GuildWiki talk:Administrators

GuildWiki talk:Administrators/Archive

Table of info

The sysop pool is quite large now, maybe we could add a table of info, something like so:

Username	Talk page	Wiki-mail	External contact details	Usual hours (GMT)	Location	Last active	Preferred duties
Entropy	talk	wiki-mail	magus.allanon@gmail.com	4PM-10PM weekdays, 10AM onwards weekends and holidays	California, USA	contribs	Deletion, banhammer, RC-Patrol
Gem	talk	wiki-mail	In game IRC: Gem or Gemi		Helsinki, Finland	contribs	User related, deleting, other variable stuff
LordBiro	talk	wiki-mail	Jabber ID/Google talk address: baxter@jabber.org	0900 - 2300 GMT (precisely)	UK	contribs	Summoning Greater Icons
PanSola	talk			unusual	California	contribs	Prot, Del, and Ban. Everything else can be done by regular users.
Adam.skinner	talk					June 2005
Auron of Neon	talk	wiki-mail	MSN is stuph_3@hotmail.com	random	Hawaii, USA	contribs	Builds copyvios
Fyren	talk					contribs
Gares Redstorm	talk	wiki-mail	AIM: GaresRedstorm MSN: monkey_butt73@hotmail.com YIM: garesredstorm	when you least expect it	North Carolina, USA	contribs	Recent Changes Voyeurism
Gordon Ecker	talk	wiki-mail		6 PM - Midnight PST	Vancouver, BC	contribs
Karlos	talk	wiki-mail	In-game characters on user page	9 PM - 3 AM PST	Seattle, WA (USA)	contribs	Recent Changes Lore, Bestiary, Missions, Formatting
MartinLightbringer(CS)	talk					November 2005
Nunix	talk					contribs
Rainith	talk	wiki-mail	GWG Forums: Rainith XBL Gamer Tag: Rainith In-game: See user page for character names	varies	Seattle, WA - USA	contribs	Not Builds
William Blackstaff	talk	wiki-mail	WilliamBlackstaff@gmail.com	varies sporadically.	Australia	July 2006	Sporadic editing and deletion of one-line articles pointless links. Oh and I hang around at OblivioWiki
Xasxas256	talk	wiki-mail		varies	Melbourne, Australia	contribs	Helping users
Xeon	talk	wiki-mail		24/7	Melbourne, Australia	contribs	General maintenance of articles, exploring options and creating ideas

Comments

and colour-code the row according to active/wikibreak etc in red, yellow, green — Skuld 13:03, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Oh, and anything can be omitted except talk and name (leave wikimail blank if it isn't filled in too) — Skuld 13:04, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

So, are we going to put it on the page? -- Gordon Ecker 01:25, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

The original discussion (below) resulted in the decision not to put the above table on the article page ... but, it could be brought up for discussion again; maybe opinions have changed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:32, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Discussion

Looks great and fun. :) -- (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Because I'm a geek I've made a template with different statuses and colours available. Go me! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:12, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Lol :p — Skuld 09:29, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

That looks beautiful Skuld :D <LordBiro>/<Talk> 12:13, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Thanks :) What browser? They all display different >< — Skuld 12:23, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

What's this then? Another reason for another template ;) I like it. Good to have a record of admin locations. -Gares 12:45, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

I support this idea, but I disapprove of the template. There seems to be no inherent example to using a template as opposed to a normal table. If we're going to use yet another template, please justify it first. :) —Tanaric 19:49, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

If this was something that new users were supposed to do, I'd agree. As this is something for specifically the sysops to use, I see no problem with using the template. --Rainith 20:23, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

I do like the idea of using a table for this, but I'm indifferent about if we use a template to fill it out. I do feel that the template makes it marginally easier to use the color coding and to keep the coding consistent; but the benefit is very slight - so no major issue either way on its use to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:36, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Considering nobody is putting their "external mail" do we need that column? Also William Blackstaff is from Australia, there's not many of us Aussies around but he's one. --Xasxas256 21:06, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

I put it in for him — Skuld 03:34, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

