust simply because they seem to have moved on. -- ab.er.rant 02:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ab.er.rant, there is a huge gap between an admin being inactive and a user being inactive. Whether you believe it or not, admins are held to a higher standard than regular users (just like a bcrat is to a sysop) so now you are going a completely different direction. If they essentially do not even come here anymore, what is the point of them having administrative powers? We all know that it is not a job, but more or less a volunteer sort of thing; but if you volunteer even and don't do what you are asked to you are kindly asked to leave. Now in this case, we don't want them to leave; well u get my drift. --Shadowphoenix 03:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with ab.er.RANT. Imho, being a given admin rights is like giving someone a key to your house. You give it because you trust them with it and because they have a use for it. Okay, you may always ask for it back because they haven't used it, but why bother if they haven't violated your trust unless you're selling the house. However, you will definitely ask for it back if they misuse it or are just plain annoying and start to show up whenever like its their house. -- Inspired to ____ 03:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

SP, bureaucrats are held to a higher standard. Sysops are not. Sysops just need to understand what they can do. Sysop = regular user + sysop tools. Your own last sentence shows the problem with your own argument. Saying that sysops should leave when they are no longer contributing as sysops is exactly what removing their sysop tools does. It implies that they are no longer wanted by the community. Hence my argument about non-contributing regular users - should we ask them to go away? By your own argument, if I volunteered, and I stopped doing what I volunteered to do, am I no longer a volunteer? A teacher who no longer teaches is a retired teacher, not a "non-teacher". It's also another fine line between "no longer doing something" versus "not allowed to do something". "Not doing" versus "Cannot do".

One of your sentences, "If they essentially do not even come here anymore, what is the point of them having administrative powers?" can easily be changed by replacing the underlined word with "editing". What good would deleting an inactive account do? Nothing. What good would removing sysop status from inactive syops do? Nothing. What good would retaining inactive users do? They can still come back and edit when they feel like it. What good would retaining inactive sysops do? They can still come back and edit plus use sysop tools when they feel like it. I apologise for not seeing the big gap you're seeing. -- ab.er.rant 05:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You pretty much summed it up for the "large gap" (which is, in fact, solvable but the problems that carry avoidable also). A inactive sysop (for, let's say, one year, let's exagerate a little) will come back and use the sysop tools when he feels like it. But in the process, he will have missed all the small policy talk, interpretation, concensus, and "community" view of things, and the way they changed in that amount of time.

Let me put you an example. Today, we have come to a point were sysops are given certain degrees of liberty in their actions and the way sanctions are impossed. Let's say Admin Rurik is sent today to Wakabistan, and has to stay there for a year, without internet access. He comes back after a year, see a user openly and grossly (sp?) insulting other in a main article talk page, and issues a ban for 3 days. What Rurik missed was the approval of the "Bans have to be approved by at least 3 admins" act, because we decided to do something about single-admin possible double standards during that time. Now some drama will begin, and we will have to start explaining him every little change that happened in that year.

Someone will say "that is a fault of the admin", and is true (tools come with a neat instruction manual after all), but things could have been avoided had Rurik just resigned to his position when he left, and later started a new RfA if he felt like voluntering again.--Fighterdoken 05:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, we haven't yet elected such a crappy admin that wouldn't review every policy after being away a long time.reanor 06:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That is true (even if i could point a single exception that is not relevant in this case), but i am not sure if all and every potential "coming back later" admin would also take the time to go through archives in every talk page where discussions and the gathering of concensus related to different issues are carried (which is, sadly, the whole wiki).--Fighterdoken 07:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As Ereanor mentioned, isn't that a problem with the sysop in question rather than the policy? As courtesy, yes, if the sysop in question knows he will away for one year, he would voluntarily resign; but that is his/her prerogative and is in no way a requirement. If said sysop comes back and attempts to apply policy that held true one year ago (if he even remembers said policies and does not actually look it up to refresh himself/herself), wouldn't a more up-to-date sysop undo said mistaken action and proceed to explain what has changed? Do you really think that the community might have voted in such a rash user as a sysop and that we should have a policy to prevent potential situations? (and just to note, this is starting to become similar in nature to many other policy arguments - do we really need rules to prevent obscure and unlikely problems at the expense of something positive?) -- ab.er.rant 07:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, which is why i said somewhere up there that we have the tools already, so a policy change is not really needed. But about the community... yes, i think we are pretty capable of making such kind of mistakes.--Fighterdoken 07:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats as Sysops

