Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/Draft 2008-Jan-12

Change Log

• Introduction: Removed double reference "in the English language Guild Wars Wiki" and little rewording.
• Admin and Anet: Added "except where explicitly specified".
• Sysop: Rewording and clarification on the discretion part. In my opinion they keep the same role as now.
• Bcrats: Not mutually exclusive with sysop.
• Bcrats: Rewording.
• Bcrats: Added "expected to apply policy rigorously leaving issues not clearly covered to sysops".
• Bcrats: Added "expected to respect consensus".
• Bcrats: Added "Final say on RfA and policy when consensus cannot be achieved".
• Bcrats: Added removal of sysophood when term ends if not normally one.
  

-- Coran Ironclaw 04:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Bcrats: Removed "(although they may unblock their own account for arbitration purposes if necessary)".
  

-- Coran Ironclaw 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sysops: "but policy does not always cover all possible issues or is specific in every issue" → "but policy does not always cover all possible issues, and is not specific about every issue"
• Sysops: "but they are not allowed to take actions the policy prevents them to do" → "but they are not allowed to take actions which policy forbids them from taking"

-- Gordon Ecker 03:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Bcrats: Removed "Bureaucrats are expected to respect consensus, but have the final say on Requests for Adminship and policy decisions when consensus cannot be achieved."

-- Coran Ironclaw 06:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Intention

A new draft, allowing for some clarifications and additions. The last one suffered many modifications. -- Coran Ironclaw 04:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I like most of the changes, but I have some problems with this part:

"Bureaucrats are expected to apply policy rigorously, leaving issues not clearly covered to sysops (although they may unblock their own account for arbitration purposes if necessary). Bureaucrats are expected to respect consensus, but have the final say on Requests for Adminship and policy decisions when consensus cannot be achieved."

• Why should sysops have more discretion about issues not covered than bureaucrats, given that the later have a "stronger" mandate by being elected?
• The sentence in brackets is no longer needed since the "bureaucrats should not use sysop tools" part was removed.
• I strongly disagree with bureaucrats having the final say on policy. --Xeeron 14:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed the sentence in brackets, I was not sure if there was a need to explicity allow that, but if you think there is not, ok. -- Coran Ironclaw 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Bcrats: Discretion vs Conflicts

"Bureaucrats are expected to apply policy rigorously, leaving issues not clearly covered to sysops."

• Why should sysops have more discretion about issues not covered than bureaucrats, given that the later have a "stronger" mandate by being elected? --Xeeron 14:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew this was going to be discussed, and actually that was the intention. The current policy makes Bcrats and sysop mutally exclusive to prevent conflicts of interest (or so I understand), but I find nothing wrong if Bcrats can use the tools when the policy is clear, of course deciding when it is clear or when it is not also involve discretion. The previous draft got rid of all that risking (or not?) to have those conflicts of interest. Is is worthy to limit the bureaucrat discretion to prevent conflicts or not? -- Coran Ironclaw 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be the only issue remaining, anyone wants to add a comment? -- Coran Ironclaw 06:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than solving the issue by simply restricting Bureaucrat discretion, I'd prefer to see something along the lines of: Bureaucrats may exercise discretion in using their Sysop authority; however, to prevent conflicts of interest, they are expected to do so only when a Sysop is not readily available. Otherwise, they are expected only to do so in accordance with policy. To be honest, I'm not sure to what extent their power needs to be comparatively diminished at all; however, if such "conflicts of interest" are in fact enough to warrant that Bureaucrats not be able to wield their power to the same extent as Sysops, I think it's best to give them at least the authority to act to prevent major escalation that's causing a good deal of disruption and stuff like that when a Sysop isn't around. *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Bcrats: Final say on policy?

"Bureaucrats are expected to respect consensus, but have the final say on Requests for Adminship and policy decisions when consensus cannot be achieved."

