Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/Archive 3

Timing of discussion
First off, you might all know that I am rather more fond of voting than some others around here, so I do not have a big problem with stage 3 being mainly about tallying votes. However the discussion above (and especially the the arguement that stage 3 was too much tallying and not enough argueing merits) shows me that our policy seems to encourage a sequence which is all wrong: There should be a discussion about the merits of each candidate before the votes are cast, not after the voting stage has closed. Not only does this enable voters to make more informed decisions, it also makes no sense that currently you can not change your vote based on the discussion. So while encouraging more discussion is a great idea, I feel that stage 3 is the wrong time, it should take place in stage 1 and 2.

PS: Something I want to mention to preempt any wrong assumptions about Tanaric bringing this up because he lost the election: The one vote difference between me and him is actually his vote. --Xeeron 09:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One way to more clearly encourage discussion at that time might be to re-insert a "discussion only" stage between 1 and 2. (That's how it was originally designed before it got merged into stage 2.) --Rezyk 10:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Or just to rename stage 2 to "Voicing support" and reword it a bit to encourage discussion prior to voting. As it is, maybe it just reads as being too focused on the votes. As for the current stage 3 seeming like a simple tallying, well, I believe it's simply because it is. If we don't want to use a vote count as a general means of resolving an election, stage 2 shouldn't even bother with voting, and stage 3 should be to analyse all the discussions taking place in stage 2 and narrow down to list of candidates to one. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 10:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vote of confidence, Xeeron. :)


 * I think our process, as written, is a good one. We first vote (well, poll really) to get a clear, unambiguous picture of the general sense of how people feel. This provides a metric to narrow our candidate pool to something manageable: usually just one person. If there isn't an unambiguous sense of who the community prefers, we then discuss those potential candidates to decide who among them is best for the seat.


 * Most importantly, stage 3 should not be merely a vote tallying stage. In a case where there is no clear and unambiguous winner, statements like "I prefer candidate A but candidate B had one more supporter, so let's elect candidate B" have no place. There's no notion of supporting one candidate more than the other in the poll/vote stage -- all support is equal in stage 2 -- so as long as the numbers are close among two (three, four...) potentials, what the numbers actually are don't really matter. Stage 3 is where we get to say "Well, yes, I support them both, but I think candidate A would do a much better job!"


 * I am opposed to a discussion stage between 1 and 2. Stage 2 is already 7 days long. I prefer altering the policy so that it suggests discussion in stage 2, while voting is going on. Since changing/retracting votes is explicitly allowed in stage 2, I think this should be okay. This is basically the first half of Ab.er.rant's suggestion, and I support it. However, I disagree with the latter half of his suggestion. Stage 2 exists, in my mind, to provide the community with an straightforward quantitative measure to direct the discussions in stage 3. Without a poll/vote, I don't believe stage 3 would ever reach a meaningful conclusion.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 15:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, when you use the word "poll", it gives a much clearer picture of what the intention is. I just a rewrite of stage 2 to replace all the "vote" with "poll". Call it "Stage 2: Support polling" and make it clear that this is merely a raising of hands to gauge overall support. Stage 3 likely needs a reword to take in the meaning of "polling for support". -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually think it would be better if stage 2 and the discussion of the merits of each candidate happened together. A way to do this would be to ask each person voting to preferably state the reason behind that vote. We would end with a small discussion about why is that person being ellected (or not : P) that could maybe help in the stage 3 (in the cases in which there are more than one likely candidate) without having to do any big change on the current procedures - it would only be a matter of adding a small note to the current description of stage 2. Erasculio 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For that kind of stage 3, what opinion is the final consensus supposed to represent? For example, if in the end I still disagreed with the opinion that "Candidate A would do the best job", would I be obliged to object to the consensus? --Rezyk 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the election is effectivly over, and this debate is now on general issues, should we not take it to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections? Backsword

Sorry about the delay in response.

In such a stage 3, differences in opinion are going to exist. Getting consensus, in the sense that everybody comes to agree that candidate X is the best, is not likely. Getting "consensus," in the sense that support for candidate X is well-reasoned and is generally (but not universally) more accepted than candidate Y, seems reasonable. I think we generally use this sort of consensus -- in any important discussion, after all of us have made our points, the extreme minority viewpoint holders generally say something like, "Well, let's try it your way. Don't say I didn't warn you." I expect something similar in bureaucrat elections.

To make this more formal, perhaps another short stage could be added -- "Interpretation of Consensus." I see this playing out like Aiiane's poll at the end of the most recent election -- it exists not to argue which candidate is more worthy, but instead to verify which candidate has more support at the end of the "Deciding Winners" stage.

To directly answer your question -- in such a process, whether or not an overwhelmed, undersupported minority opinion objects to perfect consensus shouldn't really matter in the end.

&mdash;Tanaric 17:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Preventing consecutive terms
What does everyone think of preventing bureaucrats from running while incumbent? In other words, preventing bureaucrats from serving back to back terms. -- Gordon Ecker 04:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think its a good idea to prevent incumbent bureaucrats from running for back to back terms. I feel that their shouldn't be any more restrictions, on allowing users to run for bureaucrat. Also, if the incumbent bureaucrat is performing his functions well, and with transparency, then why should the community artificially disallow that bureaucrat's involvement in the next election? I think that any community unhappiness with a potential bureaucrat's (incumbent or otherwise) performance is likely to show up in the election anyways. --Indecision 05:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to explicitly prevent it from happening. The elections was more to prevent permanent bureaucrats than rotating bureaucrats. If a bureaucrat is doing a good job and the community feels confident in letting the same bureaucrat take up the seat for a consecutive term, so be it. :) -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let them run again. If the community likes them, they'll get voted on again. If they screw it up, they won't be voted on again.-- §  Eloc   §  13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said, Eloc ;) LordBiro 17:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eloc (did I really say that? o.O) poke | talk 17:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You did?!? o.O!? :D-- §  Eloc   §  23:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Eloc, if you get a bureaucrat seat, I promise to vote in your favor if you run for a second term. :) &mdash;Tanaric 05:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * LoL, but not the first?-- §  Eloc   §  14:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fxing what is broken
Since a new election is comming up and there was some issues with the last one, now would be the time to address them. As I understand it, concerns were:


