Has anyone else thought these are kinda static as of late? --Shadowcrest 00:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but as of right now, I'm not really sure if we need any more admins...--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 00:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we make anyone here an admin. If anyone was going to, it would be gimme and RT, perhaps viper. Are the rest just doomed to sit here all alone forever? --Shadowcrest 00:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
IDK, you'll have to ask lordbiro about that.--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need any more admins atm. Perhaps someone active in a European Time Zone? I was the only admin on at about noon GMT when I was in England but there wasn't much action at that time. As far as this page, I'd say that we can put some on the back burner for approval when they are needed. But I think it would a good idea to have another bureaucrats besides Biro as he isn't very active over here. I'd recommend Pansola who is an old hand who is still rather active and qualified. —JediRogue 03:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to nominate Jedi, actually, for Beuracraticy (Or w/e its spelt). Pan isnt active anymore, nor is Entropy or Gem. --Warwick sig.JPG Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 10:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Blah, I'm so inactive I didn't even realize Entropy became inactive!!! >_<""" I think I'd support Jedi for Bcrat. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 04:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As of lately, it is becoming more and more clear, that we need to increase our admin pool. With only have 2 active admins, it is nearly impossible to get repeat vandalizer's dealt with in a timely fashion. We just had a user vandalize and create spam articles for nearly 2 hours now, with Jedi finally logging in to ban the IP, only to have the IP come back again less than 20 minutes later. -- Isk8.png Sk8 (T)(C) 07:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are half a dozen extremely qualified candidates sitting around on the RfA page, where they've been since before I became a contributor. It's really ridiculous. Felix Omni Signature.png 07:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That is true, I think something that also needs to be taken into consideration for RFA's is at what times they are available. We need to make sure we have admins available at all times during the day. It doesn't do anyone any good if we have say, 5 active admins, but none of them are around during this timeframe. -- Isk8.png Sk8 (T)(C) 07:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well part of that is time zones, and part of that is school. Felix Omni Signature.png 07:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Or work for some of the older members :P . Yes I know, which is why we should make sure there are admins available at all almost all hours of the day. -- Isk8.png Sk8 (T)(C) 08:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that I'm probably the only graduate with no job. Oh, I'm such an appalling failure... T____T Felix Omni Signature.png 08:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol, don't feel bad. I went to college and still work in a grocery store. -_- -- Isk8.png Sk8 (T)(C) 08:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The time is now 3:53 AM. I have just finished watching some videos on YouTube, and now I'm checking my watchlist. Again. On all five wikis.
On a completely unrelated note, I don't have a job. --GEO-logo.png Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 08:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, high five. Felix Omni Signature.png 08:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, on a completely unrelated note, you don't appear to have a life either. :/ Congrats, you are perfect for the job :P -- Isk8.png Sk8 (T)(C) 08:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
GW:NPA! Obviously the three of us keep very unusual hours, given that Isk8 and I are US Central time, and Jio is evidently Eastern. Felix Omni Signature.png 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I work graveyard shift, so typically, I get home and get on the wiki when everyone over in Euro is getting home from school. Was just so lucky to be off tonight to have my user page vanadalized for undoing vandalism -_- -- Isk8.png Sk8 (T)(C) 09:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Lately I've been staying up all night and sleeping from about noon until dinnertime, after which I go to class, come home around 10:00, do whatever. Typically my hours are at least a little more normal- wake up around noon, go to sleep in the early morning. Felix Omni Signature.png 09:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I'm up late, as you can tell; no particular reason for it, though. I do love getting up early, but more often then not, I'm going to bed as the sun comes up. Mostly because I'm jobless, don't have school, and have no real reason to get up at any particular time. So yes, I'm a perfectly adequate candidate for any job that requires free time. --GEO-logo.png Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Should we add a link to Special:Editcount to future RFA's since that's one of the things people often consider when voting?Entrea SumataeEntrea Sumatae [Talk] 23:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt, I don't think. If you can figure out how to do it, I'd say go ahead. --Shadowcrest 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at the template and figured out somebody did it already... stupid me.Entrea SumataeEntrea Sumatae [Talk] 23:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Minimum edit count?

