User talk:Entropy/bureaucrat

'''Discussion is now CLOSED, treat this page as an archive for posterity. Please do not make any further edits here.'''

I would like to put forward that Ishmael is extremely active and tends to remain impartial in conflicts, something that I've never quite managed. 00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please follow instructions on the page, then. >.> (T/C) 01:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted before they existed. I'm a bit busy packing right now, since I leave in under an hour. It might have to wait for Monday. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 01:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

of the current sysops:
Gem, RT, myself. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm...
When the hell have bureaucrats ever mediated disputes? You guys are acting like this is GWW alluva sudden. Sysops do everything - user mediations, blocks, and all the diplomatic stuff you guys are attributing to bcratship. Bcrats don't do any of that; they just promote sysops and keep an eye on how things are running. Rarely, they'll do something like Cory did with the builds wipe; when the community simply can't come to a decision, they'll step in and make one. But for the day-to-day running of the wiki, Bureaucrats don't matter in the least; that's why the sysops are all expected to use discretion in their cases, because they're the judge/jury/executioner. They represent the wiki more than the bureaucrat, to be honest; if someone wants to know something about the wiki (or if someone wants a PR contact), it will more than likely be a sysop that responds. I really don't understand when people use reasoning like "With his attitude he may make a good sysop but wouldn't handle the additional duties of a bcrat well imo." What duties of a bcrat conflict with my attitude, exactly? I'm not seeing any, so in case I've missed them in the past three years, please point them out. - Auron 06:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pretty much ditto (though I would say it with a different tone of voice d-: ). In addition, I believe Cory was involved in arbitration etc only because he was the type of person he was, NOT because he was a Bcrat.  -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 08:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ye. What's funny is... I was a peer mediator for years in school, so mediation and arbitration really aren't new concepts to me. We learned a bunch of things, but mostly we learned to stay impartial and to refrain from giving advice. I'd say I'm pretty good at it too, but I've never really had to use mediation skills on any wiki - either because the carebear crew got involved early enough, or because I didn't want to see a dispute resolved :P (malicious intent, I know, but wikidrama can be so much fun). - Auron 10:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "What duties of a bcrat conflict with my attitude, exactly? I'm not seeing any, so in case I've missed them in the past three years, please point them out." A question that answers itself--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (Talk /Contribs ) 11:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it doesn't, or I wouldn't have asked it in the first place. All I've seen people talk about are duties more befitting of a sysop, and definitely not the leading job of a bureaucrat. - Auron 11:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "or because I didn't want to see a dispute resolved :P (malicious intent, I know, but wikidrama can be so much fun)." -I believe that answers your question. You think that the person with ultimate power over the wiki should reason like that?--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 14:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't answer Auron's question. He asked "What duties of a bcrat conflict with my attitude, exactly?" You cited an example of something that could be classified under "attitude" and then said that someone with "ultimate power" over a wiki shouldn't reason that way, which really isn't relevant, since even Entropy doesn't have "ultimate power" over guildwiki. Furthermore, Auron and Pan are arguing that mediating disputes is not one of the duties of a bureaucrat, and you have not refuted that point, so that example isn't relevant, either.  &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( talk ) 16:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Look I'm not going to waste time delving into it, I don't much care for arguments on the internet and there is no point in trying to change anyones mind. But a bcrat does have to moderate conflicts more then any normal sysop, what if a sysop, or even two sysops suddenly got into a fight with each other, god knows that we have enough sysops (and more being added frequently for some reason...) with differing views to start conflicts. Not only that but a bcrat has to decide when a new sysop is needed and who should be it, sure there is the RFA but its clearly stated before that RFAs frankly mean crap if the Bcrat doesn't agree with the poll. Just from those two examples I think that it is obvious that the duties of a bcrat are greater then what Auron thinks, which is why he would not fit the job.--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 16:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, YAV means nothing, sure it may look fair and official but there have been times then the admins of this wiki have ignored public objections and did what they wanted. They have all the power.--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 16:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "There have been times then the admins of this wiki have ignored public objections and did what they wanted", there is a difference between being valuable and respected, vs getting things done your way. People are valuable even when they make mistakes, they are valuable even if what they say actually don't make sense (as long as their intent was good), and they are valuable even when they are right but just couldn't get their point across to the thick-skulls of the other party's head. Looking at "who gets their way" in the end does not reflect on the valubility of the participants in the conflict of interests.  YAV isn't about "you will get your way"; YAV's spirit is about "evaluate the words/logic/rational on its own merit, and not let the fact of who did it either positively or negatively affect the evaluation of the words/logic/rational. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. The Bcrat doesn't need to mediate, the Bcrat just ensures the sysops don't abuse their powers before the issue is resolved.  So for example, Entropy can desysop two sysops who are reverting each other on a protected page, and/or banning other people who are trying to help resolve the situation, without actually mediating the conflict.  desysop-ing would take 30 seconds.  Mediating until the issues is resolved takes a minimum of 30 minutes (and can last up to days) if you aren't just gonna outright make up your mind and ban someone from the wiki for life.  The rest of the community has every right to take part in the 30min~days part, freeing the Bcrat to only be responsible for the 30-second thing. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The following is a paraphrased quote of myself