 * 1) Poll is effectivly a vote, both due to no tiebreaker and the impossibility of compromise. (Can't have an ArbComm member who is 70% candidate X and 30% candidate Y.)
 * 2) Discussion after voting rather than before.
 * 3) Nonserious candidatures.
 * Backsword 12:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * & what candidates weren't serious in the last one? &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  15:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * #3 didn't seem like an issue to me. For #2, there was some suggestion to add wording encouraging discussion before stage 3. (And even if it doesn't get officially written in, it's shouldn't be critical, right? As in, there's nothing in the policy atm which prevents us from earlier discussion..even starting today!) For #1, I see it as 3 main schools of thought:
 * A) Have a vote that comes down to measuring support between candidates.
 * B) Have a vote that comes down to measuring preference between candidates.
 * C) Decide with a direct consensus, not a vote; any poll-like stuff is just background data.
 * My personal opinion on these is basically: C is a great ideal, but so far I don't see any plans that I believe would actually realize this. I think that the effect of the decision being time-limited is crucially overlooked, and substantive minorities would get overruled when the time comes; even with the best of intentions, that would be a vote too. So I would ask the community to embrace voting here despite its horrible flaws. Between B and A, B is overall more stable/appropriate, and I would support it as long as it was sensibly integrated into the whole process beforehand (and not if it was rejected in favor of A). Perhaps take the entire stage 2 and encourage users to vote based on their preferences right from the start.
 * --Rezyk 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm of more or less the same opinion. Voting can't be avoided due to a time limit. And I think it's important to encourage discussions to start prior to voting. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 07:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned the time factor. It was an unstated assumption. I'd like to think that we would be able to come up with an answer given enough time, even with no compromise possible.1 So I agree that only systems that give discrete results in a given time are viable. And with the model of this wiki, voting seem the best of those. Preferable to having Anet or ArbComm make the selection, as some have suggested. But if we are going to have voting, we should be clear on what sort of voting we want. I think there are more options than the two Rezyk mentioned. Some of these are in the archive, and I'm sure people can come up with others.


 * A concern I have that haven't been mentioned is that now that the 'break' for phasing is over, we will have elections every two months. With the current system that means we will be in election mode 40% of the time. Perhaps it's only me who feels this is a bit much? Backsword 13:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Which makes me wonder: why don't we use consensus for SysOp selection? No time limit there, and we've had plenty of complaints that it is too much of a popularity contest. No SysOp should ever not implement policy because they can get voted out if they do.
 * We could I suppose, but getting consensus for something that's essentially a vote (unless we're not voting) is impossible. The moment someone who dislikes a particular user sees such an RfA, one single oppose will basically kill the RfA. Near-consensus is probably more realistic. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 15:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

New election
Is it time to start the new election period soon? I think Dirigible's term ends December 31, and seeing as it is a holiday season, it might be good to start it before people go away for christmas/new year. - anja   11:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominations stage starts in 12 hours Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2007-12 bureaucrat election. --Dirigible 11:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How very interesting...&mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  18:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When does voting begin? Rather than quote policy I would like an actual date. Anon