There is note on the bottom of this policy that states that bureaucrats should keep their tag as sysops. I was wondering if this meant that someone elected as a new bureaucrat who was not already a sysop will also become a sysop. -- Inspired to ____ 17:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Short & Long answer: nope :P --Shadowphoenix 17:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

With the current adminiship policy bureaucrats have (technically) sysop rights but are not allowed to use them for sysop tasks. After their bureaucrat term expires, both rights are removed. poke | talk 17:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But if they were a sysop before being elected as a bureaucrat, they will retain that sysop status. -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Has this ever happened with someone who wasn't previously a sysop because I see that as potentially a problem. Also, why can't this get fixed? -- Inspired to ____ 17:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Dirgible is the only non sysop to ever get the role. --Shadowphoenix 17:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

fix what? And no, it was always that bcrats got their old status they had before. poke | talk 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't know what you mean by "problem", but I'll give you couple of examples to clarify what it means. Dirigible was elected as a bureaucrat - he was not a sysop before being elected, so when his term ended, both user rights were taken off. He is now a normal "user". LordBiro was a sysop who was elected to a bureaucrat - once his term ended, he kept his sysop rights and his bureaucrat rights were taken off. It's easy to see who had a different user right by going to Special:Logs/Rights-- Brains12 \ Talk 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well since bureaucrats have additional rights "...but are forbidden from executing page deletions/undeletions or user blocks/unblocks" this seems strange enough for someone who previously had those rights and is told upon election to not use them. But to technically give those rights to someone who has never been approved to have them. Well, I can't help but thinking that there is a reason why they haven't been given sysop status previously. Besides, I go back to that I can't help but believe this would be a very easy database admin change for ANet to make so that rights match with policy. -- Inspired to ____ 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well some users that arent sysops that run have never had an RfA b4 and, the community is only going to elect someone that they trust with admin tools; so thats not really an issue. --Shadowphoenix 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This policy simply sais that bcrats are not sysops and they should not use the sysop tools they technically need to be a bcrat. See the current policy draft, as it is proposed to give bcrats the power to act as sysops as well. But so far, just accept that bcrats are not sysops. And even if they were sysops before they are now bcrats, not sysops and bcrats. poke | talk 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some people will default assume that someone being considered for a bureaucrat who isn't a sysop isn't one because they were denied for some reason in the past. I almost did, before I went digging which lead to this. (Also, I'm not sure if I'll get to vote even if I decide I want to - it may depend on how long this discussion keeps going.) -- Inspired to ____ 18:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of things you could add to actual content articles to meet the edit requirement, and help improve the wiki at the same time. Special:Wantedpages is a good place to start for that. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I shouldn't have implied that I would keep going on something like this just so I could vote; I'm also aware that I could technically have gotten the required number already just by saving mid-edit several types. It is just frustrating when there are two different roles clearly set up and for some unknown reason, that I can't fathom, the security rights aren't set to match those roles. Okay, if I ever vote for a bureaucrat, I just need to consider if I would also vote for that person to be a sysop if they're not already one. -- Inspired to ____ 22:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand where your confusion comes from. The reason why bureaucrats are also given sysop rights automatically is a technical limitation - it does not allow us to give bureaucrat status without also giving sysop status. This policy attempts a separation of "jurisdiction" between the two roles. That's why the clauses might seem a little weird. -- ab.er.rant 07:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)