I'm thinking that possibly we should have an editcount minimum (say 50-100 edits minimum to vote), because of sockpuppetry. Somone could make several socks to vote support, which hasn't happened yet. And also, somone who doesn't like the person could make a sock and vote oppose multiple times. Thats what I think happened on my RfA with the 1-edit person (but I'm not saying its true, just giving my opinion), and I think that we should do somthing to prevent that. And if that person was an IP who'd made an account to vote, we should have somthing saying that IPs are allowed to vote. —♥May♥Wick♥ 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet, that idea doesn't fit with GW:YAV. --OrgXSignature.jpg 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying is we're only letting people who actually know what they're talking about vote in this sort of thing. GW:YAV shouldn't really IMO be used as a policy, more of a Guideline. —♥May♥Wick♥ 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or can't you agree with anyone who opposes your opinions? --OrgXSignature.jpg 17:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Its just you. —♥May♥Wick♥ 17:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, way to confirm my statement. --OrgXSignature.jpg 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely oppose your idea, to be honest. This wiki supports the entire guild wars community, and anyone who has used this site even once should be able to take part in the important decisions. Furthermore, don't forget that this isn't an election; A support from, say, Jedi or Giga would mean a lot more to the one making the decision (ie Entropy) than 30 opposes from Felix Omni Signature.png 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
This site isn't used much by the community as a whole; Its more just the more veteran users nowdays. Org, I'm not opposing everything you're saying, you're opposing everything I am. —♥May♥Wick♥ 17:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That's absolutely untrue. 90% of the time when a new player in LA asks for information, people will refer them to Guildwiki. They don't say "hit F10 lol," they say " can tell you all you need to know." While it's true, perhaps, that many of the contributions come from so-called veterans, I know that many new people use this site every day. Felix Omni Signature.png 17:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
From what I've found mostly people go to, and most contributions come from veteran guildwiki contributors. Somone who votes oppose/support/neutral when they don't have a clue whats going on shouldn't really count at all. I had this discussion with zulu earlier. —♥May♥Wick♥ 17:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) And who says they should count? Again, this isn't an election by popular vote. Has it occurred to you that Entropy is a) smart enough to check contributions by people who vote and b) more influenced by her own sense of judgment than by the RfA votes anyway? Felix Omni Signature.png 17:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The RfA process itself doesn't work; its a popularity contest more than anything, and its only the bcrat that has the vote. If the bcrat thinks somone wouldn't make a good admin, and they had 100 supports and no opposes, they can just ignore all of the opinions and just generally say no. —♥May♥Wick♥ 17:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
So you agree with me. Very good. Felix Omni Signature.png 17:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. But I think that anyone who doesn't have a clue whats going ons vote should be ignored. —♥May♥Wick♥ 17:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
And they probably are. If the point in someone's argument is worthless, it will msot likely be discounted. A minimum edit number actually makes it more of a hassle, checking someone's contribs and then striknig a vote takes more effort than entropy/biro just ignoring it. Lord of all tyria 17:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Let the bureaucrat decide. Don't put it into policy. If the bureaucrat has an ounce of intelligence, which I'm thinking Entropy and Biro have, they can see for themselves which votes are "good" and which are "bad". There's no point putting it in word. And if you're referring to Eliot in that comment, Warwick, I'm thinking he has a point and should not be ignored, but that's another matter. -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) i'M NOt readig this but I will say that a minimum edit count violates YAV. YAV basically says that your edits count as much as anyone elses even if you are new around here. It suddenly doesn't apply to our voting process? No way. —JediRogue 17:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to this idea and even if it was implemented I would ignore it. If you're an editcounter freak like Eloc (no offense) then maybe you'd like this, but I honestly don't see the point, re LoaT and Brains. Besides, you must always remember that edits are NOT a measure of knowledge of wiki affairs, experience, blah blah. I have met some editors who have like zero edits but have been here since...well, even longer than me. Just because you watch and don't contribute doesn't mean you can not vote. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well said, I agree.Ereanorsign.jpgreanor 04:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Members with zero edits are not actually editors, I'm afraid. So it was not well said. D: Felix Omni Signature.png 04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Being a reader is enough. Actually, having something to say about it is enough.Ereanorsign.jpgreanor 01:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Voting would give them an edit, thus making them editors. Lord Belar 01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New Format