Voting
If a user doesn't have 100 edits before the voting starts, but gets to 100 before it's over, are they still allowed to vote? or do they have to reach 100 before voting starts? &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Feels like this is aimed at him, but could be mistaken--Ryudo 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. This is a question that I thought of last election but forgot to post this. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think last time they had to have 100 edits before the voting starts. poke | talk 08:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Votes from registered user accounts that have not made more than 100 edits before this stage." That means before voting starts. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 08:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside from looking at the contributions page is there a way to know how many contributions a user has had aside from counting.... And how do you filter contributions in namespace which don't count? Anon
 * Unfortunately, you'll have to do the additions manually by making use of the namespace filtering. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 08:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there's a section already, I'll raise another concern Ryudo mentioned. Due to technicality, a new user could just add "I like this skill" to 100 skill talk pages and suddenly become eligible for voting. Should we at least try to clarify or add additional clauses to determine eligibility? -- ab.er. rant  08:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. For one, the process for the election has already started, even if voting hasn't, changing it now would be bad taste. Second, I doubt this would happen, and third I don't really even agree with the 100 contributions policy already, it's sole purpose seems to prevent sock puppet voting, but differentiating whether an edit was just to qualify to vote or not isn't something I think we need to get into, discussions like that always turn out to be very negative and cause more harm than good. I really don't think this is, ro will be, an issue.EDIT: Guild and User Namespace refers to a user page, and not a talk page correct? So I can post on Gaile's page 100 times and still qualify? Anon
 * I wasn't suggesting that it be changed right now for this current election. I'm simply raising a discussion. As for the talk pages, "Guild talk" falls under the "Guild" namespace, so technically, Gaile's talk and Izzy's talk don't count. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 09:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought look at this and then look at this. It's almost vandalism, and tbh it's disgusting. Now you should look at this and notice the day "this user has left the wiki" returned, strangely the spam started around the same time the election did. Also make note of the fact that Eloc is running in this election, someone Ryudo is known to dislike. Anon
 * It's hard to make a non-abusable rule, but if you have any ideas they would be very welcome. The current rule is a simple one which works well to limit off sockpuppet voters, but it's not flawless. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 10:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * not that i know much but the current rule seems ok, else it would be too easy to vote more than twice for or against someone. --Cursed Angel [[Image:User_Cursed_Angel_Signature.jpg|19px|talk]] 10:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's hard to vote twice with the current rules? I think they should be chnged to reflect a more select criteria. mAny users contribute very little after they made the intial quota, some users like Gem have the vast majority of their contributions these days on talk pages. Many of the admin have admitted they add content as they go through the game, since they have done that already they pay very little attention to the older campaigns, many of them contribute very little to content these days. Most contributions a lot of the people involved in these discussions are from people who have 90% of their edits on izzy's talk page, gaile's talk page, policy talk pages (the devil) and user talk pages. So many of the decision makers have lost touch with the actual reason for the wiki. I think it should be amended to only count article edits, not minor ones (seeing as a minor designation is user applied I doubt this will have much affect) and only edits in the last six months. SystemisFlawed
 * What about edits to article talk pages? -- Gordon Ecker 12:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Any way of distinguishing between "worthy" edits and "unworthy" edits is fiendishly complicated and bound to fail (but it would produce tons of talk page rage before it fails). We should not try to evaluate edits. --Xeeron 13:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We must evaluate edits. Backsword 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Raptaz Just speed-spammed 100-ish "edits" (I use the term loosely) to the talk pages of skills, for what I can only imaging would be voting rights. - [[Image:User HeWhoIsPale sig.PNG]] HeWhoIsPale 14:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Raptaz didn't break any rules and if the accusations are correct and he is raptors then he would have been able to vote if he hadn't of been banned anyway. If they are wrong then he is just someone who wanted to vote. I agree though it wouldn't be feasable to "judge" the quality of someone's edits. This rule seems to be aimed at preventing sock puppets, not at preventing "low quality" users from voting, although it is troubling that the 100 edits rule has led to the spamming of so many pages, even though the impact is hardly noticeable. SystemisFlawed 14:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason we don't need to worry about Raptaz or SystemisFlawed is that sockpuppets will always be noticed. Some of SystemisFlawed's edits are even helpful towards the wiki. So if it turns out the person behind SystemisFlawed wants to disrupt the wiki, he is doing so by making it better - quite funny imho. --Xeeron 15:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of my edits? Point to one which was not helpful? Research before you accuse please. SystemisFlawed 15:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Research before you edit please. Re: Necromancer, soul Reaping doesn't gain energy from spirits and hasn't for like a month now. - [[Image:User HeWhoIsPale sig.PNG]] HeWhoIsPale 15:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this falls back to, should we be reasonable, or do we need a policy to follow word by word? I'd cheer for reasonable. Bcrat positions is still not decided fully on voting, voting is a part of the election. If there are votes made by users that seem to have made 100 nonsense edits just to qualify, those will not be allowed to tip the favor to one side or another, while still be given weight. Discussion is still a big part. I would also like to ask everyone to not turn this into a personal war, personal grudges can be taken in user space. - anja   15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow so an edit I made in good faith about something which has changed in the last 15 days?!?!?! And that makes me a vandal? It was a popular strategy necromancers used - and was probably the reason for the nerf. Just because you don't like that I tried very hard to accumulate a large number of positive edits you find a mistake I made and put me in the same category as some idiot who posted "I like this skill" on every page. EDIT: Btw Anja I think personal grudges should be gotten over, not taken to user space. A grudge isn't healthy for a person or the wiki. I'm curious to understand how the voting system works if voting isn't key to it. If someone has 8 more votes that all other users, regardless of discussion, aren't they the clear winner? SystemisFlawed 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can vote on more than one candidate. Only candidates with positive vote ratios are considered for phase 3. So I could vote (for example) for Taneris and Brains12, and then decide which of the two I'd support for the decision phase. - [[Image:User HeWhoIsPale sig.PNG]] HeWhoIsPale 15:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's almost vandalism, and tbh it's disgusting. Now you should look at this and notice the day "this user has left the wiki" returned, strangely the spam started around the same time the election did. Also make note of the fact that Eloc is running in this election, someone Ryudo is known to dislike.- from Anon.

Your ½ correct anon. Yes, I am making lots of edits now because I found out that Eloc is running and I really cannot see him making a good bureaucrat. I mean, the guy resorted to posting on the admin board JUST to force his welcome template onto my page, when any rational person would probably have released that that was just making more trouble than it was worth. Was it really so important that I have an automated welcome template on my talk page? That started a series of events that lead to Raptors harassing me and (two of) his accounts getting banned. IMHO, Eloc is a fantastic contributor to this wiki, but he is extremely pushy, headstrong, and fairly full of himself. A bureaucrat needs to know when common sense rules over policy. You mention that Eloc is running, and that I dislike him. Your point? Is there some sort of issue with me voting against someone I don’t like? Is it not allowed? For the record, I don’t dislike Eloc, I just think he’d make an awful bureaucrat. That’s my opinion and last time I checked, I was entitled to it.

The reason I came back to this wiki was because I figured that after the Raptors case, people would get it into their heads to “leave Ryudo alone.” So far, that has been the case. But yes, the reason why I am editing so much is because I want to vote against Eloc (oh wow, my vote will totally swing this election... as if. Hell, people will probably vote FOR him just cause I’m voting against, what with my uber popularity and all) The 100 post edits seems to be a rule to keep newbies and bots away from voting. I am certainly not a newbie (most of my edits are on the other wiki), and I'm certainly not a bot. Also, unlike Raptaz my edits have been largely positive. That thing that you called “disgusting” was my first and admittedly clumsy attempt at correcting an incorrect image in an article. It was 1am my time, my first time doing such a thing, and I did probably make more edits than needed. However, I got the job done, and the article is now correct.

Am I making more edits than I need to? Oh yes. Am I trying to be positive with my edits? Again, yes. Am I going to vote against Eloc? You can count on that. Will I comment on skill pages just to meet my quota? I would really rather not, but I will do so if needed.

If any of what I have posted is against the rules, please, tell me. If a new rule is passed, I will abide by it. If admins get on my case and tell me to stop editing, then I will. However, if your sole purpose is to keep me from and/or make it seem like I'm a “bad guy” for voting against someone I would rather not see become bureaucrat, then I'm afraid your out of luck my friend.--Ryudo 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "I'd cheer for reasonable. Bcrat positions is still not decided fully on voting, voting is a part of the election. If there are votes made by users that seem to have made 100 nonsense edits just to qualify, those will not be allowed to tip the favor to one side or another, while still be given weight." &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  09:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bad for you I dont have "100 nonsense edits."--Ryudo 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If there are votes made by users that seem to have made 100 nonsense edits just to qualify, those will not be allowed to tip the favor to one side or another, while still be given weight.