In regards to external email, considering wiki-mail links to an external mail service, I don't see the reason to have the external mail column, unless you want to add an extra email account. -Gares 06:32, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Mr Biro, any chance you could make a column for "last activity" for absent ppl? — Skuld 03:34, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

I'm not sure if that's what you meant exactly Skuld... If not then I'll try it again :P <LordBiro>/<Talk> 04:11, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Perfect :) — Skuld 05:30, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

How about a "Language" column? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 12:54, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Not to be a spoil-sport but I didn't really mean this to be a joke >< — Skuld 13:00, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

With the exception of the humor in the "Preferred duties" column, I haven't seen anything to suggest it's being viewed as a joke. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:10, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

I was about to say the same thing Barek. I've just noticed that PanSola has included a link to his contributions in the "last active" column, and this makes a lot of sense. Should we link to contribs instead of showing the date for each sysop? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 13:13, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Heh, I was just modifying the template and got an edit conflict with your post when updating the table. Not sure if the "last activity" column is still needed with that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:16, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Merging the columns ... --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:28, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Stop editing, dammit! I got lots of contact info. I have been contacted via all these channels for GuildWiki assistance. What should I do? —Tanaric 13:16, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

I would just put the methods by which you want to be contacted. I'm not putting down my MSN address or anything. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 13:31, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Yes, I thought that was implicit. That's why my phone number isn't in here. :P

Also, I sorted alphabetically. The other obvious sorting mechanism would be by date of sysoption. Which is preferable? —Tanaric 13:52, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Your phone number is about the only thing not there Tanaric :P I think alphabetically is fine! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 13:57, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

I'm all for a different order instead of alphabetical, as the person at the top of lists frequently gets the most messages ;-) But, sorting by sysoption date has hints of elitism to me ... any other suggestions?

Oh ... sysoption? The wiktionary needs an update! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:59, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Yeah, I was thinking that (with regard to elitism). But equally if you don't want to be top of the list then that's understandable. I just think alphabetically is the fairest way. What we need to do is make ab.er.ant or someone a sysop, that would solve the problem :P - although technically 8 comes before B :P

Now... must resist urge to vandalise wiktionary... <LordBiro>/<Talk> 14:01, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Now what?

Okay, we went through the fun exercise of making a table that is at least as long as the article itself ... so, now what do we do with it? Do we want it in the article? It seems a bit bulky to me, but the only way I can see to solve that is to purge a column or two (external contact seems a prime candidate for removal - that data can exist on the admin's user page if they want to provide it, and the table already provides a means to contact all of the admins. I'm also not sure if the preferred duties column is all that useful, or even living up to the initial vision for its use, so that one would seem easy to purge. Without those two (which have the most word wrapping) I think it should shrink the table to a more manageable size. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:23, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

Now that our current admins have been officially enshrined in a template table we replace them all! I'm sorry I just couldn't resist :P Nah seriously I'd also agree that the preferred duties column as it stands at the moment is not particularly useful. --Xasxas256 18:34, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

I'm safe! --Fyren 19:01, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

Nice try - once an admin, there is no such thing as safe! ;-D --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:03, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

You don't even have any duties according to that table, rise up and remove our decadant and oppresive overlords! :P --Xasxas256 19:15, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

Honestly, while fun, I don't see any advantage to this as opposed to our current expository format. Any admin who doesn't feel his current paragraph describes him well enough is welcome to write his own (as I did). I just wrote one general one for everybody else, as I didn't want to inadvertantly insult anybody. :) —Tanaric 11:36, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Ponderings as of late

I've noticed quite a few events recently and decided not to say anything upon them, but now I'm am quite bemused, so it's time to speak and review on things. My understanding of admins are they are people chosen by the community who voice and speak for the community when affairs inside of the community get beyond the control of it members. Just recently sysop Tanaric has appointed new admins and shuffled admins around in a rather spontaneous fashion without consultation of community, there is no where in policy which mentions that this is the way things should be done, but I think there should be.

Especially when it comes to demote admins without mentioning this subject anywhere in the wiki, I find this action rather unexpected and underhand (perhaps that is the wrong word but...). We are a community after all and I feel the said actions were done without talk, otherwise the admin team are ignoring the very community that they have been put in place to support.