I really don't like the new format. To me it feels like it's suppressing the discussion. Why not keep the comments, and add the current format part into a new area under "Summary" or something? --Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 19:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Why was it moved to the talk in the first place? --Shadowcrest 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure on why the format change was made in the first place, but there's one benefit I can see. Because the individual RFAs get transcluded onto Project:Requests for adminship, it makes sense to keep the comments on the talkpage and only summaries on the actual article so that the main RFA page doesn't get over-cluttered. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 21:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't like it either. How about keeping the old format, just on the talkpage unstead of the article. Best of both worlds.Entrea SumataeEntrea [Talk] 21:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Because you'd then get the "vote" back, and the Bureaucrats didn't like that. I don't see anything inherently wrong with clicking on "discussion" if I want to see the discussion. --◄mendel► 22:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not a vote, it's a broad category you can expand upon. Felix Omni Signature.png 23:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I kind of like this better than simple yes and no votes but I also prefer more detail. I want to know how has expressed some opinions and what else was said. Still, I like this better than the old format. —JediRogue 23:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

rebutting points in the summary

moved from Project talk:Requests for adminship/M.mendel#Question about the new format

Apart from the fact that there can be bias in the way the summary reflects the discussion here, how would rebuttals be handled? Should they be added to the summary as well, and by whom? --◄mendel► 07:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Add to the summary as a sub-bullet to the point being rebutted, and anyone can do it. Just be concise (if it requires elaboration or lots of evidence of support or discussion, link to a section on talk page). -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 19:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Pan, you tell me this, yet Auron rebuts points by deleting them and placing his rebuttal in the edit summary. Please settle on a consensus. --◄mendel► 07:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I would say it should probably be a case-by-case situation. Where the rebuttal obviously make objective sense (or at least to the original proponent of the point), deletion of the bullet is fine (though I'd expect to see that rebuttal to show up in the talk page, not just in the edit summary). If the rebuttal only takes ppl to an "agree to disagree" state, then it should definitely be a sub-bullet. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 18:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA system

moved from Project talk:Requests for adminship/Warwick (6)

The discussion has turned to the question of "how things are" vs. "how things should be". Regarding admin promotions, let's examine the relevant phrases in Project:Administrators as a starting point:

  1. GuildWiki admins are recommended by the community.
  2. Promotion to administrator is done solely at the discretion of the bureaucrats
  3. only extremely trusted users are granted administrator status

The last promotion has called #1 into question, so the status quo is that bureaucrats promote whom they trust; and I add, if they see a need.

Let me repaint, then, the picture of GuildWiki: We are a volunteer organization, run by bureaucrats, who "hire" people to "management" based on their perceived abilities; the community contributes because they feel that the organization serves their ends. To affirm that, the community needs a measure of transparency.

Based on that picture, the RfA process could be much simplified: a candidate is nominated, each Bureaucrats posts "I think he/she is/isn't suitable for the job", preferably with an explanation, and the community is allowed to question these statements until a satisfactory amount of transparency has been achieved (but see below).

In absence of clear criteria what makes any candidate suitable for the job, the issue comes down to "I do/don't trust her/him". As it is, that is the ultimate touchstone in any case, because the qualifications of a candidate don't matter if you don't trust him/her, because then you won't trust the qualifications, either.

