Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2007-07 bureaucrat election/Eloc Jcg

Prior to the voting phase I want to draw attention of the voters to this case where Eloc clearly shows misunderstanding of how the wiki works. A bureaucrat shouldn't be doing anything like this. Also, his comments in general don't yet show maturity of the kind that a bureaucrat needs to solve user issues. A great contributor, but not yet bureaucrat material. -- (gem / talk) 20:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was told about that and have given up that case. But it is still unused and unlinked to and is an EXACT copy of another page of his. There is no need to keep it. Think of it like an Orphoned Image, in which they get deleted.-- §  Eloc   §  20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Eloc, that's not your page to delete, nor is a duplicate page a speedy deletion reason. If anything, readding that deletion tag shows an inadequate understanding of wiki policy.
 * I'd also like to bring up.
 * I'm also not entirely happy about the fact that he has the support of the wikiraptors =\ One of the primary duties of a Bureaucrat is to mediate in user conflicts - not only has he encouraged vandals, but he's been involved in a fair number of user conflicts of his own. I have nothing against the guy, but he would simply not be a good BCrat. MisterPepe talk 20:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A bureaucrat should first discuss, then act, not the other way round. MisterPepe has a lot of good points. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Bureaucrat's aren't allowed to ban/unban so what does it matter if you're liked by a couple vandals? Not like I'd be able to deal with them anyways. As for the Gold, it was a simple suggestion in which I gave up once I saw that I was not able to ever have a hope of getting that to change.-- §  Eloc   §  21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you gave it up after being involved in a revert war on several pages ( being a good example). There's a difference. MisterPepe talk 21:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, after the revert war, I was told to go to GWW:FORMAT and suggest it.-- §  Eloc   §  21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All of this shows that your not yet familiar enough with the wiki to be a bureaucrat. You are a good editor, but a bureaucrat needs to know a lot about the wiki and it's rules, guidelines and etiquette. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 21:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (EDIT CONFLICT x2)
 * I think it helps to keep a cool head and discuss issues rather than simply doing what you think is best. Instead of repeatedly adding a delete tag to the article in question it might be more productive to practice your diplomacy skills and discuss the issue with the people involved. I'm sure they would prefer that to reverting your edits. LordBiro 21:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then again, this is just our opinions. Let's let the voters decide, no? MisterPepe talk 21:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That was not particularly "bureaucrat" advice, just advice in general :) LordBiro 21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, for Troubled Lands, that was over a month ago. And the Delete tag was right. I have proof/permission from him and have had it for a while. I've known him for a long time and he's in my Alliance.-- §  Eloc   §  21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * LB - I got an edit conflict =\ I meant for that to go right after Gem's last line ;)
 * EJ (hee hee) - see, if you had uploaded that picture, marked the page as "Speedy deletion per U1, see talk page for details," the whole thing could have been avoided. Instead, you just kept adding the delete tag, marking it as speedy without a speedy deletion reason, and it came after a pretty big conflict with that user over that particular page. See how that *might* be misconstrued? MisterPepe talk 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya but it would have been alot faster if people would have believed me. They could have easily saw that he used to be in my guild and is in my Alliance and that I personally know him and wouldn't do anything to purposly harm him.-- §  Eloc   §  21:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And yet, that doesn't matter. Even if you know the person, you were involved in a fairly large-scale conflict with him, well, yesterday =\ You also can't just mark a deletion as speedy for a non-speedy reason. Honestly, even though it worked out in the end, you acted instead of discussing, starting another revert war by not explaining your actions. That's exactly the opposite of how a BCrat should behave. Biro said it pretty well, IMO.
 * Of course, it's not up to me. Voting starts in two days, and it should be a fairly interesting round of elections =P MisterPepe talk 21:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll see how it turns out. If not, I'll wait till next election which is in what? 6 Months? And by then I should have learned all the policys, formatting, etc. But I still wanna see how well I do here.-- §  Eloc   §  21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(RI) I just checked your talkpage and noticed you being in another conflict. First, you really think it helps your nomination with just starting another conflict? Well, citing Brendan Behan: There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary. but I don't think this is true for a wiki, as there is no enthusiasm on bad news like it is in tv. Second, you complained about people butting into your talk page. Well, it should honor you, that all those people use some of their time to look at your talk page and post on it. You nominated yourself, so you put yourself to some point in the middle of the wiki. You shouldn't complain about getting attention. Third, I read through your contributions and must say, that, in my opinion, you can't accept when your wrong or when you lost a discussion. You always have to put something on top of it, so I don't want imagine how you try to mediate in a conflict. Der moon 08:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And on top of all that I just have to quote some great stuff from Xas' post at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship:
 * "A bureaucrat should be eloquent and diplomatic, sometimes the decision itself doesn't really matter that much. If something goes to the arbitration committee, not banning anyone or banning one or multiple people for a short duration doesn't really change that much, it's the way the decision is handed out. A bureaucrat has to make sure they've listened to both sides, what the community has to say and be even handed. Those involved may not necessarily think the decision but hopefully people a left with the impression that the decision making process was fair to all parties."
 * "So in short a bureaucrat should be respected amongst all levels of the community, have a strong understanding of what's required for various decision making processes and have the capability to firmly hand down a judgement with aplomb."
 * -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 13:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Der Moon, I do realize that I sometimes (alot of the time) don't give up on a discussion, but, this can be changed to help the community alot better. Just think about it for a second...if Beureaucrats gave up on discussions easily, then they would basically be doing nothing, as if they are active in dicussions and not letting people change the policy everyday, the entire Wiki runs smoother.-- §  Eloc   §  15:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Eloc - but as everyone else is trying to say; it just ain't gonna happen. Next time around, who knows? Just keep on with the good stuff and cut down on the bad stuff and you're a winner :) -- Snog  rat [[Image:User Snograt signature.png]] 07:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My comments.
Beginning a new section so that this isn't confused with the previous thread of conversation, since I'm starting from scratch;

