Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2007-12 bureaucrat election/Defiant Elements/NP

Wow.... great write up DE. I support you for sure in this. Hope that we can get it to be more... open as you have mentioned. frvwfr2  (talk · contributions) 00:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I undertook this primarily in the hope that even if I don't win (and I don't expect to), maybe it'll at least stimulate some conversation or, even better, maybe the people who do win will adopt some of these reforms, which, for all intents and purposes, would amount to the same thing as far as I'm concerned.  Defiant Elements 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In before butthurt users QQing about their inalienable rights being taken away. --71.229.204.25 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering how clearly DE has pointed out his position and how DE is epic at backing that position with logic, I don't think that will happen. DE is the most intelligent person on any of the Guild Wars Wikis (GWW, GW, and PvX) by a mile and a half. —ǥrɩɳsɧ  ƿoɲ  01:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you're just fanning the flames. And you've seen this happen a few times no matter how clearly things have been explained, not gonna name names. --71.229.204.25 01:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Shogunshen 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find this a better place for that debate. Might want to read GWW:ADMIN too. Backsword 01:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to read it yourself. He's commenting on the content in those links, especially the faulty bureaucrat system. The complete lack of trust on this wiki is another issue entirely, and doesn't really belong on any specific page. - Auron 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement
I'd just like comment on the points raised, not on the nomination itself. First is that the reason we have elections for bureaucrats is because ArenaNet does not wish to see administrators remain in such positions indefinitely, as such, this election system came up as a sort of rotation system. ArenaNet has also said that they won't choose the administrators - they want the community to decide. If you look at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections and its archives, you can see some that flaws have already been noted, it's jsut that we don't have a definitive change that can be seriously considered for the better. More eyes and insight on the matter would be welcome.

On GWW:ADMIN, we already have a system where bureaucrats weigh public opinion when deciding RfAs. Perhaps you meant a system where bureaucrats can choose to ignore the popularity of a particular user I suppose. For bureaucrats, do note that they are not elected strictly based on the number of supporting votes.

As for the admin issues on this wiki, yes, they are there. I think Erasculio once pointed it out correctly. It is the admins themselves who need to change. A fundamental way with how to we view things and how we enforce policies. And the multitude of proposals highlight that we are trying to change. It's growing pains I suppose. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ab.er.rant (talk).
 * Actually, Bureaucrats are elected strictly based on the number of supporting votes. I keenly remember bringing this up last time and having Rezyk and the entire rest of the wiki ignore me and proceed with the "election" as if it were just votes that counted. I needled some more and got an answer from Rezyk that the outcome of bureaucrat elections is solely based on vote count, and that stage 3 of the elections was merely to tally votes.
 * If this has changed, I would love to hear it, but I highly doubt it has (seeing the mostly dismissive response I got last time). - Auron 02:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm glad that people are commenting on the facts cited in the nomination, that's the entire point. I understand the theory behind rotating Bureaucrats, but, out of interest, what specifically is the argument (in this instance) behind the rotations?  Also, when I get a chance, I'll try to look over those archives and see if I can't weigh in on the discussions.  As far as elections go, yes, I would advocate a system in which regardless of popular opinion, the choice ultimately falls wholly to the bureaucrats.  The entire purpose of a bureaucrat is to promote/demote people, why not let them do there job?  It seems to me that this system indicates that Bureaucrats are not fit for their own position.  Regarding elections of bureaucrats, I will admit that my evidence is primarily anecdotal.  As to your last point, well, that's a pretty concise summary of my "platform" so to speak, the idea of a "paradigm shift" which is in essence the purpose of my nomination.  I often find that it's hard to jump into discussions that have already been underway for a while, but, hopefully I can bring some experience to the table when it comes to those discussion threads.  Defiant Elements 03:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do realise that the vote tally is unavoidable. What I meant is that it is not entirely based on the votes. Largely yes, but not entirely. I believe it was so due to the time-limited nature of the election. Depending on the candidates in question and their relative number of support, it will sometimes be impossible to reach consensus in a matter of just days. I feel that without votes, a resolution may not be achieved. Of course, the system is still too simplistic. One could always tighten eligibility or reword that stage to put more emphasis on the discussion instead of the votes. There was some talk about this, but no one seems interested.


