GuildWiki talk:Administrator information

This page is so much easier to read now that you've split it. GJ! RT | Talk  - A joyous wintersday to all 08:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Admins
Two admins active, no beuracrats... I've left a message on Biro's talk on GWW, hoping that He'll promote somone to succeed him (Jedi hopefully), and hopefully we can get a few more admins up. I'm thinking Gimme and Viper, possibly Shadow, and maybe RT. Probably not me, since I'm hated around here. XD ^^ -- Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that Gem is on rather frequently and I know that Pansola still is keeping an eye on things. Frankly, while we only have a few admins, I don't think we need that many. Maybe a few more in Euro time zones... We just do custodial work really.&mdash;♥Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? I'm on the wiki almost 24/7 and I nearly never see Gem or Pansola. For the most part, they're inactive. Sure, they pop in and do some banning/deleting/talking, but they're not active. We need a European admin (RT? Viper? Gimme(Idk if hes Europe)? ATM, if somone like Raptors came in and started vandalising, we'd be helpless for about 5-10 hours. No offense, Jedi, and Marco, but two people both living in america isnt enough. Though admittedly as of late contributions have dried up, and the wiki seems to be dying, we do have vandals. Admittedly, I've debated going to the offical wiki, but I'm sticking here until its truly dead. I'll know them that happens. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 01:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Typo
Deleted my post. I feel stupid. 牛 Correct 仔 Jeans 裤 15:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes "active?"
By exactly what standards do we judge particular administrators to be active, semi-active, or inactive? This goes beyond appearances and vanity, because Administrator information is one of the first things new users would check. Surely there must be some attempt to standardize this label. Two examples:
 * User:Shadowcrest, who is on semi-active status by his own request, yet has nearly 150 contributions in August already. Granted, there is a 5-day break mixed in there, and many of contributions are to user talk, but would Shadowcrest be a reliable individual to contact in the case of an emergency? Certainly.


 * User:Gimmethegepgun, semi-active with 350 contributions this month.


 * User:R.Phalange, who claims to be "active," yet has made three contributions in the last three weeks, and that's being generous by counting the revert to this article. Futhermore, he won't even defend his claim beyond an edit summary saying "I'm still here." Would a new user looking for an administrator's help who posted on Phalange's talk receive that help? All evidence says no. He'd probably be chastised for spamming and possibly banned a week later, though.