 * Could you clarify this Anja? It's selfcontradictory as it stands. Since tiping the balance is what votes are for, if they'r enot allowed to do that, they're given zero weight. Backsword 05:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant it like this: User A has 15 votes, User B has 16 votes in favor. Some of the voting users seems to have made nonsense edits to qualify. But, discussion will be there anyway, and even more so with some votes seeming "nonsense". 2 votes here or there wont make a candidate win, it's the consensus that's important. Votes are meant to give a general idea about what the community thinks (and hopefully also make more people interested in the following discussion), not be the one and only way to decide. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 10:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Eligibility to vote
I have a few questions: &mdash;Ebany Salmonderiel  19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It says "excluding the guild and user namespaces". Does that include Guild_talk and User_talk?
 * 2) Am I eligible to vote?
 * For your first question, yes. &mdash; Skuld 19:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hijacking the section... Wouldn't be healthy for the wiki to exclude every talk page from the contribution count instead of just those from guild and user? Otherwise, we end with... well, just check the recent changes list :P--Fighterdoken 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would disagree. Some people are active mainly on talk pages, helping people more than the content; and it's just that the contributions are positive that really matters, as far as I can see.  &mdash;Ebany  Salmonderiel  20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Also, a bureaucrat is always almost on a talk page. Potential bureaucrats are likely, also, to be on talk pages, sorting out arguments or helping to control a discussion. If you exclude all talk pages, then... well, our bureaucrats wouldn't be bureaucrats. --[[Image:User-brains12-sigicon5.png|Talk|14px]] br12  • (talk) • 20:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer to question 2: No, I'm not eligible to vote as about 200 of my 260 contributions are in user and guild namespaces :(. &mdash;Ebany  Salmonderiel  20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Better get fixing articles then! :D Ale_Jrb  ( talk ) 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Forty edits is easy to get if you browse over to Category:Stubs :) -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Been trying to do this, however there is some confusion over when you have to have 100 edits, before or after stage 0/1 hasstarted, or just by the time you post your vote?Killer Revan 02:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(ri) How do I know if I'm eligible? Is someone going to count my contributions that are outside talk things? I'm too paranoid to edit pages and I like to talk. How does that make me unable to tell who's worth being a wikimod/admin?  Vanguard 15:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, the rule is meant to prevent Chicago-style elections. - [[Image:User HeWhoIsPale sig.PNG]] HeWhoIsPale 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Chicago-style? I'm not familiar with that reference.  Vanguard [[Image:User-VanguardAvatar.PNG]]15:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You aren't eligible to vote, Vanguard. You have 53 of 100 needed non-user/guild namespace edits.  The only way I know of to check is to manually go through the namespaces.  &mdash;<font color="#EEAA33">Ebany  <font color="#8800AA">Salmonderiel  16:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Doing 47 more contribs isn't hard if you go through stubs, or random page. --[[Image:User-brains12-sigicon5.png|Talk|14px]] br12  • (talk) • 17:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 53? Holy mess xD Ah well, I'm not too worried about it but thank you for checking, Ebany.  Vanguard [[Image:User-VanguardAvatar.PNG]]17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not hard to get edits :P. I get about 50ish perday when I don't have alot of time on the computer. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  <font color="Black">貢  22:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This "100 edit" rule is quite ridiculous. This wiki is currently a joke compared to the previous one. There are copyright issues, less articles, and not even as close to as much helpful information here. How does this wiki expect to improve if only the people who are making these terrible articles are allowed to vote? what about users who have provided countless useful contributions on other websites that the community actually uses? This dosnt make much sense at all. (sorry if i offended any of you that waste your time writing articles here, not all of them are terrible)--Coloneh 22:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Other websites" are not this website. Some users here who have come over from PvX and Gwiki mainly for voting for their community's users have not contributed here, or have made it clear they don't want to contribute here. In that case, they will not be using this wiki, and any new bureaucrat will not affect them. If they choose to contribute here, then that is fine and 100 edits is not hard, by far, to achieve - just go through some stubs or clean up a few articles, and you are there. [[Image:User-brains12-sigicon5.png|Talk|14px]] br12  • (talk) • 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well no shit that Guildwiki has more articles. There were made like 2 years before us. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  <font color="Black">貢  00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The 100 edits are required so that there is some quantifiable verification that the user is active in this community and understands what is going on here and hopefully is familiar with our policies and the way things are run. It stops rushes of new users coming over to vote because the nominee or their supporter said "hey, so and so is up for bureaucrat, go and vote for him!" in game or on irc. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's ridiculous give one vote to everyone who contributes on other wikis ;) Are you suggesting that everyone on Guildwiki, PxWwiki, and GWO wiki should be allowed one vote each? What about those on non-English GW wikis? :o I have respect for any long-time contributor on any wiki. The criteria for bureaucrats is most definitely not how much content they have contributed, it is their ability to handle user-related and wiki-related issues, not content-related issues. And most importantly, their familiarity with this wiki, not other wikis. If the measure is by content quantity or content quality, then we should be counting a user's contributions by namespace instead. Also, I think it best to avoid needlessly posting statements that bashes this wiki yet again without fully considering the whole picture. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When was / was this changed...as one individual, User:Ressmonkey had voted after election began and did not have enough vontribs, and not says that he does have enough contribs...Killer Revan 02:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe no one noticed? &mdash;  ク  Eloc  <font color="Black">貢  04:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone did, so he made edits to make up forthis and made his vote "valid" again, once he made the necessary couple of editsKiller Revan 21:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't find the details
Thanks. Biscuits 18:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Where is the voting start date defined?
 * 2) How do you check number of contributions except guild and user name spaces, without going through them and counting one by one?
 * Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2007-12 bureaucrat election
 * You can't.
 * &mdash;  ク  Eloc  <font color="Black">貢  19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! So I'll just vote, and let somebody else do the dirty work. ;) Disclaimer: that was a joke Biscuits [[Image:User Biscuits sig.png]] 23:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Turns out I have plenty, anyway. Thanks, Help namespace. :) Biscuits [[Image:User Biscuits sig.png]] 23:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * :P &mdash;  ク  Eloc  <font color="Black">貢  04:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Election system
Sounds like Russia. Lord Belar 04:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A little extreme perhaps? I don't see lead opposition candidates being arrested/beaten, nor do I see rigid media control, nor do I see attempts to buy votes, nor do I see blatantly inaccurate reports of votes.  [[Image:User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Voting and Eligibility