 * As for the elections, the start of it is at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/A1. As to why we have a rotation system is because ArenaNet wants it, including a voting system, although not specifically in the manner in which it is right now. Just some links for reading. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are accurate but late, DE. Those issues are well-known and have been discussed many times and in many pages already. There have been attempts to change the situation, but nothing conclusive has been achived so far. In the end, this emerges from the community. I'm still wondering what's wrong with it, looking for the causes.reanor 03:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I wouldn't consider myself "late" until the problem is resolved. Identifying the problems (and I still think work needs to be done to actually ascertain the roots of those problems) is a big part of the battle, yes, and perhaps my rhetoric is somewhat dated; however, until those problems are fixed, the debate is still germane to the well-being of this wiki.  Furthermore, the question of who is fit to fix those issues is one that should (I think) play a prominent role in these elections.  Defiant Elements 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not running under false assumptions. An ArbComm member have no additional weight in policymaking at this wiki. Any such such contributions, which are welcome, can as easily be made without any specific role. Backsword 03:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware of that. Keep in mind however that what I'm advocating is a complete shift in the mentality of this Wiki, and, while your point is valid, I have some trouble envisioning such a shift occurring without a concerted effort on the part of the Bureaucrats.  Defiant Elements 03:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Support
PvXwiki News tells me to support you. Giving support. Also, I would be happy to vote for you, but I cant cuz I have 5 or so contribs. --- Ressmonkey (talk)  03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Put something on a policy talk page, revert it, and revert again until you have enough contribs. :P Regardless, he has my support (though I think that goes without saying). Armond 03:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also support DE, although I'm surprised I have the requisite 100 contribs... --Edru viransu 03:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote for DE to fix all of the problems (I'm serious). —ǥrɩɳsɧ ƿoɲ 03:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would vote for you, you know whats goin on and your a huge help at PVX, even if others don't notice. :) Riff 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This will be the best thing happening to official GuildWars Wiki ever. I will vote for you, good luck :) Gcardinal 22:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are the best bureaucrat in the world in my eyes, you'd do great work here, and if I had 100 contributions I would vote for you. But unfortunately I don't, so I'm just here, cheering you on. Go DE! RustyTheMesmer 07:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * De is a guy who cleans the mess up and makes things logical. Fish 16:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely support, dunno where to put it but w/e. Dark Morphon 18:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Voting stage begins on the 13th of December. Unfortunately, Dark Morphon and Gcardinal, as you need 100 non-user/guild conrtibs prior to the beginning of the voting stage in order to vote, you are not eligible for voting at the moment. --[[Image:User-brains12-sigicon5.png|Talk|14px]] br12  • (talk) • 22:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your candidature, GWW's admin system, the issue of inter wiki wars and more
Hello Defiant Elements,

from all I can gather, you are one of the most respected users of PvXwiki and an admin and bureaucrat there. You raise some serious points in your candidature, most of which have been discussed before however. I'll comment on them further down. Overall, I am surprised by the way you are putting forward and promoting your candidatur and by the way you are using to insistigate this discussion.

You put up a note on your PvXwiki userpage in which you call the self-nomination "semi-seriously". You also chose to edit and not change substantially a news entry on PvXwiki's main page calling on PvXusers to "show ... support" for your candidature here.

Given that your canditature is not fully serious, it seems that you are using the nomination not as a means to elect the best bureaucrat, but to direct attention towards an issue you care about. This wiki, like most wikis I guess, has implicit and explicit means to draw attention to issues. Abusing an election nomination to do so is one of the implicit means that borders on disruption of the wiki to make a point. There is no policy against it, but are you comfortable with the fact that you are devaluating this wiki's means of chosing bureaucrats by using it to promote your point of view in a policy discussion, instead of bringing it up on the policies talk page or your user page like everyone else?

You used your standing on PvXwiki to get PvXwiki users to come over here and engage in the policy discussion and support your candidature. Like every wiki, we are always happy about new users, however from glancing at this talk page, the only PvXwiki user so far to discuss the adminship policy seriously is you. Several others (whom I take to be PvXwiki users) posted here as well, but they seem to be soley supporting you, without engaging in any discussion, in one case even advocating spam and breaches of policy. Given that you come from a wiki where voting is so central to its functioning, I am amazed that you would openly ask users PvXwiki to come here and support you, regardless of their knowledge of this wiki. Just like me asking all GWWers to go over to PvXwiki and vote for my pet build (regardless of their knowledge of this build), this is not helpful and runs counter to the idea of elections. These are not meant to be popularity quests where the person bringing in the most outsiders from other web communities win, but are meant to elicit whom users of this wiki trust most.

There is a worrying trend around in all three Guild Wars wikis to see those wikis as competing against each other instead of complements. This can only lead to future troubles. All three wikis are different, and with good reason. It gives users a choice to participate in that wiki they like most and contribute under those structures and policies they agree with. While it is great to learn from each others mistakes, trying to impose the structure of one wiki on another wiki will only antagonise users. Deliberatly calling over users from PvXwiki to change the policies of GWW wiki is adding oil to the fire.