In my sole opinion, I do not believe this user would be an ideal candidate for a Bureaucrat position on this wiki. While the reason I hold this opinion is due to a number of experiences, the sum total can be expressed mainly as "I do not find this user to have an manner befitting of a bureaucrat". I will attempt to elaborate as I can, in no particular order, although this may go somewhat roughly in reverse chronological order:


 * Most recently, this user was involved in a conflict at Talk:Guild_Wars_Eye_of_the_North. Not only did this user display a lack of knowledge about the guidelines typically applied to main article content, this user also expressly went against GWW:NPA (albeit not necessarily alone), and, indeed, was blocked as part of a result of that incident.


 * This user was informed that a certain pattern of edits that they were making (the inclusion of article credits on guild pages) went against the usual practices of the wiki. This user's following replies make me question whether this user actually took the time to understand the notice (including whether or not this user actually followed up and investigated the provided link), or just acted impulsively, unbecoming of a bureaucrat. This user also expressed a wish to keep other parties out of the conversation, something which naturally goes against the core concepts of a wiki.


 * When a polite suggestion was made that this user might want to archive some of their talk page, this user displayed a lack of willingness to consider other wiki users, something not fitting for a bureaucrat.

In addition to these specific examples, the interaction with this user that I have seen on various talk pages has given me the general impression that this user would not be a good choice as a Bureaucrat.

Respectfully, (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As Aiiane stated above, those actions in my view shows that this user still needs time to learn the policies of the wiki. --Sktbrd341 00:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to add a few points regarding the candidate statement:
 * Having over a thousand edits is not something very significant, as it's more the quality of contributions that count, not the quantity. But it was still fine to state that... until it was used to belittle AT for AT's smaller number of contributions and the subsequent antagonistic response.
 * There is a difference between being plain headstrong and holding strong to one's views. It is fine to strongly defend your own views when backed by strong and valid points. But it is not fine to try to be stubborn and defensive about ideas that almost no one agrees with and those that are against policy and guidelines. (as can be seen from all the previous talk page links listed above this point)
 * Being a quick learner usually means that conflicts and issues tend to occur less often as time goes by, but from Aiiane's links, this has not happened yet.
 * And finally, with so many negative comments and problems brought up here and on the candidate's talk page, I was actually expecting at least a bit of an apologetic tone. Instead I just found attempts to continue to defend actions that other users disapproved of. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even though I agree with all the reasons why this user should not be supported as a bureaucrat, I'm quite pleased he put his name forward. It's good to diversify the electorate pool. It's also good to see that our support/oppose system does genuinely work when a clearly unqualified candidate is running. No offense intended, Eloc. &mdash;Tanaric 19:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I welcome anyone who puts their name forward and I vote according to the facts as I see them, and do my best to explain the reasoning behind my vote as I have above, in hopes that any potential drawbacks might be corrected in the future, and any outstanding successes are capitalized upon. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't expect to win, it started off as me just seeing how many votes I could get, and my behavior wasn't helpig it either ^^".-- §  Eloc   §  21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your probably right Eloc, you probably wouldn't have had such an overwhelming negative vote if it hadn't been for the last couple of days. Good on you for standing though :) -- Lemming64 22:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, always next time. Hey, speaking of which, when is the next election? 6 months?-- §  Eloc   §  04:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The next election will be on august 31, when Rezyks term ends. --Xeeron 08:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Minor correction -- the next election will conclude on August 31. It'll start mid-month so we don't have an empty seat when his term expires. &mdash;Tanaric 08:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try then I suppose.-- §  Eloc   §  08:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this dead horse being beaten so badly?

Eloc, there are to very important points to trying to become a bureaucrat... Show aptitude and show trustworthiness. Show aptitude means: Show you're useful and skilled, contribute useful things (that others come to you and say thanks for, not that you say oh I'm leet about). Show trustworthiness means: Show regular users that they can entrust you with the keys to this place. i.e. That they won't wake up tomorrow to find that you promoted all the raptors into admins and deleted the entire Guilds namespace. Neither of these can be shown by typing and typing. So, taksome time to contribute meaningfully, and when there is conflict, show that you can be trustworthy and play by the rules. --Karlos 08:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that day off helped me out quite a bit & now I will try my hardest not to start/be involved in conflicts. As for contributions, I'm starting to do alot more of that now. My goal is to do one random page for each quest I beat in GW, which is good because I am trying to do all the quests.-- §  Eloc   §  08:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Along the same lines as Karlos said, consider whether 1) the bureaucrat position would be good for you and 2) you would be good for the bureaucrat position. For example, I can't imagine Karlos putting himself forward for a bcrat seat simply because the role doesn't fit his personality -- he doesn't always play by the rules, as he's showed everybody recently. Right now, the community clearly doesn't feel like this position is something you'd be particularly good for. Do you truly believe you'd be good for it, or are you simply seeking prestige?


 * I'm going to ignore that guilds wipe innuendo, Karlos. :)


 * &mdash;Tanaric 08:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, right now they don't think I'd be fit but I got time to change, right?-- §  Eloc   §  08:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll never run for bureaucrat because I am not wise enough for it, yet. I can't help but get involved, it's my nature to care and have an opnion and advocate. I think some of the best Bureaucrating that I have seen you and Biro do, is just watch and see how things unfold. I need to get older I guess.. Or smoke more pot. :P --Karlos 08:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's like that quest in Vabbi with the pot.-- §  Eloc   §  08:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, Karlos. Classic. LordBiro 09:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)