So, is this GuildWiki article merely a formality, a bit of fluff where admins are given pretty colored boxes? Or is it intended to help old and new users should the time arise? The community must decide. 00:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that answer would be yes. I browse through the wikis multiple times each day. I'm always here. -- R [[Image:RPhalange star.png|18px]] Phalange  00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I responded to this while in RA. -- R [[Image:RPhalange star.png|18px]] Phalange  00:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note- I just moved myself back to active, but for the purposes of discussion it would be best to keep pretend like I was still in semi-active status. (or felix can beat me to it) --Shadowcrest 00:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Merely claiming that you browse the wiki multiple times a day is not very strong proof. The fact of the matter is, you have no presence. You don't even lurk on IRC anymore. You're like a plastic bag blowing in the wind. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 00:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm almost always on #gww, but #gwiki either gets too much spam, or doesn't have any activity (and then there's the hostility that's sometimes aimed at me if I say something like "I'm still here"). I'm always available for contact, so this page is fulfilling its primary function for me. -- R [[Image:RPhalange star.png|18px]] Phalange  00:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So what we really want is some "always lurking" category? Phalange, Randomtime, Shadowcrest, Auron, (JR?) you might want to indicate that you can be contacted on IRC in your admin info. --◄mendel► 06:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It amuses me how no one complained about these sort of thing back in the day...Felix, I'd suggest you to check yourself and Assume Good Faith for R.Phalange, despite the truth that you nor anyone else can provide proof of "lurking" (whomever that user may be, admin or not). Even though I also wish he would contribute a bit more, I am content to know that he is always watching; I take his word for it because I have no reason to believe otherwise. Auron is similar, although I know he has/had some pressing RL engagements too - I knew without any doubts when he was or was not paying attention to this or that Wiki affair; even if he couldn't prove it to me over AIM/in-game, I'd trust his word too.
 * I think the basic sentiment here is something like: "Considering all the trouble and fuss that went into R.Phalange's sysoption, I really expect more from him than just a lurker." That's understandable; I've never seen so contentious an RfA here ever before, one which truly caused disagreement and brought about some soul-searching discussions. Nevertheless, I don't think it is fair to continue to judge R.Phalange as if the RfA happened just yesterday. Though it may be hard for some to agree, I'd like to think it is water under the bridge now. Treat R.Phalange as you would any other sysop in the same position. ... If I didn't contribute much for weeks and weeks, would you tell me to "put up or shut up"? Is anyone calling out PanSola or Auron in the same vein because they don't somehow meet the magical 100-posts-a-week quota? How about others like Randomtime, Isk8, Cress, etc. who have had some major spells of inactivity? Nope...
 * I understand that the counter-argument is: "I have no proof of R.Phalange's activity, while contributions are solid and can't be disputed. What the f*ck does he even DO?" True enough. But then I must ask you, what you you truly want from your sysops? Must they prove to you that they are always active, even if they have to resort to posting spam and inane chatter just to show they're around? That seems completely unreasonable to me. Even if R.Phalange isn't using his guns as much as you or I may wish (which is the one difference between judging an admin and a non-admin's activity), that is no reason to figuratively lock them up to new users (inactive list) or, worse, truly take them away (demotion). [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A few totally non-confrontational and unantagonistic comments. I know Auron is at least watching because I see him on IRC fairly often (right now for instance). I only moved Phalange to semi-active, not inactive, and given that active refers to activity, not observation, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me. And finally, GW:AGF does not apply in cases where trust has been broken. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 08:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It saddens me that we have to include such a specification for something as benign as an activity table; but if it must be so, then so be it.
 * I disagree with your dissertation - AGF applies except against evidence to the contrary; when a user's actions prove otherwise, that is when you stop assuming good faith. I have yet to see any hard evidence that R.Phalange has a malicious intent for being on this Wiki; that he intends other than good as a sysop; or that he is not watching the Wiki. (Since when did IRC presence become a prerequisite for lurkers?) Moreover, all actions ought to be viewed in light of past actions. And considering R.Phalange's contributions; I see no reason to infer that he is a liar or a pretender. Certainly he has made some vague/misunderstood comments which sowed confusion, and he has made some lapses in judgment (by not fully considering how others would see things, before taking/not taking actions). But I believe they were all honest mistakes. And we all make mistakes. I have no reason not to assume good faith for R.Phalange. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss Phalange's character, but I have plenty to say and show regarding it. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 09:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All of which flaws you yourself have equaled or surpassed in your own behaviour at different points in time; and yet I still assume good faith for you. It's not just me either. Those who live in glass houses... In any case I believe this is a discussion best held elsewhere if you wish to continue on this vein. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 09:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Imo, the only judging of an admin's activity is whether or not they check the wiki actively and consider themselves active enough that they can be contacted for daily wiki concerns. This judging can only be done by the admin themselves. Admins are not required to constantly hang around and participate in mindless chatter. In fact, there are benefits to having an admin who is a bit more aloof. I personally am on GuildWiki every day though more often than not, i am wearing my normal user hat using the wiki to look stuff up and perform only cursory RC patrols. If you suspect an admin is inactive and has neglected to change their status on this page, you should ask them first. If they dont respond in a day or so, they are not as active and their status can be changed. Otherwise, they may be, like RP and Auron, actively watching without adding contribs. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 09:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Should The Project Page be "Protected"
Just a curious thought, not exactly caused by the last event revolving around this, but it did bring the idea to my mind. Since really, only sysops should be editing the project page, should we consider making it protected? And since protecting a page does not affect its talk page, I don't see any negative consequences from such an action. Comments? --   I~sk8   (T/C) 11:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pages are a tool. It would be dumb to lock them into one specific use. --Auron/◄mendel► 12:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't. What happens if admin makes spelling mistake and no one catches it? Major embarrassment. ... on serious note I don't see any reason to protect it, even if it should mostly be edited by sysop. Prot is for use against vandals, not to sort editors by rights. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