Presumably, the reason that Anons and contributors with fewer than 100 edits are disallowed from voting is that the community wants to ensure that the voter is active because the question of who becomes the next Bureaucrat is an important one. So, if we assign a value to a vote from such a person, that value would be 0, and the value of a vote posted by a contributor with more than 100 contributions is 1. So, there is already an existing precedent for a weighted system. However, consider that 100 is an arbitrary number. If the limit were to be changed to say 500 (how can we define an "active" contributor?) then more votes would have a value of 0 and fewer a value of 1. The point being that even if the limit isn't changed, the value of a vote is based on an arbitrary amount of contributions. Thus, it follows that that a person with say 1000 contributions whose vote would remain at a value of 1 if the limit were changed to 500 is more "important" than a person with say 200 contributions. Of course, there are an infinite number of gradations of a vote's "value," but I think you get the point. If the idea is to ensure that only active contributors can vote, then, the most active contributor should recieve the most consideration. The logic's a little shakey (and my explanation is poor), but I hope that you understand what I'm trying to get at. For instance, if there is an attempt to establish consensus regarding an article, it is likely that in many cases, the more well-respected contributor would be given more weight in the discussion. While there is a theoretic value to this "weighting" when it comes to voting (i.e. that other voters might be more likely to go along with the well-respected editor, there should be some concrete consideration of who the voters are. If a candidate has a clear majority, but those who vote for him are people who use the site sparingly and thus are unlikely to be effected by who is a bureaucrat whereas those who vote against are experienced editors, I think at least some people would agree with me that all of those votes for are not an accurate representation of consensus of the "community."  But, because you cannot define who is truely a member of the community based on an arbitrary number of contributions, there needs to be a more in-depth analysis of who votes for whom.  I'll probably get shouted down for mentioning PvX ;), but, I think that there's something to be said for the RfX process there. There is no restriction on who votes, but, someone who puts a solid reason for their vote or someone who is considered to be a respected member is likely to count for more than the Anon who votes without leaving a reason. Unfortunately... I've got to run, but, any thoughts on what I've written so far? *Defiant Elements*  +talk  18:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I got about a third of the way through. :P Biscuits [[Image:User Biscuits sig.png]] 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many things wrong with weighting votes, the most obvious being that a perfect weighting would be so complicated as to be impossible (since you would have to weight each individual contribution of each voter, clearly impossible). The reason we do have the 100 votes rule is to stop bureaucrat votes from being easily rigged. --Xeeron 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand what you're getting at about it being rigged, and if that is the sole reason then my arguement is partially fallacious I guess. As to weighting, I'm not advocating a complex system to weight a contributors votes, I'm merely advocating a system in which more senior/well-respected contributors are given more weight.  Yeah, I realize it's vague and could potentially lead to questions about how to specifically define it, but, if for instance Skakid votes opposed on an RfA on PvX and a random Anon votes in favor of an RfA, I'm gonna look at that and probably pay more attention to Skakid's vote when I make the decision.  I guess the crucial difference is that when you say "weighting," it's weighting as applicable to a strict consensus system whereas I'm referring to something different, but, not matter.  Besides, as far as rigging the vote goes, consider that under a PvX-style system  people with 2-3 votes or whatever simply won't be considered as much as people with 100 or more votes anyway.  [[Image:User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|19x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you are talking about RFA's, let me point out that the 100 edits system is only in place for the bureaucrats elections. For RFA's here, anyone can vote, but there is a provision for bureaucrats weighting the results (so quite alike to PvX, though I guess that our bureaucrats might interpret it in a more strict counting way than PvX's bureaucrats might). --Xeeron 23:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh... sorry 'bout that, while the overarching concept is applicable to RfA's in general, I was actually speaking about the Elections. [[Image:User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|19x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  03:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Any simple rule is going to exclude some people that were not inted to be exluded. The rule is not to prevent people who have an inform position to vote, but to preven sockpuppets, 'meatpuppets' (pertient to your candidacy) and ranodm passersby. When these policies was made, the general mood was that every contributor was valuable. Backsword 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing against exclusivity... to an extent, I'm arguing in favor of some degree of exclusivity. Yes, I point out that anyone can vote on PvX, but what I was trying to get at was that there should be inherently more weight given to wiser/more well-respected contributors because the fact of the matter is that while every contributor is valuable, some are more valuable than others ;).  [[Image:User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|19x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  03:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, everyone is going to prefer some other people, including themselves, over others. But these are not going to be the same people for everyone, as logically demonstrated by only one person being yourself. Backsword 11:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I daresay that something like that would works on wikis with a smaller active community, where that group engages with other members of that group on a regular basis. By giving slightly more weight to a certain group of users, it becomes much more like the "popularity contest" that people are already accusing our elections and RfA of. You basically reduce the worth of a large number of contributors who mainly avoid getting involved in talk pages. And these users then become "less active" to users who don't look at recent changes. And one last crucial thing, who or what determines who should be given more weight? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What controls elections?
I don't find the policy that controls elections. (I feel I fail to explain). This policy controls the election process, but what prevents me starting an election for 4 bureaucrat seats right now? When are elections supposed to be created? Coran Ironclaw 06:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship. It explains that bcrats can only be elected to an open seat (when a current bcrat's term expires), and has the dates for the terms of our current bcrats. With 3 bcrats and staggered terms of 6 months, basically we have an election every other month. Next election will be February. - Tanetris 07:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I read that before and i had to re-read again two times to find this sentence "New bureaucrats are elected to an open position by community-wide open elections", which is not clear to me, is this saying what you told me? another question, can you handle me a link of the discussion about the number of bureaucrats ? (why 3?) Coran Ironclaw 08:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's my interpretation, yes. As for why 3, when Anet grandfathered in the admin team from GuildWiki back when GWW first started, there were only two bcrats, then after some discussion they decided an odd number would be better for ArbComm, so they made a third seat. See Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/A1. - Tanetris 08:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * tyvm Coran Ironclaw 09:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Site Notice for Stage 3
Why was the site notice not used for stage 3 of the election? That could be a massive contributor to the perceived failure of stage 3.... 58.110.142.135 17:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should be used for the entire election. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  <font color="Black">貢  20:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to move discussion phase
At Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/Draft1 I put up a proposal to change the ordering of our phases. Essentially, I merged the existing stages 3 and 4 into one, took the discussion part out of that and moved it between the existing stages 1 and 2 as a new stage, then adjusted the durations.