 * Ok, let's see if I can answer some of these questions. Originally, I wasn't planning on writing a serious nomination; however, the more I thought about the issues, the more I realized that I felt like I could do some very real good on this Wiki.  Thus, the term "semi-serious" arose from the fact that a) I didn't plan to make the nomination serious (although it is very serious at this point).  I apologize to anyone who got the wrong idea from that.  As far as the note on the main page went, a) I didn't write that, nor did I encourage anyone else to do so (just wanted to make sure that was clear), b) it promotes PvX solidarity, and c) while the nomination itself is no longer humorous, I'll be honest in that I cannot help but see some irony to my candidacy, and I didn't see any serious problem with the note, although admittedly, I think I understand what you're getting at.  As to the point you raise in your second paragraph, I would disagree strongly with it, this is very much about electing the right candidate for the position, whether that's me or not is another question.  There is an element of rhetoric to the nomination, but, that's more a statement about my vision for this wiki than it is an attempt on my part to abuse the election as a forum for discussion.  Yes, part of the goal is to get people talking about the issues, but the value of that discussion is hugely pertinent (in my eyes at least) to picking the proper bureaucrat.  Also, I'd like to point out that I believe that the arguement you make in your second paragraph is somewhat undermined by a misconception (which I attempted to address in the first part of this note).
 * As to your third paragraph, if you take another look at my user page, you'll notice that I in fact do not ask users to vote for me. In fact, I specifically advocate that they get involved in the discussing the issues that I raise.  I guess I never specify whether that means posting on this page or a policy page; however, the idea is that even if I don't get elected (and remember, this is a serious nomination), I'll have gotten the PvX community involved in the discussions here.  If that doesn't happen, i.e. if all that comes of this nomination is a failed nomination and no more involvement than had previously existed, well, then I guess I'll have failed in both my attempts, but, if either succeeds, I think there's genuine good that can come of it.  I've asked other people, people I trust (for instance some of the other sysops) to read my nomination and comment on it (discussions which occured primarily on MSN Messenger), but I've never (to my knowledge) asked anyone to simply vote for me.  Yes, I'll admit, I've made jokes about "Mobilizing the PvX Voters;" however, to reiterate the point I've been trying to make throughout this response, this nomination is (or at least has become) much more than a joke, more even than simple rhetoric.  I definitely understand what you mean, and there is certainly fault on my part; however, I hope this provides a sufficient response to the issues you raise.
 * Oh jeez... I completely missed your 4th paragraph. I guess I've kinda covered the issues you raise, but I'll take a moment to address them specifically.  To start with, while PvXwiki is at times divided between loyalties to the three wikis, and I can't speak for the relationship between GW and GWW, but I don't see PvXwiki as competing with either.  Further, while I understand that there may be fundamental differences between PvX and GWW, keep in mind that I'm not advocating replacing GWW's system with PvX's.  I presume that this paragraph is at least partially motivated by what I wrote within the nomination itself; however, when I discussed PvXwiki's system, it was more about taking my experience there and bringing some elements of the basic philosophy to this wiki, and I'm certainly not attempting to antagonize anybody.
 * Regarding the Administrative system, I don't feel like I have adequete time at the moment to do the question justice. Hopefully I'll be able to take another look at your questions later tonight and give you some full responses. [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  15:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If your nomination is serious and you know what the bureaucrats role on this wiki is and are willing to fullfill it, then I will welcome it. It helps if you clearly state that: I did not invent the "semi-seriously" part, that was a quote from your own userpage, so I guess you can understand how I came to see your nomination as not fully serious.
 * Regarding PvX users voting here: I saw that you did not openly ask them to vote here, however others did without you disagreeing. It is hard to interpret the combination of the main page note and your user page note as anything but a call for PvX users to both vote for you and support your in the discussion here. As you can see in the section above, everyone did interpret "help" as "vote" without fail.
 * PS: I'll wait with a reply to the section below till you have had the change to fully answer. --Xeeron 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being patient, and, again, I realize that you were simply quoting what I had said and the fault is inevitably mine for having done so; the same is true to one extent or another as far as PvX goes. To reiterate however, the nomination is serious.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Starting commenting as I read along here.

I would not say that DE is abusing the election; as in a discussion above with Backsword, he mentions that "...I have some trouble envisioning such a shift occurring without a concerted effort on the part of the Bureaucrats." So... what's to say he won't make such a concerted effort? I'd put him up to it.

I would have thought you would notice, two edits back, that it was not DE who put up the notice at all, but rather a zealous supporter of him. DE removed it approximately 24 hours after the edit you mentioned, but looking at the timestamps of the posts I've not finished reading, I'll admit that could be a reaction to the discussion here. However, I feel the need to point out that it could have sat around as long as it did because DE was unsure whether it belonged there - I, an admin on the same site, with the same interests and, I like to think, sanity, as DE, was unsure. You, however, have (once again!) an important and interesting viewpoint on the situation, and it was clearer to you than to us whether or not the notice should have been there.

As for discussing admin policy - Auron and I, at the very least, should be among those you mention. Even if such discussion is not here, we do indeed discuss it on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship, among other places.

The way I suggested of garnering votes was done in jest; I did not seriously expect anyone to follow my suggestion, and I would not be happy if they did. I also was, until now, unaware that the reverting policy had finally passed. (In fact, there's a discussion on my talk page about that from the last time I paid serious attention to the wiki.)

Moving on to the lower section now. Armond 20:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When I made my first comment, that note was still up on the main page and had been edited by Defiant Elements as well. It has since been pushed off PvXwiki's main page, but is still present in the recent news template. Whether that was due to this discussion or not I don't know.
 * I didn't include you or auron in the group of PvXwiki users that came over here due to that note, since both of you have been editing here before, so I see both of you as GWW users as well. --Xeeron 23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

GWW's admin system
As promised, I'll go into several of the points you mentioned about GWW's admin system.