I don't care much that you have never commented on RfA's, Pan, since historically not many sysops/bcrats did.

...

Astute observation, and I wish things were still that simple; I could thusly promote quite a number more sysops and even bureaucrats without thinking twice. By the strict letter of GW:ADMIN and related policies, you are exactly right: that is the precise role of sysops and bureaucrats. However, I have increasingly felt as GuildWiki has...aged that admins and the bureaucrat(s) need to take on more responsibilities and be more active. These are rather vague roles, and vary wildly: I would never ask for Dr Ishmael's technical knowledge or your Wikia knowledge as prerequisites to the job, obviously. But I think that each sysop brings something unique with them to the team. All have their own areas of expertise which they use to help benefit the Wiki, with the most basic duties/abilities still being the most important: discretion to use the powers granted. '''Ultimately, sysops/bcrat does end up being the final "arbitrators/moderators/representatives in the community". Not all of us, of course, but the chain of command ends there. If a regular user displays such qualities, chances are they are due for a promotion. :)'''

What I want in a second bureaucrat is, above all, a person who can fill in for me while I'm gone. [...] I feel that a person with the power to discipline the sysops (desysoption), make promotions, authorize bots, etc. should always be available in case emergencies come up. I have come close to missing a lot of rather important issues because I am not so active anymore; in most of them, bureaucrat being around, "a good judge of character as to whether someone else should be promoted to a certain position", would have helped. It is retroactive and conversely applied also: to look at a sysop's actions and reconsider if promoting them was such a good idea. Also, bureaucrat is the nominal representative to Wikia nowadays, mostly because we don't formally have an "owner" such as Gravewit anymore.

End quote

I think some people have become a bit confused about what I think the role of bureaucrat encompasses. I have probably not helped much with spawning the idea that "bcrats are mediators" since I am pretty activist for a sysop/bcrat...still I think people are using what I said as a platform to advocate their own visions of what an ideal bcrat should be. I share Auron's confusion in that respect; while my views of bcrat role are a little bit more broad, I am not trying to find another activist mediator with this page. All I want is someone with the bureaucrat powers to be available at all times. This is not looking for a replacement for me. :(

I would also like to note that as the person who recommended Auron, and one of the users who knows him more intimately, I have already considered much of the same arguments being presented against him currently and I even counter them in my opening paragraph about why I think he is a good choice. I'd like to emphasize that even though Bureaucrat is the final, final authority over a dispute, mediation is by no means a required "duty" and it has not historically been part of the job. People like me and Tanaric have added that misconception, I think. Thus, Auron's "abrasiveness" would have little impact on how well he does what I want - to check in often and address issues of promotion/demotion which come up. He doesn't even have to deal with Wikia at all; while I think Bcrat is the logical person to do such a representative role, PanSola would always be available for it anyways. So even if Auron was promoted and Pan was not, I would not worry about it.