• I strongly disagree with bureaucrats having the final say on policy. --Xeeron 14:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Final say on policy" is in the proposal from DE on gw2w, and I think (but not sure really) it is a good idea. I can see here on gww new policy proposals and changes from 4 months or more without resolution. So this would help to move things, but that might come with a price. Care to explain why do you strongly disagree? -- Coran Ironclaw 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems pointless. If concensus cannot be achieved on a policy decision, I don't think a policy change or new policy is generally warrented, particularly with the reasonable discretion clause. I think it would be reasonable to allow them to break ties at the request of the community in situations where it is believed that an urgent resolution is required, but this is excessive. We've gone for nearly a year without a blocking policy and that doesn't seem to have caused any problems. -- Gordon Ecker 04:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree because giving a very small group of people the final say over policies is unneeded and dangerous. The policies are the foundation of how things are organised, they reflect the users views of the wiki. Since there are many different people editing here, sometimes it takes long to get to an agreement, but a long discussion is much better than an imposed solution. On a wiki that 100% depends on voluntary contributions, imposed policies that do not have the backing of most of the users will not work.

Apart from that, I don't see a single issue were we have an urgent need to impose a policy, making that part also unneeded. --Xeeron 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if a policy proposal is contentious and the bureaucrats step in and push it through, it would undermine the authority of both the policy and the bureaucrats. -- Gordon Ecker 06:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to "defend" this by Coran since it's from my GW2W proposal, so I'll try to do so. As I envision it, this clause shouldn't provide bureaucrats with the ability to impose a policy over strong protests or anything along those lines, perhaps I'm simply too used to the manner in which this mechanism has played out on PvXwiki. That said, this clause has a couple major effects. First, and perhaps most obviously, it allows for greater efficiency (this is not meant to be at the expense of consensus). Secondly, under the theory that policy is meant to codify existing practice, this mechanism essentially acknowledges that it is the Administrators who are in the best position to fully understand the impact of making a policy official. Finally (and this stems partially from my second point), such a mechanism acts as a failsafe against tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the minority depending on how you look at it). Inevitably, policy will not reflect the will of the users, it will reflect the will of the users who are involved in policy discussion, a well-defined (if not rigidly-defined) group of people. In order to illustrate this, I'm forced (yet again) to refer to PvX, solely because I am not well versed enough in the history of discussion of any particular policy on GWW to argue the point successfully. This policy, while perhaps partially submitted in jest, represents what I'm trying to get at. Were it up to the creme-de-la-creme of PvX users, the people who know what they're talking about, this policy might have been made official. The users who support it do not represent the majority of users who use PvX or even who contribute to it; however, they represent a substantial part of the population in that their opinions carry a great deal more weight than the average PvX user; in that sense, they represent a "majority." Sure, it's contentious, but I can envision a scenario in which a loosely defined consensus supported that policy. In such an instance, would you argue that the policy should be made official? Perhaps it's an extreme example, but I think that it's evident how such a policy could act as a deterrent (particularly to new users) and be generally harmful to PvX. If there exists a hierarchy within wikis, bureaucrats must inevitably be at the top of such a structure; I would argue that they are not only there for a reason, but also, that such a position gives them unique insight. Perhaps it's my fault for the manner in which I worded the policy on GW2W, but, either way, I would suggest that if the actual manner in which this clause were to be enforced conformed loosely to the outline I've proposed, it has the potential to be beneficial. One might argue that the theoretical gains are outweighed by the theoretical potential for abuse, but then again, one might argue the opposite of that as well. *Defiant Elements* +talk 07:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This proposal would do nothing to prevent such a scenario, as it only gives bureaucrats the final say in situations without concensus. All it would do is allow bureaucrats to push through or kill stalled proposals. -- Gordon Ecker 09:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to answer to that DF, but because Gordon Ecker is right, it is not really on topic, I'll do so on your userpage. --Xeeron 12:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, that particular policy is somewhat stalled, but, either way, I see what you're saying. On the other hand though, I'm not suggesting that a policy should ever be killed (regardless of what the Bureaucrats think of it) while discussion is ongoing (and you'll notice the policy in my example has not been killed). *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that there is no consensus if three (or whatever) people vehemently objects to something. Thus such a clause would never be relevant for stoping policy. Backsword 09:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed this part of this draft. -- Coran Ironclaw 06:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)