You speak of "fundamental flaws". However you do not elaborate on those. As an bureaucrats here, I am very interested to know: What are those flaws? In what way do you feel I and the other bureaucrats should behave differently? I am sure we all strife to correct mistakes and flaws if they are pointed out, so by all means tell us what exactly we should change.

The admin system here was set up as a combination of three sources: ArenaNet's demands for self regulation of the wiki, the system of adminship on guildwiki, where the huge majority of GWW's users had been editing before and changes to that system where it was deemed to be failing on guildwiki.

One of the later points was the lack of checks and balances on guildwiki's bureaucrats. On GW, the bureaucrats wielded huge power, without being accountable to anyone. They also could not be chosen or removed by the community. When policies here were set up, the community reached a consensus to add those checks to the bureacrats power, by limiting bureaucrats tenure and having new bureaucrats be established via vote instead of cooptation.

You say that "elections suggest that a) Bureaucrats cease to be fit to serve at stringent intervals". That is not true. Elections are a way to get rid of bureaucrats should they not act in a way the community agrees with. That is a check on their power. How else would you remove a bureaucrat from power? Given that bureaucrats are just humans, noone can take for granted that people will always be stellar. How could the community remove you from power in PvXwiki, if say, you choose to become tyrannical and abusive? Elections are a way to ensure that the community does have a way to ensure that the bureaucrats are not prolonged acting against the community wishes. However, if a bureaucrat perfoms well, there is no rule against keeping that bureaucrat again and again.