(T/C) 00:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. Breaking YAV is a bannable offense. It is very much a meaningful policy, at least it always has been to me. In fact, I think that it is more important than GW:NPA. YAV and GW:AGF say what GuildWiki is all about. The rest is technical formalities. (T/C) 00:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think is all about what Auron said from the start, the misconception has GWW all over it, you can tell if you're an old enough GuildWikian and have a general idea of how GWW is. GuildWiki Bcrats are mainly tools of the wiki, not diplomatic representatives. As long as they do their job, nothing else matters, and that's what Entropy is looking for, since she sees that she can't fulfill the necessary functions alone.[[Image:Ereanorsign.jpg]]reanor 03:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All of which causes me to consider the possibility that the decision over who will fill the role of Bcrat has already been made, what do votes matter when you have the full support of the only person in a position to make the final decision. If admin appointments are made largely on the Bcrats discretion with 'votes' cast in rfas a secondary issue, then the same presumably applies here which raises the question of why we even need a page for people to support/oppose individual candidates--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (Talk /Contribs ) 13:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They aren't votes. This isn't an election, it's a poll; she's asking the opinion of the public, she's not asking them because they're going to pick. The best thing to do isn't load the page down with support/oppose votes, it's to formulate an argument as to why that person deserves support/oppose; to help Entropy decide.
 * This is basically what all RfAs should be; not votes, just a public discussion board that the bcrat can look at and reflect on. - Auron 13:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cobalt: I haven't decided yet and although I can not say that I went into this with no preferences already in mind, I never had a predestined winner in mind. In fact, the comments on this have made me less certain in general, and I have reconsidered some of my former thoughts based on what people have said. Although it is true that "the only person in a position to make the final decision" is myself, you have to understand that this is not a vote!! (In Tanaric's words, "votes are useless") and RfA's are not supposed to be votes either. I want content, not numbers. Posting your sig and "+1" is NOT helpful; posting long and well thought out arguments (such as Pan, Auron, Jedi, etc have been doing) is very useful. I want people to convince me why picking Candidate X would be a good or bad choice. The whole point of RfAs and pages like this is to let the community help me make a decision.
 * If you prefer me to simply promote and demote people with no discussion whatsoever, then I could do that too...but I dislike that for two reasons. One is that it furthers the divide between "admins/bcrats" and "normal users". And two, I enjoy activity on my userpages. Call me irreverant, but this is a great source of entertainment for me: a meaningful debate with two highly motivated sides is a wonderful way to spend free time. You have to admit that doing things this way is more exciting for everyone. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 23:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Call me irreverant, but this is a great source of entertainment for me." Oh, my god! I formally call for your immediate impeachment! You can't derive even the slightest pleasure from watching a wiki debate and discuss, it simply isn't allowed!
 * ^ that's pretty much your argument, Alari. Reading it makes it seem much more silly than typing it, I'm sure.
 * To everyone; if your point has already been made, don't bother re-typing it, as you're just wasting everyone's time. Remember, this isn't a vote count, it's a brainstorming session. If the idea is already on the table, don't bring the idea up again. (hint; if you think I'm rude, it's already been stated about sixty times, so don't waste your breath - I think, just maybe, Entropy gets it). - Auron 23:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Site Notice?
Maybe we could put up a site notice about this? Just to get more ppl to participate -- Shadowphoenix  16:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't do any harm Random <font color="Black">Time  16:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't sitenotice material. That's generally reserved for emergencies or to notify everyone of possible downtime. Wikia's bullshit taglines at the top are just something we have to deal with until they leave us alone... if they ever feel the urge. This is just a user looking for input.
 * Community portal, maybe, but not sitenotice. - Auron 19:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes community portal may be more appropraite. -- Shadowphoenix  19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most people who care know about it already anyway. Community portal should suffice. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)