My reasoning behind the move is the fact that both last elections have been very close, with a discussion on the merrits of the candidates starting after the voting, but not leading to any positive result. I feel that it is important to foster discussion not only of the individual candidates, but especially of comparisons of the candidates, before the voting stage. --Xeeron 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vacant bureaucrat seat
How is this going to work out now?
 * 1) Are we going to remain with only two bureaucrats until the natural time comes for the election that fills that vacant spot (in September)?
 * 2) Are we going to look back at the 2008-02 election and try to figure out who was the second best supported candidate, and get him in the bureaucrat seat for the rest of this term?
 * 3) Or are we going to change this current election to have two winners?

In my opinion, #1 is not a serious option; two bureaucrats only is too limiting (f.i. Kougar's arbitration case would have had to be closed prematurely if Tanaric didn't stick around to finish it), and this sort of do-nothing approach breaks down if even another bureaucrat decides to resign in these next months.

On the other hand, #3 seems would give us the most accurate results, with the bureaucrats elected reflecting the community's wishes at this current time. However, #3 might not be a practical solution if this happens again in the future and the bureaucrat doesn't resign so close to an ongoing election. So maybe #2 would be a more appropriate and consistent course of action.

Thoughts? Is there some other alternative I may be missing? --Dirigible 21:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as Auron and Tanetris are both in the current election, and they were both pretty close to each other, #3 seems to have both the advantages of electing a bureaucrat at this moment in time, and one that was relatively successful in the previous election. If a bureaucrat resigns when there isn't an election so close, I guess we would look to the previous election of that time and find the successor from that. The reason why there is no point doing that in this case is because the same two candidates from the last election are also candidates in this election. --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|15px| ]] Brains12 \ Talk 21:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye whilst I hate to speculate it would seem option 2 and option 3 would probably end up with similar results. Though given the choice I believe option 3 to be better. -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold an interm election (This upcoming one will do.) and have that person fill out the rest of Tanaric's term. <font color="#DD2200">Lord Belar 23:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First, wtf happened?


 * On the issue, not of those three are acceptable to me. '1' is the default, but as pointed out, having three bcrats are wise. Things would have been different if there was only a month left on his term or so. '2' would be preferable if the election had been like the december one, with two top candidates. But in this case, none of the others had that level of community support. '3' is closest in this case, but not enough, as it has already started, and people have made choices on the one seat assumption. (eg. rejecting nominations). So what I'd like to see is:


 * 4. Hold a seperate byelection for the remaining term.


 * Backsword
 * That would be my idea as well. But please after this one has ended. poke | talk 00:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So we have three elections in a row, non-stop? --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|15px| ]] Brains12 \ Talk 01:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we just take the top two candidates from this election? Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 01:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't want too much politics to go along with your too much drama, Calor? Shame!  :P  Election exhaustion is a problem, thou. I'd like to see two candidates from this election selected and one of the elected to have a term longer or shorter to stagger the elections again later. --Aspectacle 01:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First place candidate gets longer term, second place gets shorter term. Problem solved. And yes, I wish to avoid drama (and politics, when possible) altogether. Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 01:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, first place gets the normal term (replaces Xeeron) and second place gets what's left of Tanaric's.  &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( talk ) 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Option 3 doesn't solve the problem of the ongoing arbitration though. That would mean an unnecessary delay to the current arbitration. But option 2 has a problem as well, since using the results of the previous election introduces a problem of what happens if the interim bureaucrat also wins the current election. A by-election will only be helpful if it starts now, otherwise we might as well go with option 3. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 03:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that Tanaric has agreed to see out the case - see his user page. --Aspectacle 03:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A bit late maybe but I think either options 2 or 3 would be best out of the original three options, 3 being the more preferable one especially since voting hasn't even started in the current election. Having a separate by-election as Backsword suggested could work as well although the question is when would it start and would doing it that way be better than just using option 3 from above? -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As most others, both option 2 or 3 works for me. While I think a new election would be ultimate (Backsword's option 4), I don't think the community has the energy to keep up with elections all the time. Option 3 is a version of option 4 as we are in an election already, and as Lemming and others points out, option 3 and 2 would basically end with the same result. My conclusion: no 3, and no 4 being the recommended way for the future. We just merge that one into the current one at this time. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 13:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to believe that Anja is right, that having just completed one election, the community will simply not be able to maintain a sufficient level of interest due to a combination of general apathy and lack of energy. Thus, like a number of other people, I'm inclined to see option 3 as the most viable.  [[Image:User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|19x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  14:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we not also give the people who dropped out of the running a chance to re-enlist into the running now seeing as the number of seats have changed and thus their reasons for dropping out may no longer hold true? -- Salome 14:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The nomination phase is still open.. poke | talk 15:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But not for a week, and people havbe already rejected nominations on the assumption that current candidates are good. (In reallity, expecting Aberrant to win Xeeron's seat, which I think most people do.) So should we renominate them for Tanaric's seat? What if they don't notice, having already rejected, but don't want it. We could end up electing someone who are against being a candidate. But rejecting someone just becuase they prefer Aberrant for the current election is not a good thing either.