Quite contrary to expressing a "lack of faith in the Bureaucrats", I feel that my role as a bureaucrat here is strengthened by the election. I am not here simply because someone at ArenaNet knows me, or because I was friends with the founder of guildwiki years ago, I am here because the community elected me and trusted me with that power, I am here because they had faith in me. --Xeeron 13:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I don't think I have the time to answer this question fully; however, I think in the ten minutes or so I have before I have to leave, I can adress the point you raise in your 5th paragraph. As I see it, the ability to recall a bureaucrat in of itself is not of a bad thing, if I started to abuse my power on PvXwiki, I fully expect that Auron or Cardinal would demote and ban me in a heartbeat.  What I was trying to get at was the idea that while a check on the power of bureaucrats isn't necessarily bad, elections seem to be the wrong way of going about checking that power.  If I was a bureaucrat on this site and I started abusing my power, presumably y'all wouldn't wait for the next election cycle to remove me from power, you have a direct way to immediately prevent me from continuing to be abusive.  You might have an emergency recall or you might simply have a discussion about the administrative staff, whatever.  There are some other elements to this question even forgetting about the other points you raise, regrettably, I can't stay on, so I won't be able to answer them just yet; however, I'll try to get back on a little later.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  15:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll expand a bit on that. On PvX, we are not bound to the letter of every policy; if someone deserves a demotion or a ban, we do so, regardless of policy. On GWW, however, we are bound to said letters of policy; I sincerely doubt that you, Xeeron, would be able to demote and ban DE, immediately and without discussion if the need arose, without taking a lot of flak. The way the two wikis work, it appears to me that GWW focuses more on working slowly but trying to make sure things are done right, and PvX works quickly for patch jobs to fix the immediate problem and work out the details later. I'll not comment on the effectiveness of either, but I will say that while we are not bound as much by policy on PvX, I think we're bound more by diplomacy than GWW is. (I'm very sensitive to being bound by diplomacy; it gives me headaches. Ask anyone involved in the MSN discussion around Readem - I was getting plenty of headaches there.) Armond 20:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I am not a sysop, I can't ban anyone and since he is not a sysop, I can't demote him, so technically, you are right, but I guess that is not what you are talking about. Assuming I was a sysop and he was a user to break policy, I could ban him. Assuming he did something horrible that is outside the reach of what is written in policy, I would ban him. Assuming that other people disagreed with me about whether what he did was horrible or not, I would get alot of flak for that and deservedly so. Assuming there was no disagreement, I would not. --Xeeron 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On a more philosophical level, I dislike the notion behind elections for a couple of reasons. First, while tyranny of the minority is a very real problem, tyranny of the majority can be no less destructive.  That seems counter-intuitive when it comes to Wiki's I guess; however, the point I'm trying to make is that there should exist some additional layer within the system that prevents a bureaucrat from being removed at election time by a simple majority.  The reason that that notion bothers me is that voters (and this isn't specific to GWW voters, it's true of any kind of vote) tend to be uniformed, their votes tend to reflect an opinion based on the last thing they recall about the candidate (as opposed to a complete picture), and, when they vote, they do so with 20/20 hindsight.  You say that "Elections are a way to get rid of bureaucrats should they not act in a way the community agrees with."  But, what does that community consist of?  All the people that use the sight?  The people who are motivated to vote?  And, are they voting for the right reasons and with the right information?  Do they understand what motivated your decision (assuming you made such a blunder).  And, what's to guarantee that the opinion held by the majority of the (voting) public is the "right" one?  A decision made by an entire community is not necessarily a good decision.  All of those reasons make me very wary of a system in which the ultimate authority to strip a bureaucrat of power lies solely with the people, and, in which the question of whether a person should remain a bureaucrat is revisited at regular intervals as opposed to when their overall behavior as a bureaucrat makes them suspect.  Polls can be extremely informative, hold a poll every so often to gauge what the "community" thinks of a bureaucrat, then perhaps based on that hold a more formal recall or simply use that as a starting part for a formal debate on the subject, but a straight out vote is a very poor idea.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is going into the general issue of whether elections are good or bad. I recall having had this discussion before on this wiki (several times!), for example with Tanaric. I'll give you a longer elaboration tomorrow, when I'll have more time. For now let me just say this:
 * No, elections are not perfect, but they are better than any other way of choosing leaders (to quote Churchill: "Democracy is the least bad form of government"). All of these discussion always focus on what can go wrong with elections. Fair enough. But the fact that something can go wrong doesn't mean you should not use them, as long as there is not other better way around. --Xeeron 00:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that the issues I raise in that paragraph are more general, which is why I add the caveat that the paragraph is more philosophical than anything else. However, I would stress that what I'm advocating would not necessarily disestablish the election (although I still dislike it), but, rather, at least, add another dimension to it.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As to the issue of "lack of faith," I did not mean to imply that the election wasn't a source of validation, what I meant was that the notion of having elections assumes that those elections are necessary, which, (hopefully this logic will work out), assumes that bureaucrats will be making poor decisions that warrant elections. Thus, in that sense, they demonstrate a lack of trust.  In my eyes, the Administrative team should be trusted (not blindly, but generally) until such a time as they do something to lose that trust.  Yes, bureaucrats are human just like everyone else, and they'll make mistakes, but that doesn't mean that the person being recalled has made a mistake.    [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are assuming that bureaucrats get voted off because they are "bad". That need not be the case. They could be voted off while being "good" if another candidate is around, who is, simply, better. In most systems, leaders will get removed if they are horribly, but in most, you can be stuck with a medicore candidate forever. Not so under voting. --Xeeron 00:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. The reason I did that was simply as a response to your statement that "Elections are a way to get rid of bureaucrats should they not act in a way the community agrees with."  Yes, I guess you need not do something explicitly bad in order to do something that the community doesn't agree with, but, I inferred (perhaps wrongly) that you were suggesting that they would be removed for being bad, so, I was simply continuing the scenario.
 * Furthermore, under the assumption that a static number of bureaucrats is desired (that's not something I've thought about, so I have no opinion to evince), why not create a plan to deal with instances of "better" candidates as they occur. Actually, I believe my logic still holds in this scenario.  The election assumes that there will be a better candidate.  Yes, the same bureaucrat could be reelected repeatedly, but, in any instance in which a bureaucrat would actually be removed, I believe my logic remains sound.  And, if they're not gonna be removed, than the value of the election (aside from the validation it gives you) is a moot point as far as this discussion is concerned.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Experience on this Wiki
Do you beleive you have the experience on working on this wiki and with it's users to act a bureaucrat here? Do you think you hold the respect of the users here? Are you knowledgeable of this wiki's polices and can you show where you might have been involved in a policy discussion (not a proposal discussion but one where you correctly quoted policy)? Do you think there may be a conflict of interest (in terms of dealing with users or issues which either wiki might feel different about) being both a bureaucrat on the PvX wiki and here? Do you have the time to properly commit to both wikis? 122.104.231.28 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll start with the easiest question: time commitments. Excepting a ~1 week period in the near future, I tend to have plenty of time (i.e. multiple hours daily), and even when I'm doing something else, I tend to spend about half my time trolling recent changes on a number of wikis.  Continuing in reverse order, I'm tempted to simply say that I can't imagine a conflict of interest, but, the truth is that while I don't think there would be, I don't think it's the kind of thing I can promise, everyone has some bias and I won't go so far as to say I'm exempt from that rule.  That said, policies I think would be less of an issue; however, I think it's inevitably that I'll have an opinion about editors who I've known for some time on PvX.  I've read all of the site policies a number of times, and I've been devoting a good chunk of time to reading the talk pages; however, I can't say that I can show you any proof of that knowledge.  As to your first question, I'll be honest, that's the one I've been waiting for someone to ask.  My best answer is that I don't know.  I'd like to think I can, but, I think inevitably that is a question to be decided by other people, not by me.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  19:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is this guy? He gets +respect. Armond 20:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User Page Statements
This user believes that Readem is a political prisoner.

This user believes that criticizing a Developer's "actions" does not constitute a violation of NPA.

