Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election

what? already? boy, time goes by so fast... - Y0_ ich_halt  21:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For you maybe ;) LordBiro 09:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i'm also getting old... almost 17 now. - Y0_ ich_halt  [[Image:User Y0_ich_halt sig.jpg|18px|Have a look at my page]] 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Time is flying for me because my college is FAST.-  Vanguard [[Image:User-VanguardAvatar.PNG]] 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Seeing how the voting phase begins in 2 days already, I'd like to encourage everyone to discuss the candidates before that. During the last elections, weighting the candidates happened (unsuccessfully) after voting. It would be good to discuss this now, before people have cast their vote. --Xeeron 12:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just about one day left, five candidates, two talk pages. This should be interesting.  [[Image:User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|19x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  03:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that Aberrant, Biro and Dir all declined, I wouldn't expect so. Backsword 06:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What, I'm not interesting? :) &mdash;Tanaric 06:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's just say that if I know this wiki, the nonworkingness of stage three won't be an isuue this time. Backsword 06:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion about what? I could discuss the candidates in absurdum, but I don't know if anything of that would be relevant to the election. For those eager that discussion starts early, I think it would benefitial to actually provide some points or examples yourself to get it going. Presenting a topic and just saying "discuss" is one of the few effective ways to get people to stop talking, in my experience. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 13:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be a lot better to encourage people to add reasonings to their vote (as on RFA) so there will be a base for discussion.. poke | talk 18:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. -- Coran Ironclaw 21:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * About the relative evaluations of the candidates. There is plenty of discussion of the individual candidates, but not a big lot of comparisons. Of course, everyone will bot loath to compare people (where inevitably someone must come last). I guess I'll try to start the discussion (mind you this is all my subjective point of view, though I try to be as neutral as possible):


 * History
 * Auron, Tanaric and Tanetris all have a significant number of contributions here, starting in feb-april 07, when the wiki was founded. DF joined in later (oct 07) and has much less contributions than the other three. All four have made big contributions to policy discussions. Auron and DF serve as bureaucrats on PvXwiki, Tanaric previously served as bureaucrat on GW and grandfathered bureaucrat here and both Tanaric and Tanetris are sysops here.


 * Take on policies
 * From what I can gather, Tanaric, DF and Auron all support a more authorative policy system than the one currently in place, giving individual sysops more discretion, Auron going furthest in this direction. Tanetris does not seem to advacate large changes from the current status.


 * Take on enforcement/arbcom
 * This is even more a stab in the dark than the above one, but from their previous behavior and responses I estimate that Auron and Tanaric would be most pro-active and rely most on their individual morals, while Tanetris would be most reactive and rely most on community consensus.


 * There are maybe more issues that could be described in such a way. However, the question is, how does each contributer here evaluate those differences? Is having more contributions more important than having been bureaucrat before? Do you support someone who comes close to your prefered policy system or one who comes close to your prefered arbcom behavior. In one sentence, what are the important points out of above list? --Xeeron 16:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for that summary, xeeron. i'd like the candidates to agree/disagree with his statements so this gets some relevance. - Y0_ ich_halt  [[Image:User Y0_ich_halt sig.jpg|18px|Have a look at my page]] 12:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the spirit of what's posted, with a slight modification to "Take on policies." I think current policy and culture supports sysops using more discretion now without a need for changing policy. I don't think we need more authoritative policies -- I think we need to scrap the policy culture completely and build something more organic. &mdash;Tanaric 16:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * guidelines? - Y0_ ich_halt  [[Image:User Y0_ich_halt sig.jpg|18px|Have a look at my page]] 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions for candidates
Here are some questions from me for each candidate to (optionally) answer: Candidates, I suggest putting questions and answers directly on your candidate subpage (not its talk page). Up to you, though. Users, I suggest submitting questions of your own here. --Rezyk 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In what ways should one expect that you might operate the role differently than previous practices? (Higher/lower barrier to case acceptance? More/less leniency? Use as a bully pulpit? Other?)
 * In what way(s) would your decisions in arbitration be affected by the weight of a user's general history of valued contributions (or lack of such)? Would user valuable-ness reliably translate into some extra degree of leniency from you?
 * What stance would you represent regarding the appropriate administrative response to user trolling/disruption/incivility/harmfulness? How is that stance justified given the current status of those issues within our system and culture?