I find that this is a collaboration, this project we are all apart of and I think there needs to be a review in how admins are appointed and demoted, not done in such a hush hush and adhoc way. The ball has started to roll. --Jamie 17:03, 1 February 2007 (CST)

GuildWiki == Community != Democracy, as Tanaric said somewhere. Entropy 17:06, 1 February 2007 (CST)

The wiki policy for admins does state that bureaucrates are allowed to promote and demote admins at will. However, I think that a warning should usually be given before making such actions. In the case of Tetris he was asked before and his adminship has allready been accepted by the community a few times before this. In my case there was the RfA and a discussion. Skulds case is the only one where there wasn't a clear warning/discussion beforehand, but it wasn't totally unexpected. We could really think about rewording the policy somehow if people think it is a problem, but before today everything has worked perfectly with the current policy. -- (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I've also withheld my comments from most of the recent discussions, so here are my thoughts on what Jamie has brought up. Most things on the wiki are decided on by consensus (as many people have reiterated recently). Consensus means something close to "a general agreement among users" and thus if the decisions for the wiki are made by the people, it can be fair to say it's run in a democratic fashion. Some folks confuse this with the fact that this is not a democracy -- supreme power is not vested in the people... the wiki bureaucrats have had that since the beginning of this site as far as I can tell.

Because of the role admins play in this community it is important that they are not driven purely by that community, as they can have unpopular and difficult decisions to make. They are the keepers of the "vision" of the community, and if something isn't working they are responsible to nudge things back into place. As said in this article, chaotic: yes. Broken: no (or at least I don't believe so).

To the point of this, admins are not chosen by the community. It says as much in this article. They can be recommended by the community, but only the admins can make the choice. Basically current admins (leaders of the community) need to know that any new admins have a compatible vision (not necessarily the same vision, mind you).

Lastly, on the point of "vision" that the admins hold for the community, it's important that they all recognize that while they hold supreme power they always at least consider the input of the userbase. They may have final say in a matter, but what's final say if all your users leave because you rule with an iron fist? Note: I believe that the majority of time the admins do this part of their job very well, so take this statement as just clarification to what I previously said. --Zampani 17:47, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Suppose you are nominated for adminship, but realize that your "vision" is incompatible with some of the current admins'. Is declining the nomination the only right thing to do? --Rezyk 19:54, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I would hate to think that those people who think that they can change the way that the wiki works (for the better) would be discouraged because they didn't have the same ideals as the current admins. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 20:33, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I would completely agree with LordBiro. As proven many times both in the wiki arena and throughout history, a well formed idea can be very powerful. Whether you're a user or an admin we all have the power to persuade others. Personally, if I found my "vision" of the way things should work was out of line with the current admin team I would evaluate how seriously incompatible my idea were. Some difference can never be solved, but many can find ways to co-exist, and some thrive together. And sometimes given a persuasive enough argument you can subvert the status quo. Best course of action: rational discussion. If it still won't work, fine -- this is still a terrific community, a terrific resource, and has a place for all kinds of users. An admin isn't necessarily more valuable than a user, or vice versa. It's the ideas and actions that are most valuable.--Zampani 21:12, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I completely agree. It should be about community. However, until the community works together to change the policy, I'm bound by it. As it stands, the policy states that I must do what I feel is best for the wiki, and I have the responsibility to exercise the (nearly limitless) authority that policy gives me.

Are you asking the administrative staff to change the policy? What's the point of that? If we can change it at will, then the policy is a useless document for protecting you. Are you trying to change it yourself? If that's the case, draft up a proposal per the guidelines in GuildWiki:Policy. However, no matter what policy you propose, and no matter how rapidly it's ratified via consensus and approved, User:Gravewit cannot be bound by it, by the nature of this website.

What then, do you intend to do? Right now, it seems all you're asking of me and of the rest of the administrative team is an assurance that we will do no evil. Well, we've given that before. In fact, I believe it's in our policy. What good is it, really?

Also, I find it extremely funny that half of you want democracy and are upset by my actions that flaunt its nonexistence, and the other half of you say it's okay that there's no democracy because I said there isn't democracy on GuildWiki.

