This page is an archived policy on PvXwiki.
This policy was at one point considered standard, but has since fallen out of favour.
Build Master Policy
PvXwiki Build Masters were elected members of the community entrusted with vote-removal capabilities and increased vote weight in order to ensure PvXwiki's highly accurate documentation of Guild Wars Builds. These responsibilities are outlined further below.
Build Masters were expected to be receptive to build-related user requests for help or advice; one would be well served to heed their advice, as they had demonstrated extensive in-game knowledge.
Build Masters were recommended (and vetted) by the community via requests for Build Master Status. At the discretion of the current Administrative staff, these users were promoted to Build Master. When considering promotion, the BCrats concerned themselves with the community's input on the nomination and the quality of the user's contributions to the wiki.
Build Master vs. Administrator
Build Masters differ from Administrators in that they did not:
- Delete/restore pages.
- Protect/unprotect pages.
- Block users.
- Rollback edits (note the difference between rolling back edits and reverting them; BMs did not benefit from the admin-specific rollback function, they simply revert edits like any other user. In cases of GW:1RV breaches, a Sysop was be contacted.)
That said, administrators whose contributions warranted BMship could opt for the 200% vote weight also.
Build Masters had the ability to remove votes cast by other users on the 'Rate' page of any build. When removing a vote, it was expected that the BM would leave even a short note explaining the reasoning behind the removal. BMs were subject to the same criteria as administrators when removing votes, those being (taken from ):
- A vote must constitute an objective judgement of the build's qualities. It must not be biased by sympathy or any other prejudice regarding the author. This applies in particular to votes given by authors themselves or their friends. Votes that deliberately overshoot in favoring or unfavoring a build in order to 'compensate' another vote are not acceptable either.
- A vote may not be submitted by a sock puppet. Users who didn't edit a single page on the wiki yet are in general suspected to be sock puppets. If in doubt, a user may be requested to provide an in-game name on his user page.
- A vote, including the comment, must be self-consistent. That is, the ratings and the comment may not contradict each other. The comment should explain all ratings instead. Likewise, a rating of e.g. Zero in Effectiveness and 5 in Universality is considered contradictory.
- A vote may not constitute vandalism or violate NPA. It may not be overly rude, attack the author or in another way disrupt the wiki.
- A vote must be based on facts. Votes that are entirely based on a false premise, flagrantly misrepresent a build's ability or demonstrate a minimal understanding of in-game mechanics are considered invalid.
- A build that works, but is clearly inferior to another build, should get a lower rating than this other build. However, the rating should still be higher than for a build that doesn't work at all. Only builds that serve the same purpose may be compared in that way.
- The weighting of the ratings on the different criteria is defined by this policy. Voters who don't agree with the current weighting should address that on the policy's talk page. It is not admissible to give false ratings on individual criteria in order to circumvent the weighting scheme.
If a user feelt a vote had been stricken wrongly, he or she could contact the Build Master responsible and request a further explanation on the Build's talk page.
The other tool given to the Build Masters was a vote that was weighted more heavily compared to other users. A BM's vote was weighted 200% that of a regular user. This was to ensure that BMs would have the ability to shape the wiki to the standards the community had entrusted them to uphold.
The appropriate procedure for mediating especially contentious disputes between a Build Master and a user.
These Build Masters worked hard to maintain high standards of professionalism and usability on the Wiki, until the BM system was removed.
Inactive Build Masters
Retired Build Masters
Shogunshen was a dedicated buildmaster, but eventually lost interest in Guild Wars and PvX altogether. He resigned accordingly. Gringo/Saint stepped down after only a short period of being a Build Master, mostly due to lost interest in the site. Goldenstar resigned his position after losing interest in the game due to repeated failures in the GW development team to produce a balanced and enjoyable form of PvP. Also Rawrawr Dinosaur was inactive because of a permanent ban due to lost of interest in the site.
Don't complain about the elitism of this policy. Elites exist in-game, in real life, and on this wiki. It is a fact, and needs to be dealt with as such. Thanks in advance.