GuildWiki

GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

READ MORE

GuildWiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
GuildWiki
GuildWiki
19,336
pages

Forum:Bureaucrats

Revision as of 16:54, 2 February 2011 by Isk8-gpuser (talk | contribs) (→‎re: 34 Canidates)
Add topic

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. Felix Omni Signature 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 Gigathrash sig Gîğá†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. --TalkpageEl_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

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)

I agree. The ones that would do the best - usually would be ones to reject. Ariyen 01:46, 2 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. — Scythe 1:12, 2 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Nominees?

The following is a culled list of Special:ActiveUsers. I removed: bots and contributors with less than ~50 edits unless (a) they are/have been a past admin/b'crat, (b) they made special/important contribs to GWiki at Wikia, or (c) they have been mentioned in some other context as a potential candidate.

Some caveats:

  • No doubt I missed someone, so double check the link.
  • The edit count isn't limited to meaningful edits:

 — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You missed me, but I'm not interested in the position so that's all right. Also, Dr Ishmael seems to have lost rollback rights somewhere along the line (he has it with administrator rights, but still). Cress Arvein Cress sig 08:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
How can you say that? You are on the list! (well, belatedly — not sure how I missed that; I certainly remembered thinking that you were exempt from the minimum # requirement. My apologies.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You missed Yamagawa, too; I'd also have added Wolfie, a longtime editor; and we don't actually want 30 bureaucrats, but 3, and wiki activity is but one factor. Which of those would you support, if you had to choose only two? --◄mendel► 12:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Dangnammit! I thought I specifically made sure that Yamagawa was there. Wolfie, I am sorry to say, I overlooked (soz, Wolfie!) Sigh. (Well, as I said on your page, you have my permission to fiddle with the list below in the spirit it was created.)
And, of course, we don't want 30 b'crats, but I thought it useful to see everyone who is currently active on the wiki...so that anyone (including you lurkers out there) might find it easier to chime in. Which two would I choose? (a) I'm still pondering and (b) this section isn't for nominations (as noted).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 12:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

~30+ potential candidates

re: 34 Canidates

  • Konig Des Todes is not likely to accept, as he is a GWWer and is only here to correct and clean up the lore areas of articles, I've had the discussion with him on his talk page.
  • The same goes for cleo, as they are from the german gwiki and are primarily adding interwiki links here.
  • I swear Balistic was a bcat at one point, same with viper, they'd both probably take it back up again (probably). — Scythe 12:31, 2 Feb 2011 (UTC)
I guess my point got lost. I'm not nominating anyone (at least, not yet). I'm just pointing out that we have 30 or so individuals who have been active in the last 91 days...and a handful of others that were active enough last year to be worth considering.
Incidentally, I wouldn't dismiss Cleo or Konig as candidates because they have had a narrow focus here.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 12:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, we have over 250 people who "have been active here in the last 91 days", and that does not even include editors who don't have an account: we have a lot of them, at least a dozen with total edits numbering well over 1000, and some editors who have accounts make contributions while logged out that are not reflected here either. The people you listed are just the ones that meet your arbitrary threshold of activity. --◄mendel► 16:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to being considered, but quite frankly, I just don't get to spend the time on the wiki that I wish I could. If I hadn't seen Mendel make an edit here on RC when I loaded firefox, I probably wouldn't have known this article existed. I mainly am limited to just scanning RC with my new job taking up quite a bit of my time, as well as having a baby on the way. But the time I do get on the computer I try to put forth towards still helping and maintaining the wiki. -- Isk8 Isk8 (T/C) 16:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Finding this page?

I stumbled upon this page by accident (while reviewing recent chats). Shouldn't we make it easier for people to find it? e.g. site notice, prominent link from Community Portal and Main Page, etc?  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 12:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-SA unless otherwise noted.
Advertisement