As a userbase, you really need to come together and figure out what you want. I'm all for democracy, but if I coerce you into it, or if I write the policy and merely nobody opposes, it's not really democracy, is it?

—Tanaric 03:06, 2 February 2007 (CST)

"Also, I find it extremely funny that half of you want democracy and are upset by my actions that flaunt its nonexistence, and the other half of you say it's okay that there's no democracy because I said there isn't democracy on GuildWiki."

lol!... --Jamie 13:53, 2 February 2007 (CST)

I really don't care for democracy or not. What I do care about is transparency. While Tanaric seems to be trying to maximize it, at the same time, that transparency really isn't all there. There was no prior warning of things to come, and nothing was really discussed with the community. Though I personally don't mind a strong hand to "make things happen", or even a strict "dictatorship" as long as major changes can be agreed by the consensus of the community. The recent shakeup seems to have damaged the faith of many users and admins alike on the integrity of GWiki. But this isn't the first time something like this ever happened, and other questionable actions have been made in the past by the leaders that damaged the GWiki community. I agree with Karlos in saying that when the GWiki community does fall apart it is at least in a large part due to the poor management by Gravewit.

It just seems for a long while that the GuildWiki community as a whole have been slowly degrading and this recent change has accelerated it. W/O much idea or direction other than making the perfect manual of GuildWars, IMO GuildWiki will be just that... a manual. But because Guildwars is such a complex game, a lot of discussion is needed to help people understand the skills and skill synergy since so many people have problems with that. The builds section is quickly spiraling into chaos because of the poor management on that section, and users who constantly post new ineffectual builds are left alone, but when someone says something about it, they are admonished. GWiki can be much more than just a game manual... much more than another strategy guide but it never happened. I always wondered why GWiki was never listed in the official fansite listings, but now I know why. --Lania Elderfire 20:14, 2 February 2007 (CST)

I would like to voice my opinnion on the wiki being 'just a manual'. I feel very differently. For me the wiki isn't 'just a manual'; It's a hobby, a place to meet friends, a place where I spend a lot of time, almost a lifestyle. Even if poor management would ruin what the wiki is aiming for, I would still hold on to the friends and the fun. -- (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Yeah I guess that's the good thing about everything is that there are so many methods of communication nowadays friends can still be in touch off the wiki, if it does happen to fall apart --Lania Elderfire 02:23, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Guild Wars Wiki

Uh, that's something to put on a policy page over there, not here. --Fyren 00:05, 8 February 2007 (CST)

There seemed to be an idea on RfA that people sysoped here now might be eligible for immediate sysoption there. —Tanaric 00:08, 8 February 2007 (CST)

Change "we are not ANet" into "we are not..." like Wikipedia's policy? --Fyren 00:10, 8 February 2007 (CST)

I'm not familiar with it. I'll oblige your revert. Do you want to handle adjusting "we are not"? —Tanaric 00:27, 8 February 2007 (CST)

I'll ponder it. WP's is wikipedia:WP:NOT, the real title is "what Wikipedia is not." --Fyren 00:31, 8 February 2007 (CST)

PanSola

Is eh PanSola inactive at the wiki? I toght I've seen Pansola contributing a lot more these few weeks, scrap him off the inactive list :P —SigmA 12:48, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

I haven't been doing much admin-related stuff though. Just regular edits and reverts. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 16:46, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

If we use some...

Of wikipedias policies, than this proves we aren't a democracy. :P The Imperialist

Needs moar admins

IMO we need far more admins, as we now have very few admins active and few quitted guildwiki... so.. my comclusion is, we needs more RFA's!! 19:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

/nominate User:168.212.66.156-- (Talk) (Contr.) 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And my other conclusion is that poo is brown. 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Disgusting RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Expectations section

I fully support having the expectations linked from this page ... but to me, they do not belong as part of the policy page itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with splitting it off. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 17:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- (gem / talk) 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you should split it off and have it with the contact information somewhere. This is all important information about the admins themselves which should be readily available but doesn't really belong here the way it is. Might as well take all the info about the specific admins off then and make this more a policy page and have a separate page. I think this is the proper name for the admin info page and have GW:ADMIN be GuildWiki:Administrator responsibilities as the policy page. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 18:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)