 * Replied -- thanks for the insightful questions, Rezyk. &mdash;Tanaric 01:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

winner
pretty obviously tanaric imo. - Y0_ ich_halt  14:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At the current point I'd agree, but we should wait till stage 2 is actually over to discuss the winner:
 * "Stage 2: (February 12, 2008 – February 18, 2008 11:59 PM UTC) Voting" --Xeeron 15:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i don't think there'll be any big changes during those 4 days... - Y0_ ich_halt  [[Image:User Y0_ich_halt sig.jpg|18px|Have a look at my page]] 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not vote yet!! :D poke | talk 19:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * YEAH! GO POKE AND GET DE BACK! xD - Y0_ ich_halt  [[Image:User Y0_ich_halt sig.jpg|18px|Have a look at my page]] 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tanaric and Tanetris should keep being Sysops and let Auron be the new bureaucrat, tbh. -- Doll 22:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? I don't do sysop work, in general. &mdash;Tanaric 23:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Deciding winners
Go for it. &mdash;Tanaric 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this stage should be fairly short anyways. :p -- Hong 00:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we forgo formalities and just announce Tanaric the winner?  Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 00:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think this stage was over before it ever began. [[Image:User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|19x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If Auron and Tanetris agree to that, Calor, I'm okay with it too. &mdash;Tanaric 00:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A winner is Tanaric. About time, too. - Tanetris 00:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. I wasn't 100% serious when I asked that. Well, all that's left is for Auron to concede.  Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that this time around we're skipping the whole debate about whether this stage should be about counting votes or having a "discussion about the merits of the candidates" and deciding the winner through consensus. Is this because we finally managed to convince you that voting is the best option for these elections, Tanaric, or because this time the result of the vote was the right one? --Dirigible 01:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cruel. In this case, I think the votes are unambiguous and I believed that both Tanetris and Auron would agree. If both competing candidates concede the election to me in the interest of expediency, why should I refuse?


 * In the other direction, if Auron believes a stage three discussion is necessary to determine consensus, I strongly support pursuing the matter, leaving votes out of it.


 * If it were the other way around, and Auron or Tanetris had nearly twice the support of the nearest candidate, I'd concede as Tanetris did, again in the interests of expediency.


 * I've only argued against blindly accepting the results of the vote when the totals are only one or two apart.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In the real world, a common solution to the problem of no clear winner from multiple candidates is to hold a runoff election between the top 2. This is formalised in the presidential election procedures for a lot of countries. Something to consider, perhaps. -- Hong 02:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have change policy draft with that, i couldn't get it to be accepted because I can't be active anymore. But, this is not the place to disscuss that. -- Coran Ironclaw 02:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tanaric has more support and (most importantly) more experience. He's won this round ... er, election. - Auron 11:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that both popular opinion (as reflected in the vote counts) seems to support Tanaric as the appropriate candidate, as well as the support of both other contenders, I'm going to go ahead and declare Tanaric the candidate-elect. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As stated beforehand, I fully support the candidate with the most votes becomming winner, that one being Tanaric. --Xeeron 13:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with either Tanaric or Auron filling in the spot, so I'll go with the majority vote. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 14:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not even voted yet ¬¬ I still have 5 days to legally troll around and annoy tanaric decide even when no one might care about my final decision. Just to clarify, there is an important topic on Tanaric's and nobody seems to care about it. The ArbComm was created to deal with user conduct and disputes only, but Tanaric is willing to change that and will actually accept cases involving content or policy (appling his unoficially idea of the ArbComm). Is it good to let the ArbComm solve other things than user disputes/conduct? Actually that question is not the point, while I think it might be a good idea there has not been a proper discussion on the topic (if there has been, handle a link to me) and even less a consensus. That's the way Tanaric is, and I think that's great to manage small social globes like guilds, but I think the wiki is something far above those limits. I am not sure of the implications of using the ArbComm that way, but even if there are not bad implications, the way to create a change on the wiki is not just going and appling it, is to create a proper policy draft, discuss it with everyone interested, get to know other options or the negative sides, and last obtain a consensus. And that is something Tanaric has done a lot (if I am going to believe his background), but also, a long time ago. Because at least since I am around here (~sept) I came to know a Tanaric that is always against the policy but does nothing about it rather than sometimes presenting, in my opinion disruptive, policy proposals which he claims to be a joke to make a point.
 * And if it happens to actually be bad implications, the wiki might suffer them because of improper use of its elements. Therefore, I cannot support Tanaric to be a bcrat.
 * Auron is blunt, and I don't like the idea of he being a sysop and managing the new or average user. But the way I understand the ArbComm here, it needs that bluntness. So, I support Auron. (and also I see there a reason to why bcrats shouldn't do sysops dutties regularly) -- Coran Ironclaw 21:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you make an interesting point, Coran, but I disagree with your reasoning on one particular point: being a bureaucrat affords Tanaric no more power than anyone else on the wiki to change the role of a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats only have as much power as we allow them. Personally I think it is important that bureaucrats should only be allowed to deal with user disputes. While I am aware that Tanaric has a different opinion on this matter (as evidenced from his reply to Rezyk's questions) I still support Tanaric for bureaucrat, because I believe he will deal with user disputes very well. Please bear in mind that we are not electing presidents here. LordBiro 22:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Coran, note Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration policy. --Rezyk 22:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Aye. My opinion on how ArbComm should be used is just that -- an opinion. It only matters if the community agrees with it (in general or about a particular issue) and steps forward to make the (currently non-standard) ArbComm request. Further, it requires that at least one of Xeeron and Aiiane also agree that such behavior is appropriate to accept the case. &mdash;Tanaric 23:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)