 * Also, the seat is formally still Tanaric's. Unlikely, but he might change his mind once he cools down. And we might not get to an agreement here today, which will dealy things anyway.


 * So my preference remains a byelection, starting the nomination phase when the voting phase starts for the current election. That does mean an extra week spent in election mode, but not the full 3.5 so it should be bearable. Backsword 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem about starting it right away is that we would not know the result of the first election yet. So we don't know which of the candidates will be unavaible for the second one. Btw, there is nothing in our election policy preventing candidates from withdrawning from their withdraw, nor from voting for withdrawn candidates. So candidates who change their mind would have till the deciding winners stage to do so (and people wanting to vote for them could do that no matter what).
 * I am more worried about having a clear objective of the election before the voting starts. We need to clearly state whether we are voting for 2 candidates or not before the first votes are cast. --Xeeron 16:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Imo just restart the nomation phase now with a big notice that there are two open seats. And everybody who rejected, who accepted or who did not even thought about becoming a bcrat yet do have a new chance to get nominated. poke | talk 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds the best idea so far. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * gogo --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|15px| ]] Brains12 \ Talk 17:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. Strategic voting would change, but no matter. That only issue I see is the election not getting done in time, leaving us with 2 vacant seats for a short while. Perhaps we could skip or shorten the broken stage three, to make up for it? Backsword 17:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not just use this Saturday or Sunday as the new starting date for the election rather than trying to keep it to the original schedule. Let Xeeron continue as an interim bureaucrat until the newly restarted elections conclude. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 17:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Xeeron filling the seat for a week or so, but would this shift future terms? Would the person elected to replace him get less that six months in order to compensate the late results, or or the terms permanently shifted? Backsword 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me too Poke. Would all the present nominations still stand or would they have to be renominated? -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 17:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I don't think there is a need to start with a blank page.. The nominated users can just move around themself :P
 * And I don't like the idea of waiting till Saturday or Sunday. Just restart it when this discussion has ended.. poke | talk 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't force someone to run, on principle. And at least for me, won't miss the joke noms. Backsword 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If we have 2 seats for 6 months this time, we could later contemplate following that up with "for every normal term end date, elect 2 seats for 8 months" as a new complete long-term system. --Rezyk 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Might be good, but too much of an effort to do now. Backsword 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sum
Since, the suggested time, sat sun midnight UTC, is close, I want to be sure we are agreed. We redo the election, now with the runner up getting Tanaric seat, and Xeeron is asked to stand in in his old seat until elections are done, term lenght as normal. Right? Backsword 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So a second nomination, or this nomination - with a restarted nomination phase - with two winners? poke | talk 20:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yah. I tmakes little practical difference, but I would like to retain the current election for historcial reasons, so thast people in the future can go back and see what happened. Unless someone objects? Backsword 22:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Xeeron said it before, that we don't know how this election ends, so it is difficult for the nomination/voting phase of the new one. And what do you mean with retaining the current election? The only thing we would do is restarting the nomination phase. poke | talk 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea what your first sentece means. As for "retain", I mean not overwriting the data with data from the new election. (eg. the scedule, and any rejected nominations). The new election will ook the same, either way.Backsword 23:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When we start the nomination phase for the second election now, we don't know who will win in the first election so it is more difficult to nominate someone and to vote. By using only one election with two winners, there would not be such a problem. And for keeping data, there is always a history.. poke | talk 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Poke, the one already running would be stoped, ofc. That's a given, and implicit in redo. Having to concurrent elections for that same thing ould be plain silly. I thought that was a nonissue. Should we really delay for this? Backsword 00:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be easiest: Winner gets the "normal" next term, runner up gets the rest of Tanarics term. --Xeeron 23:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When are we doing it then, it's gone past midnight UTC? --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|15px| ]] Brains12 \ Talk 01:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Was going to do it at midnight, but Poke seems to want to keep the current one running, which seems crazy to me, but it is the default option. I guess we could still set up the 'redo', but as I said, what's the point of having two concurrent elections for the same post? Backsword 01:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Backsword, I think you're misunderstanding. I think Poke may have misunderstood your earlier comments as well. (Or, I'm misunderstanding, which to be honest, is likely). Poke wants to restart the current election and decide two winners from that, as Xeeron does - "By using only one election with two winners, there would not be such a problem." --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|15px| ]] Brains12 \ Talk 01:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly. More like not understanding at all, to be honest. No even enough to misunderstand. He does go on about the result from the currently running one, tho'. Backsword 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * His references to the current is meant in this way, as I saw it anyhoo: we should restart this nomination phase for the current election because starting a new nomination phase while the current is on it's voting stage will make it harder to vote and decide for the current election, whilst the new election has only just begun. I hate talking for someone else though, but I doubt Poke will be back on any time soon. In any case, I think we should probably postpone it another day, to midnight on Monday. But carry on the discussion and clear everything up as soon as possible. --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|15px| ]] Brains12 \ Talk 02:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But why restart it? Why dont we keep the current election running and let our two winners come ut of that? -- Shadowphoenix   [[Image:User Shadowphoenix Necromancer.png|19x19px|Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-;]] 01:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So all nominees can have a fair chance of accepting or declining with the knowledge that two winners will come of this. As of now, the declined people cannot accept, thus they may have missed their chance of getting the second seat (Tanaric's). -- Brains12 \ Talk 01:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, imho; we should allow this election to choose 2 winners instead of starting over; most who declined felt they were not ready (most likely) I would hate to start this over and then we have the same canidates we have now. -- Shadowphoenix   [[Image:User Shadowphoenix Necromancer.png|19x19px|Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-;]] 01:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This you say now. But it's unacceptable to not allow people to nominate people they otherwise wouldn't, or accept when they thought another candidate was enough. Backsword 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I would hate to take the chance of no new canidates if we start this over. -- Shadowphoenix   [[Image:User Shadowphoenix Necromancer.png|19x19px|Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-;]] 02:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would rather lose a week than have someone not able to run for election because they could not know about a second available seat. Please, think of the bigger picture. --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|15px| ]] Brains12 \ Talk 02:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see the validity in Brains/Backsword's argument. A week won't kill us. Calor  [[Image:User_Calor_Sig.png|19px|Talk]] 02:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True, waiting an extra week wil not hurt us (although some of us might pull our hair out over the waiting period, wii all wanna kno lol jk). Guess we should just start it over, we have to do it tonight though or ppl will get a bit confused :P -- Shadowphoenix   [[Image:User Shadowphoenix Necromancer.png|19x19px|Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-;]] 02:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a little late to start it now, in my opinion. I think we should halt the current one so no unnecessary voting takes place, then restart with a clear notice and description at 00.00 14th Monday UTC. --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|15px| ]] Brains12 \ Talk 02:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. — T HARKUN [[Image:User_Tharkun_sig.png|16px]] 02:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, any opposes; speak now or forever hold your peace (lol) -- Shadowphoenix  [[Image:User Shadowphoenix Necromancer.png|19x19px|Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-;]] 02:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Just to make sure I got it right since I missed most of the recent discussion. We are starting again on Monday with two people being made bureaucrats, the main one gets Xeeron's seat with a full term and the runner up gets the remaining time of Tanarics term right? If I got it right that sounds like the best way to solve this. -- Kakarot  02:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. :o) -- Shadowphoenix  [[Image:User Shadowphoenix Necromancer.png|19x19px|Please, talk to me; I'm so lonley ;-;]] 03:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would be much safer if the seats were the same..but oh well (not going to oppose). --Rezyk 07:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean both people getting a full term, the runner up would only really be missing out on up to two months since Tanaric's term is March 1, 2008 - August 31, 2008 (they would most likely start immediately after being declared runner up rather than waiting until May 1st). -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 12:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, brains said quite well what I meant.. However as I'm still not sure how we proceed: We restart the current election with 2 open seats, one normal (for winner) with Xeeron's term (May 1, 2008 – October 31, 2008) and another (for second winner) with Tanaric's rest (now - August 31, 2008), this night at 0:00 UTC with the nomination phase - correct? poke | talk 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. (And what's the 12pm for? :P) We'll have to make it clear on the sitenotice that the election has restarted with an extra seat. On the actual election page, we need a description of current events (i.e. Tanaric has resigned) and how that changes things (i.e. two seats available, election restarted). --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|15px| ]] Brains12 \ Talk 16:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, nvm. Just a piece of a text I wanted to write first :P I'll prepare the election page.. There is no problem in using the current one, or? poke | talk 16:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it was still in the nomination phase during most of the discussion there should be no problem in using the current one (if people want it kept maybe copy and paste it to something like Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2008-04 bureaucrat election Original first; can't come up with a decent name at the moment). -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 17:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * [ archived version]? much easier :P poke | talk 17:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah it is :) -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 17:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Offtopic
@Backsword's question. its rly all ryudo's fault cause of what he did on the arbcom page, tanetris banned his sorry ass, and shadowphoniex had a pissy fit over it, and it went downhill from there66.90.104.129 03:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think you can point the finger at one individual to assign blame you'd be completely mistaken. IMO too much politics, too many personalities, a variety of opinions about an already inflamed situation combined with not enough flexibility and understanding over a period of about a week. :) We give sysops discretion, I'm glad they use it and then we start quibbling about it.  It sad and, as only an observer, I find it somewhat amusing.  This is off-topic for this header so please ignore me - I just wanted to add 2c somewhere. :P --Aspectacle 03:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