IRC
The admins Auron of Neon, Shadowcrest, and Randomtime (have I forgotten anyone?) can often be contacted on our IRC channel, even if it's not mentioned here. --◄mendel► 14:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gravewit
Gravewit lost his status as bcrat and sysop as part of Entropy's effort to clean out Special:Listusers and such. However, part of that discussion was that if one of the demoted people was to return, they would be able to reobtain their status without having to go through a RfA and whatnot. Would we be willing to grant Gravewit his status back if he should return? If not, he needs to be removed from this page. -- Shadowcrest  02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would welcome him back with open arms. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 02:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If we decide we wouldn't give his flags back, then I would consider the original agreement to remove his flags as void, and then start a discussion on whether to demote Gravewit from being an administrator. As of the writing of this post, Gravewit is still an administrator of GuildWiki, just an inactive one so we removed his sysop and bcrat flags for user convenience.  Keep in mind that admins are supposed to be appointed for life. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So the correct question then is, should Gravewit be demoted for selling GuildWiki? --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> .cнаt^  03:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Ah, but is he still alive? Treat it as a marriage annulment after a lengthy period of spousal absence. Missing, presumed dead is the term that springs to mind. -- Snog  rat [[Image:User Snograt signature.png]] 03:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Snograt's argument is IMO either invalid or should be applied to ALL administrators, without having Gravewit being singled out. It also effectively conflicts with the "administrators are appointed for life" concept.  Derako's approach is probably the brunter one that touches the heart of the question.  But then, I thought anyone who had a serious super grudge against Gravewit had already left GuildWiki...  I could be wrong. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No malicious subtext with my comment, Pan - if I were that way inclined I would have put "missing, hopefully dead." It's just the obvious way of removing anyone who is appointed to anything "for life." Yes, something like that would have to be applied to all admins - nobody is a special case. -- Snog  rat [[Image:User Snograt signature.png]] 03:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is that people like Gravewit, Nunix, MartinLightbringer, William Blackstaff, etc. have been MIA for so long that no one knows how to reach them anymore (Nunix was usually the way to reach Gravewit as they could physically communicate; Gravewit was kinda like Izzy about doing things on wiki).
 * If Gravewit were actually to come back, I think he would be figuratively stoned to death. We of course would welcome him back in principle, but it's unrealistic to expect anyone to be kind to him beyond the bare bones of dignity because of what he's done in the past. (It reminds me of how people treat Izzy on GWW.)
 * The philosophical question Jio raised is not one I am prepared to deal with at the moment, as there is already enough going on... but my personal opinion is that, despite the policy and the templates we left on people's pages, he should be demoted. The community would not accept him, much less as someone on par with the current sysops/bcrats. As a member of bcrats still, I would not "re-promote" him either, as I've never seen anything of him which merited such status in the first place other than "I own the site", and that is not the case anymore. But this is just my personal opinion; the other bcrats, ofc, would be free to do what they wished. I'd stay out of it for personal bias. (Which is ironic because I've still in the past tried to defend Gravewit from undue personal attacks etc. because he is still, unfortunately, a human being. Just like Izzy, Regina, Gaile, etc....) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) (edit conflict) Pointless argument is pointless. Gravewit is not coming back. If he does, he gets asked what he wants the adminship for, we see how he uses it, we kick him then if need be (or not), because then we have facts to go on and not speculation or reminiscence. -- ◄mendel► 04:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the way we went about it and worded it in Template:Inactive admin says that all one needs to do to get their flags back is ask an admin, no questions or explanations involved. But I am just nitpicking. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know. But. I can't fathom what would drive the man to come back and assume adminship on a wiki where there's all this old hate. It's a liability, and the motivation that would drive him to come nevertheless could be more convincing than we think. If we see drama coming on, we say "see, you got no community support any more, for the good of the wiki, go". This is a reasonable person we're talking about here, not some idiotic freak. Why imagine that there is this drama in our future if we don't act now and thus create the drama now that in the future may never happen? There's no point. -- ◄mendel► 04:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You've lost me on the logical arguments so I will fall back on pointing out something totally irrelevant: Gravewit isn't considered "reasonable" by most people. Unless you mean to imply "logical", in which case you are correct, in that he pulled a very smart and fast move.
 * To perhaps make it easier for myself and others to understand, could you provide a tl;dr answer to the following question: Do you advocate "demoting" Gravewit now so as not to even entertain the possibility of his return causing problems in the future? (ounce of prevention etc) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch this talkpage. Demote Gravewit now = certain drama now. Demote Gravewit whenever = high probability of no drama ever. I'd avoid certain drama. (But it may be too late now.) -- ◄mendel► 04:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the points raised here, I'd say a demotion would be unnecessary at best. The selling of GuildWiki was a bad choice on Gravewit's part, but it did not directly harm the wiki (not in the same way the vandalism or random page deletion/user bannings would). He has not abused his sysop powers. based merely on those points, he is still fit to be an admin.
 * Gravewit has already lost most of the community's respect however, and as such, he wouldn't have much (if any) actual power if he returned. We effectively have nothing to take away from him at this point.
 * If he does come back and ask for his position back, we can give it to him; if he wants to start helping the wiki again for some reason, we have no reason not to allow it. it's not easy to say if he could undo the "damage" he caused, but I don't think it possible for him to do much more.
 * And if he starts banning people left and right, or randomly banning people (because they dislike him), then we simply demote him, ban him, and undo what he did. Worst case scenario is completely fixable.
 * That's my opinion now on the subject. I think anything more would be bordering on simple pessimism; like mendel pointed out, logically, Gravewit has no reason to ever return, so it's a moot point. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> .cнаt^  05:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) He can't sell the wiki again, that's for sure. ;-) -- ◄mendel► 12:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put it past him. Or Wikia. - Auron 12:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Who would buy GWiki aside from Wikia? Unless Google starts hosting wikis, in which case they'd just buy Wikia instead. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Google already hosts wikis -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 22:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  09:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Google had google video when it bought youtube. But Wikia belongs to Amazon: w:Wikia:Press: Amazon invests in Wikia. -- ◄mendel► 09:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * .....................that is extremely disturbing for more than one reason. Excuse me while I go have a crisis of faith. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 10:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you and two dozen other classmates co-buy a Super Nintendo, do *you* own it? If you just look at *investments*, there's probably a 6-degrees of ownership between most major players in the business anyways. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 17:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not know what kind of control round B investors get. -- ◄mendel► 01:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They probably get the moon if Wikia takes over the solar system. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 02:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fail
Hi guys, I screwed up with this edit. For convenience, my reasoning was this link.