Then, if you have suitable and trusted candidate, it comes down to "do we need an admin like him/her"? If a candidate is either not suitable or not trusted, the RfA can be closed at that point (after a discussion period?); if he/she is suitable and trusted, but not needed, we can either keep it open indefinitely, or move it into some sort of "recruitment pool".

To recap, Bureaucrats decide on these issues:

  1. I think he/she is/isn't suitable for the job.
  2. I do/don't trust her/him.
  3. We do/don't need him/her to be an admin now.

Before these decisions are made, the community can provide argument to influence bureaucratic thought.

  • The issue of suitability is adressed (incompletely, I'm sure) in M.mendel/Admin Criteria, and that's what the summary we have now is geared towards, I believe.
  • To influence trust is rather difficult to do in a positive way, as it is far easier to raise distrust if evidence is at hand than to engender trust.
  • I can imagine that community discussion could uncover "needs" that a recommended admin could fulfil, but it seems far easier to demonstrate that a known need is unfulfilled than to convince people that the wiki has needs that have never been addressed, but should be. (Is it a good thing if bureaucrats are visionaries?)

Are we now at the point where we need clear statements from all "hiring" bureaucrats (going by Project:Administrator information, Auron and JediRogue) on these points? And should the RfA process be "reformatted" along these three issues? --◄mendel► 09:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC) (small clarification 12:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

I'd like to advance the idea that it's not as much of a "do we need him/her?", but "do we need additional admins?". It's not as much of a matter of the Bcrats think they don't need any particular individual specifically, but rather a matter of the Bcrats think they need additional admins generally. Generally speaking. (there are rare exceptions of certain candidates filling in a special role that uses the sysop tools, and are promoted for the special role). -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 21:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been wanting to say something like that for a while now, but every time I sat down to write it, I thought it sounded stupid. Meh. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 21:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You've been wanting to say something like what I typed or what mendel typed? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
It's indented under your message... what do you think? >.> Yes, what you said, about it being a matter of "do we need another admin?" rather than "should this person be an admin?". —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well intuitively it should be referring to mine, but I put so little effort into that particular post, and mendel's obviously involved more thought and effort, (and not everybody is doing indentation right all the time) such that I wasn't sure anymore d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's what I meant. Obvious precedent is when you need an admin to cover a certain "shift", i.e. be available at times that the wiki sometimes unattended by admins. You could need an admin generally for that, but some US-evening admin is not needed whereas a Europe-morning admin might be. And of course, "housekeeping". Some admin may be good at that and get promoted when other admins who would be good at RC patrol don't. To remain in the "job" metaphor, there must be an open position that the admin can fill (and some make their own positions). I am not afraid to sound stupid, because I know people know I'm not, and the same goes for you, Dr Ishmael! --◄mendel► 12:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this directly related to Warwick's RfA? If not, I think this should be moved elsewhere, as massive walls-of-text are already cluttering up this page. — Nova Neo-NovaSmall.jpg(contribs) 03:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

New Format take 2

I think the new format is working well. Now it is more obvious that if you want to add more support you need to add more bullet points, not more signatures. --◄mendel► 06:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's boring once everything has been listed. Felix Omni Signature.png 06:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Boring = no drama = good. :-) --◄mendel► 07:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Your face is boring.
Anyway, I like the new format in that it clearly separates the candidate's (dis)merits from the community support ("votes") in a way which is easier to understand/form a judgment based upon. "Less Clutter". There are still some aesthetic quibbles that I want to work on later, mainly the exact wording of certain things. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 07:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Minimum edit count? 2

Hi, was just reading over it and was wondering something. My understanding of GW:YAV and whatnot is to make new people feel welcome and needed, etc. Now, as I was reading Minimum edit count, I couldn't help thinking... that's not really the spirit of GW:YAV, athough it may be the letter so to speak.