call me retarded but...
I couldn't help but notice that it says in phase 3:

"Both the total count and ratio of support/oppose votes should not be considered factors (e.g. a candidate who receives a support to oppose ratio of 5:1 could still lose to a candidate with a ratio of 2:1). The winner needs to have a "positive vote balance", that is, more supporting than opposing votes"

surely if someone has a ration of 5:1 support to oppose votes, that's a positive vote balance? and surely it's a greater positive vote balance than someone who receives a 2:1 support to oppose? I'll try and explain my logic.

Candidate 1:
 * 5 supporting votes
 * 1 opposing vote
 * Positive vote balance of 4
 * 5:1 ratio (support to oppose)

Candidate 2:
 * 2 Supporting votes
 * 1 opposing vote
 * positive vote balance of 1
 * 2:1 ratio (support to oppose)

I can understand the need for the positive vote balance if 2 candidates receive the same ratio, but surely someone with a higher support to oppose ratio beats someone with a lower one? I'm probably missing something here, hence the subject title, so if someone could explain to me =p <B><font color="#4F94CD">~PheNaxKian  <font color="#9400D3">Talk </B> 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The first line says that we do not look at ratio or total count (rather, we look at the net count: Support-Opposition). The second sentence means that we do not elect candidates with more opposition than support (even if every other candidate is worse). --Xeeron 11:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok i understand the net count (positive vote balance thing), and i understand that because of that no-one with a greater opposition balance won't get elected.Oh i see now. I was condfused why the ratio wasn't used (i see now it's because even if someone has a ratio of 5:1 and someone has 2:1 the 5:1 could just have 5 and 1 where as the 2:1 could have 20 and 10, which if i'm right in assuming would mean the 2:1 guy wins?). Thought i was being retarded =p. Thanks for the reply. <B><font color="#4F94CD">~PheNaxKian [[Image:User_PheNaxKian_sig.jpg|19px]] <font color="#9400D3">Talk </B> 13:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)