Sorry about that. A F K When Needed 20:32, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Out of date?
This article looks woefully out-of-date. It appears to list several users who are no longer admins, confuses the issue of who is a b'crat (and what their role is), and generally seems to have far too many words to serve its stated purpose. Is it time for a substantive edit? or an entire re-write?

Also: of the 21 non-bots on the sysop list, 6 haven't contributed to the wiki in 6 months or more. Is it time to remove rights for at least the two who haven't edited in the last 2-3 years? &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 22:01, June 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what direction you'd want a revision to go. The main out-of-date-y-ness is the paragraph about the Wikia liaision. I don't quite understand your confusion about the bureaucrat role, and it's fairly clear who our current bureaucrats are (though PanSola hasn't been seen for a long time). -- ◄mendel► 23:19, June 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh, mebbe I'm exaggerating the issue b/c I just couldn't make heads or tails of the b'crat section. I would rephrase to something shorter and more fitting the (mostly) serious topic (and in line with the other sections at the top). For example:


 * Mendel handles the official B'crat duties, which means managing Mediawiki, user rights, and helping to resolve conflicts when other attempts have failed.
 * Felxi Omni is primarily a sysop and, in times of need, serves the wiki well in his secondary role as b'crat.
 * Entropy can step in on those rare occasions when Felix and Mendel are unavailable.


 * Similarly, I would either list all the admins in the table or in the section headers; it seems unlikely that people will actively maintain both lists. (Naturally, a link to the live sysop list makes sense). &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:39, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * So you just omitted everything you didn't understand? Hmmm. Your version really says less than the current one does. And yes, we've done the unlikely and always maintained both lists. They don't change that often, and a lot of people watch this page. -- ◄mendel► 00:05, June 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe I don't understand what the article is supposed to communicate and to whom. If there's something else I should understand (beyond my paraphrase above), it's not coming across successfully. &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 00:19, June 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, the present form communicates that we're people and not roles. The so-called "official Bureaucrat duties" don't exist, every bureaucrat has shaped their office differently. The only thing that the wiki software imposes is that we're the ones technically empowered to change user rights. In reality, there's usually an on-wiki process involved before that happens, though. "Managing MediaWiki" is not a Bureaucrat duty, any admin can do that. Last resort in "Solving problems" again is not an official role; I've always argued that since I hold the utlimate power to demote sysop, I'd be the ultimate arbiter, but we could just as well have some other process that names other arbiters and makes one of us implement their decisions. (And you'll also notice that none of the other bcrats see themselves in that role, except possibly for Felix.) Entropy is not likely to step in on "those rare occasions"; occasions when bureaucrats need to get active are rare at any rate, and it's never urgent; if it was, Wikia staff could do what was needed if asked. Entropy (and PanSola, whom you omitted) will step in when they want to. Entropy last did that when she made Felix bureaucrat, though I was available at the time.
 * Your rephrasing suggests that there are fixed roles, and that we keep to them. While this looks better from a "PR" standpoint, it doesn't reflect the actual state of affairs, which is considerably more muddy. -- ◄mendel► 06:05, June 26, 2010 (UTC)