''This user long ago became disillusioned with Guild Wars and is now waiting intently for Pirates of the Burning Sea. ''

- Defiant Elements' User Page History

Do these views reflect how you would act as a bureaucrat if elected? Do you think it is appropriate that you placed a redirect to your profile on another wiki which took people away from this one? How would you respond to criticism of you asking for support from users who are not from this wiki to be involved in a discussion about this wiki's future bureaucrat? 122.104.231.28 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a joke that stemmed from a conversation with Readem I was having with Readem on MSN. I hope people didn't take that too seriously.  Well... the last one is kinda true, I was extremely disillusioned with GuildWars for a period.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User pages are often a source of humour so I don't think people will hold that against you and the third point was added to your user page much earlier this year, so I can see how it might not be relevant any more. A problem with asking consecutive questions is people have a tendency to answer one, or some (usually the last one) and ignore or forget the rest of them. I am still interested in the other questions I asked. 122.104.231.28 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * IP is referring to question two, "This user believes that criticizing a Developer's "actions" does not constitute a violation of NPA".  Calor  &mdash;  talk  21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry 'bout that, I saw your questions but I've been attempting to multitask and I haven't been able to be on all days, so you'll have to be patient for my responses. So, having (hopefully) addressed your first question... although as to the second bullet point, the one about NPA, I guess that's a somewhat accurate statement of a personal belief I have, but, that was a reference to the first bullet point and was thus supposed to be somewhat humorous as well.  So let's see what I can do about the other questions.  As to your second question... I'll admit I'm at a loss, and unfortunately I'll have to ask you to elaborate, what is the "other" wiki to which you are referring?  PvX?  I don't know of a profile on any wiki which I edit that contains a redirect... As to your third question (I think can answer this), first, I think I've answered this partially in my answer to Xeeron, but, I think you may have misunderstood what I was asking people on PvX to do.  I wasn't asking them to enter the discussions about the elections, nor was I asking them to support my nomination, I was encouraging them to get involved in the Wiki in general with perhaps a focus on encouraging them to get involved in policy discussions (given the content on my nomination).  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  19:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally think that those points added were mainly intended to be humorous, and they were added (and removed) long enough ago that they should be considered of little value. Armond 20:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think 122.104.etc's mention of an off-wiki redirect was referring to the first version of your userpage here. - Tanetris 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh... wow... I did not get that reference. "Do you think it is appropriate that you placed a redirect to your profile on another wiki which took people away from this one?," the way it was phrased made it seem like the redirect was on a different wiki (not to mention the fact that I didn't even remember that redirect being on there).  Assuming that was 122.104 was in fact referencing that... well... that was a long time ago, back when I was an active member of GuildWiki and I simply didn't want to make a distinct page for myself here so I simply redirected to my GuildWiki page instead.  [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  21:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tanetris was correct. I will try to be more clear in specifically what I am reffering to. When I said "this wiki" I was referring to the Guild Wars Wiki, when I say "other wiki" I am referring to the PvX wiki. I didn't intend to come off as impatient and realise I asked a number of questions but rather, I wanted to make sure all of them were answered, I understand many people are busy and typing out a thought out reply can take time. 58.110.136.10 06:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Support (2)
I fully support Defiant Element's campaign. Speaking from experience, he is both a dedicated worker and trustworthy friend. Always striving for perfection, DE contributes diligently. Never once have I seen his temper rise, and his logic is sound even in the thick of a fight/debate. His knowledge of Wiki politics/conduct, surpasses even the most astute of administrators. He has my utmost respect (next to Auron), and would only be an asset to GWW. Trust me, I don’t say this shit about everyone. –Readem 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If this wiki wants to be more than a joke it needs dedicated bureaucrats/admins/whaever-you-wanna-call-em like DE--Coloneh 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, two support headers. Could this lead to really big problems? Probably not, but w/e. Anyways, everybody should support DE. --- Ressmonkey (talk)  23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * /support. &mdash; Teh Uber Pwnzer 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, thats also another contrib! Only 90 to go. (forgot to sign) &mdash; Teh Uber Pwnzer 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And now 89 cuz u forgot to sign! Grats! --- Ressmonkey (talk)  23:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! &mdash; Teh Uber Pwnzer 04:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah man, I didn't forget to sign...(forgot to sign) &mdash; Teh Uber Pwnzer (forgot to date)04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At a certain point, jokes cease to be tasteful, keep that in mind. [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a joke, its me trying to get 100 contribs so that I can support you. &mdash; Teh Uber Pwnzer 04:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a foolish notion at best. [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This fails...
...Because you cannot force this kind of change from "above". A Bureaucrat is the role that has the least things to do with the "problem" you have mentioned. If the community does not want to change how the sysops are seen, you won't be able to change it even if you were elected as a bureaucrat. If the sysops don't want to change their roles, you won't be able to change it, even if you were elected as a bureaucrat.

And of course, your point of view is flawed. No election here is a simple "voting" - as read on GWW:RFA, "In general, a successful RFA has at least 3 times as much support compared to opposition -- but it is not a simple tally. Bureaucrats are to use their discretion in gauging/interpreting the amount of support/opposition", and that's for choosing sysops. The election for bureaucrats even has a significant section after voting has been done, highlighting how the voting itself isn't the main concern - the consensus is, as it should be.

