Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2009-02 bureaucrat election/Loves to Sync

Goals
(more to be added later) Loves to Sync 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Increase diversity.
 * Find better ways to deal with negative energy.
 * Can I ask what you mean with "increse diversity"? Also, what are your stances on the bureaucrat position, how would you view a bureaucrat's tasks, what can we expect of you as a bureaucrat, and why do you think you have enough experience with this wiki to be one of the three persons who have the most editing privileges? Thank you in advance. &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why Are We Fighting BlackRose.PNG|User talk:Why Are We Fighting]] 19:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Diversity could mean several things, but in this case I mean to increase the diversity of opinions found at this wiki. There should be tolerance for all sorts of ideas concerning this game and no one should be scared to edit on this wiki because of the police. Loves to Sync 19:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The closest things we have to "police" is the Sysops, but they only take care of things like NPA or spam and other disruptive things. What in the world do you mean, and how do you propose to do such a thing? --[[Image:User PoA Sig.png|Talk]] Antioch 20:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm tolerated on this wiki, don't see why anyone would be scared of discrimination. Misery  20:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be really interested in what you believe the role of a Bureaucrat is on this wiki. What functions do they perform that would allow you to "increase the diversity of opinions on this wiki" since I believe pretty much every opinion is represented fairly thoroughly here. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 20:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You know that everybody here is able to change policies, do you? :-/ poke | talk 20:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Other comments regarding my nomination
You have a mere 16 contributions, spanning the space of roughly one month. Do you honestly think anyone will take this nomination seriously? Vili 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * + that if you do this as a joke youre reputation on the wiki is gone (maybe)? | Cyan Light  Here! | 18:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, his reputation on the wiki. He has 16 contribs, he can delete and start again. Misery  18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, how can he nominate himself when he has only made 16 contributions, whilst the voters have to wait to 100 edits outside userspace etc before their votes are eligible? Im gonna check the policies to see if there is anything against this. --Burning Freebies 18:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything against it, but it's a bit of a mockery and he can't vote for himself. Misery  18:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, there is absolutely nothing against this. And you cant for yourself. --Burning Freebies 18:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, users are allowed to vote for themselves, it's just frowned upon. Vili [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 19:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But Loves to Sync can't vote at all with only 16 contribs. Misery  19:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I try to interpret things in a way that means people are insane. Vili [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 19:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Less than three. Stop splitting imo. Misery  19:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One can nominate themselves with less than 100 edits, however that person can not vote with less than a 100 edits. I've always found that somewhat of an oddity of our election system, but it doesn't really matter enough to propose a change in policy as it always sorts itself out, as people with less than 100 edits never get voted in anyway. -- Salome  [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 20:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I love you. Mini Me  21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, it's all fine and well to try and ask if the user understands the role. Please try and refrain from being mocking or condescending to users who are obviously very new to the wiki. -- ab.er. rant  14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with ab er rant. We elect sysops and bureaucrats to try and get people to stop mockery, so why are you mocking someone who could win the election? --Burning Freebies 17:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not actually why bureaucrats are elected at all Burning Freebies. Misery  18:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like how you're wrong everytime you say something. Mini Me  [[Image:User Mini Me sig.png|19px|talk]] 20:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What, me? Yeah, that does happen when i dont read up on the topic a bit beforehand. --Burning Freebies 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm
Perhaps a fresh wind is what this wiki needs. You have my support although I don't have enough contributions to vote for you. Xhata 17:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wants to ask you something. How do YOU view the role of bureaucrat? --[[Image: User_Ezekial_Riddle_sig.jpg|19px|Talk]] Riddle 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A buffed up sysop. Xhata 13:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More like a neutered sysop. Misery  16:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You should read Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship then <_< poke | talk 17:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, people still see the role as something it isn't. It's actually much more constraining a role that the sysop role and deals with different events, thus its more a sidestep than a step up. -- Salome  [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 17:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)