Forum:Bureaucrats

Short story: I would like to appoint two new bureaucrats for GuildWiki.

Long story: Since we moved to Curse, mendel resigned his position as bureaucrat, JediRogue vanished as quickly as she returned, and while I constantly patrol RC and the like, I have not been as active a bureaucrat in discussions and initiatives as GuildWiki deserves. I think a lack of nominal leadership is one of the factors contributing to the slow-down of GuildWiki as of late, and maybe appointing a couple of bureaucrats would help on that front. Of course, normal users and sysops can be and have been leaders as well.

I think the ideal number of active bureaucrats is three. If you consider any issue to be linear, with the endpoints being two extremes, then by default three people will always establish two opposing viewpoints and one moderator, as it were. This helps drive discussion and provides for multiple viewpoints to be represented. Of course it's a highly simplified model, but I think in practice it holds up.

Plato suggests in his Republic that the ideal ruler is one who has no interest in ruling. That might have worked in ancient Greece where people carried spears everywhere, but on a wiki, there's no way to force someone who isn't interested to contribute. Therefore, the most important factor for a bureaucrat is be that he or she must want to be a bureaucrat. With that in mind, I ask users who would like to be bureaucrats and want to see GuildWiki flourish to say so somewhere here. Keep in mind that this isn't a vote. I will be choosing appointees based on discussion and discretion. Users do not have to be sysops already to be considered. 17:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I really like the long story. My short q. is Who would you pick? My long q is. Who would you pick out of the actives and why?

Not that many are active here... I wish there were more, but that's not the case. :-( Ariyen 17:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd nominate myself, just because I'm always here, troughout the week. But on the other hand, I hardly edit, exept for userspace. And my written English is horribad. But short q a: Ish, for sure. No one else really comes to mind. Long q a: Ish, cause he's leet. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 18:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of those were questions, Arnout.--Łô√ë [[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]îğá†ħŕášħ 18:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My initial thought was: Not me. I don't think many users would think of me, but just clarifying: I'm more of a lurker, and hitting me with the beercrate won't do any good. As for people I do think should get bureacrat status, I'd say The Doctor, definitely. If we're going for a triumvirate and need another, I'd go for viper. --[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 19:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Shut up. You know I don't want it. --Vipermagi 22:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Site notice? --◄mendel► 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination: Jink
I would prefer to have Jink be bureaucrat over Dr ishmael being one. If Dr Ishmael is going to remain active as a sysop, having a b'crat once removed yet close helps add another viewpoint when 'crat-worthy conflicts arise; yet one would think it would give Dr Ishmael good support "from the management" for his initiatives if Jink was in charge. She's long been a Guild Leader in GW, still actively plays, shows enough of an interest in the wiki to know which way we roll, and she's mature enough for me to trust her. --◄mendel► 23:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination: TEF
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ Tennessee Ernie Ford thinks about wikis the way bureaucrats ought to think about them; I am certain he would make a fine bureaucrat, but the difficulty is going to be in convincing him to take the job. If you need to hear more "pro" arguments, I can provide, but at this point think it's obvious. --◄mendel► 23:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Clash of the Gods
I would like to see mendel and Ish use beercraticy to get over their...coding cold war. With felix serving as the Swiss (ultra-neutral party) amind the destruction. &mdash; Scythe   1:12, 2 Feb 2011 (UTC)