Complains like this one are not new, but they share the same elements: they mention a problem without really trying to define it (the fact you "honestly dislike" something is not an evidence it's flawed nor is it reason enough for "fundamental changes"), they are done by individuals who believe themselves to be above consensus (even if consesus, the cornerstone of any reasonable wiki, is called "tyranny of the majority" or whatever), and they do not explain why such a change would be necessary.

Going down to the basics: are any of the current elected bureaucrats bad, or have them hurt the wiki? Nope, leading us to the conclusion that the current elections work - they allow the community to choose individuals who do become good bureaucrats. Do you think any of the current sysops are bad for the wiki? All of them are acting for the betterment of the wiki, showing how the RfA process does work - it allows the community to choose individuals who do become good sysops. Is this wiki thriving? New articles are added daily, more information about GW is added all the time, and thus we know this wiki is doing its job - documenting GW - very well, thank you.

In other words, there's no need for such huge changes. In less words, I don't want you, or Armond, or whoever to run this wiki - the consensus here has chosen to run this wiki itself, as seen on the Adminship policy. The system does not need leaders - specifically, we don't need so-called leaders who believe they're allowed to stomp over what the community has decided, nor zealots who think themselves above the policies and therefore allowed to breach said policies as they wish. Empowering the community shuns that kind of people away from power, giving it to the contributors here. Erasculio 00:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're back to your original fallacious argument that any leader must, without fail be corrupt and/or a bad leader? Oh, okay, assuming that makes a lot of sense. - Auron 00:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you call a "leader" whose main argument is that those with a different opinion can't think? Who's theorically willing to enforce policies despite the fact he breaches them again and again? Do you think that's all fine and good? Oh, okay, assuming that makes a lot of sense. Erasculio 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You think this is about my RfA? Your complete inability to see what I'm talking about baffles me, especially when you've taken it upon yourself to decide that "we don't need so-called leaders who believe they're allowed to stomp over what the community has decided, nor zealots who think themselves above the policies and therefore allowed to breach said policies as they wish." Your tying my pointing out your fallacious argument to my RfA is simply insane. If you want to act like you're the sole voice of reason (which you obviously are, given the high-and-mighty viewpoint you post from), at least be correct. - Auron 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Auron is cooler than u, Erasculio. --- Ressmonkey (talk)  01:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you could not answer my question, but rather decided to go on a nonsensical tangent (have I mentioned your little RfA here? Oh look, no, I haven't). Please, go on, answer my question - what would you call a leader like the one I described? A "good" one? A "honest" one? Erasculio 01:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A "good" leader? It would be impossible to determine how well he leads based on just the evidence provided. It would also be nearly impossible to determine how honest said leader was with just the evidence you provided. Try making your "givens" a little less insane and one-sided, and maybe deciding how well that leader leads would be easier. - Auron 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about a "cool" leader. We could probably get 20 PvX people to sysops if that were the case (subtle insult to this wiki). ---  Ressmonkey (talk)  01:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest, I don't even know where to start. But, I guess I'll start with your last paragraph.  Your logic seems to be in keeping with the philosophy "I deny your reality and replace with my own."  That is, you go to an extreme and make a number of assumptions about who I am and what I believe, and, in doing so, the tone you seem to have adopted indicates to me that you in fact believe yourself to be the sole arbiter of what is right and good for this wiki.  For instance, you say "The system does not need leaders - specifically, we don't need so-called leaders who believe they're allowed to stomp over what the community has decided, nor zealots who think themselves above the policies and therefore allowed to breach said policies as they wish."  First of all, terming me a "so-called leader" is absolutely unnecessary, let your logic make your point for you, don't make underhanded attacks.  Second of all, when have I ever at any point in time claimed that bureaucrats should be above policy?  Which action can you point to in order to prove your claim that I'm a zealot and that I believe I should be able to violate policy?  Advocating change is in no way the same as advocating tyranny.
 * As to "forcing change," I'm not trying to force anything, I'm presenting a viewpoint, my own, and offering it as a solution to the community for a problem which I see. You're right, if the community and the sysops don't want change, they won't change and I won't be elected, simple as that.  And stating that the nomination fails for that reason seems like a sorely misguided comment. However, it is perhaps your next sentence that bothers me most "And of course, your point of view is flawed."  And on what basis do you conclude that yours is correct?  Consider for instance the debate between theism and atheism.  The atheist who, without cause, attacks a theist for his beliefs and the theist who, again without cause, attacks an atheist for his (lack of) beliefs are on par with each other.  You accuse me of being a zealot, but how are you any better given the manner in which you have responded to a belief which I have professed?  To continue the analogy... I guess it's also a little like trying to argue the merits of atheism with a zealous, evangelical theist.  If the theist believes that he has the moral high ground (as defined strictly by him), anyone who argues against him is irrelevant and their points of debate obsolete.
 * As the actual factuality of the arguments I cite (particularly regarding elections), well, I think I've addressed that sufficiently above at least as is applicable to the point you raise. And again,  (I'm forced to return to this subject because of your next paragraph) I have an opinion, I'm an individual, you may disagree or agree with me as you please; however, I'm making an honest attempt to start a productive dialog and you're accusing me of being above consensus?  Furthermore, I've spent a good deal of time I think to addressing the precise nature of the problems in a number of ways, so I really don't know what you're getting at when you say that I fail to do so. As to your next paragraph, you seem to have misinterpreted my view completely.  I'm not professing that any individual is bad, I'm saying that there are improvements that could be made.  When I say those changes are "fundamental," I refer to the fact that they attempt to fix the root of a problem.  Also, even if I were arguing what you seem to think I am, your logic is fallacious.  The fact that nothing has gone wrong yet is not actually proof that the system is not bad.