If someone is a lurker (as I used to be) and does not contribute, that's very different from having just heard about the site for the first time. Not to be an ass, but if someone doesn't contribute... how are they valuable? Well meaning people are valuable, of course. But people with no intention of improving the site? I'm sorry, how does that help? And why should they have ANY say about who gets promoted / demoted?

Lastly I think surely it's a waste of time, if they don't contribute, odds are they won't be looking at RfAs, etc., but I just had to put this in writing so to speak as I feel it's an important comment, even if wrong. -->Suicidal Tendencie Suicidal Tendencie Sig.jpg 13:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You are aware that you are reviving a discussion almost one year ago, don't you ? And your example is wrong, you are more then a non-interested lurker :) Well, just my 2 cents, Entropy is right on this:
  • it is not a vote, just an list of arguments/adviser for the admins/others helping to decide
  • it doesn't help if multiple users/sockpuppets do contribute the same arguments, since those will already be mentioned
  • talk space is cheap, if an lurker-annon suddenly want to participate, why not
  • It's not only what states the arguments, but also *who*. Mind you, this is an advice for giving adminship, not a 'regular' discussion about the contents of an article. Although it is up for the one who has to decide, it is perfectly understandable if that person values advices of 'known' people more, as most persons tend to do.
In conclusion, IMHO there is no need to fix it in an 'edit count' requirement. No harm will be done...-- Merty sign.gif-- ( talk ) 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologize Merty, I must've have been unclear.
I was refering to part of the discussion that happened under that heading, not the idea itself. I don't think there should be an edit count requirement, but I do think UCS should apply in some way.
Yes, I know the discussion is old, however I find that irrelevent. If I think a discussion taking place will improve the site, I'll adopt a better late than never approach.
Yes, I am no longer a lurker, and ty for the sentiment :) -->Suicidal Tendencie Suicidal Tendencie Sig.jpg 13:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The say that editors get in promoting admins is hard to quantify. Ultimately, it's always been the Bureaucrat's decision whom to promote. Entropy promoted User:Dr ishmael although his RfA wasn't favorable. Auron promoted R.Phalange against unanimous opposition, and he's still on the roster. We've changed the RfA process to reflect that better, the "vote" has become a "community support" section, see the last RfA we did.
So common sense is that if "community support" is there to help Bureaucrats decide whom to promote, there's no point in telling anyone not to sign. The Bureaucrats can see what segements of the community would support the admin: other admins, longtime contributors, lurkers, new users, sockpuppets: they get their say, but we know who they are. I don't see any drawback to it, and it makes sense to me. --◄mendel► 14:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats and Adminship

moved from Project talk:Administrators

I consider this revert inappropriate, and would like feedback from others to see if they agree, or disagree. My reasoning is that while Mendel is quite correct - he is a Bureaucrat - he is not the only Bureaucrat. "It is sufficient when some people think that some admins need to be that way" implies to me that even if another Bureaucrat disagreed with a point then it would not be removed. I don't consider linking to such a page to be professional or appropriate.

The page (and thus link) is of questionable merit as it shouldn't be a prestige position one obtains for e-peen. What is the need for one personal B'crat to have their list of Dos & Don'ts? It's not enough for Mendel to think you'd be a great Sysop (or is it?) and as it contains points which may not be agreed upon by all with Bureaucratic access it should be removed, imo, until at least such time as it has been cleared that there is no such difference of view. Which is never, due to the fact it's open to edits from all users at any time. A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 16:26, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be a little less prominent, but the link isn't bad. Maybe have it be a sub-point of "Every bureaucrat has a different set of criteria for promotion (or rejection)"? --JonTheMon 16:43, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a very logical compromise :) A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 17:04, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking Felix whether this list can be made official. It's been widely discussed when I wrote it, so I think it does have some consensus. --◄mendel► 19:31, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
The active bureaucrats are in consensus to make the criteria offical. They've been discussed when they were written, so I assume some community consensus. As stated on the criteria page, they remain open to amendment and discussion there. --◄mendel► 11:14, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA unless otherwise noted.