 * To sum it up, I can't for the life of my understand how you can sanctimoniously, and more importantly, unilaterally dismiss me by saying that my conclusions are unfounded while at the same time making unfounded assumptions about me. [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  01:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... in hindsight, my tone seems altogether too rash (for which I apologize); however, my points still stand. [[Image:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  01:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The harsh tone doesn't bother me as much as the shallowness of your reply. The comment in my last paragraph about "so-called" and "zealots" was not about you (or Armond, for that matter), rather it was about what the wiki does not need. I apologize if you thought that was about you; but given how that's point is not valid, a huge chunck of your reply does not apply to my arguments. The next section about how my "Your point of view is flawed" is completely irrelevant - you are, in fact, wrong, given how the elections here are not solved through voting, rather by consensus. When you question how "And, what's to guarantee that the opinion held by the majority of the (voting) public is the 'right' one?" you are questioning consensus, and assuming the community is not good enough to make its own decisions and pay for its own mistakes.
 * Making it short, your reply was irrelevant. I'm eager to see the problems that your idea would fix, why you think they are problems, and how your solution would change the current wiki for the better. As you said, nothing has gone wrong yet - why do you think it will? Erasculio 01:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of historical fact that the majority is not always(or even usually) right. It is a matter of historical fact that the voting public is easily manipulable. The most obvious example of both of these was the rise of National Socialism in Germany. --Edru viransu 01:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And do you think the idea that the majority is not always right leads to the consensus not being always, or usually, right? The majority isn't the consensus, just as the election and RfA systems here are not public voting. Erasculio 01:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it does. If X amount of people can be simultaneously and identically wrong, why can't Y amount of people? Moreover, the example I cited had a rather large majority(85% is far from a bare majority). Consensus decision-making is, imo, perhaps the best method for decision making when it is practical, but it is not infallible, particularly when it is as loose as that of an election. Moreover, consensus on wikis is really the consensus of those who have bothered to speak and who aren't too intimidated by the previous discussion to join the discussion(I know that I haven't bothered to take part in the discussions on the matter of what sort of admin system is best because I don't feel like going into the discussion without having read what everyone else has said, and I don't want to read the enormous amount of previous discussion). --Edru viransu 02:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem comes, IMO, when the fact consensus is not perfect is used by someone to justify one individual taking control, instead of allowing the community to decide things - in other words, when there's a leader. If a group of people is fallible, a single person is likely going to fail more, IMO. Erasculio 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If any given single person is likely to fail, as you say, any group of any given single persons is at least as likely to fail. 5 people who are each likely to fail seem no better to me than a person who is likely to fail. And this is assuming that there aren't people who are not likely to fail. --Edru viransu 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But among those 5, one can help the other. Hence all the discussions we have here - so five people trying to find a way to deal with a problem become better than five individuals trying to think by themselves how to solve the same problem. Erasculio 02:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * People talking to eachother takes too long on this wiki because of edit conflicts and human nature (nobody is going to constantly refresh watchlist to check for a reply on one page that might not come for 5-10 minutes), so it has to stay with 5 individuals. --- Ressmonkey (talk)  03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While Erasculio is making an unfounded assumtion here, the one he is making is that you share the views of Auron&co. I'd prefer if he hadn't done so until you actually claimed them yourself, but given your origín, and the similiarity of those positions you have made, I think you can see why he would do so. Backsword 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I must apologize to DE, as I will not be commenting on this section (on the wiki, at least). Erasculio is back to his usual tactics; as per the oath on my user page and my past experiences with him, I cannot allow myself to get involved. Armond 03:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite Erasculio's tactics, DE's approach to the "problem" does fail. A Bcrat nomination is not the right way to promote changes in the community (and it's a bit insulting to the whole election process), and even if it were, it won't work.[[Image:User Ereanor sig.jpg]]reanor 09:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(This is in response to Edru Viransu above ... this talk page is growing fast) "It is a matter of historical fact that the majority is not always(or even usually) right. It is a matter of historical fact that the voting public is easily manipulable. The most obvious example of both of these was the rise of National Socialism in Germany."

That is a very favorite statement of people agrueing against elections. However it is not wrong once, but even twice. Once, it is logically wrong: The fact that elections sometimes produce bad outcomes does not speak against elections unless there is some other procedure around that does produce less bad outcomes. Also check my reply to DE above to see why this is not an arguement against elections. Second, your example is factually wrong. As long as fair and free elections existed, a majority of Germans did not vote for Hitler. --Xeeron 15:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)