Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 ArenaNet namespace 2 Revisiting Term Lengths

[edit] ArenaNet namespace

Does it count towards 100? I think it shouldn't. It's a lot like Gaile's user talk, and that, obviously didn't count. Also, the purpose of the 100 edits was to make sure 100 edits were made for the direct betterment of the wiki, which is not the purpose of the ArenaNet namespace. Calor 22:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The ArenaNet namespace consists of pages which (nearly) all existed in the user namespace, so it should be excluded as well. poke | talk 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. — ク Eloc 貢 02:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Implemented. Calor 02:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Now this is what I call consensus :D. -- Brains12 \ talk 11:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Um. I don't disagree with the intent, but is this changing the election policy in the middle of an election?Cassie 12:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, it shouldn't have any impact on the election since voting (and by extension edit tallying) doesn't take place until the third stage. I would say it would only be a problem if you were to change the requirement either during or after the voting stage. 85.71.168.42 12:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is changing the voting phase before the voting phase. Calor 18:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it the ArenaNet namespace contribs that you don't think should count, or the ArenaNet_talk contribs? -- Dashface 10:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

They are one and the same, similar to how the User namespace is the same as the User talk, and Guild as Guild talk. Neither ArenaNet or ArenaNet talk count as eligible. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting Term Lengths

I realize people are somewhat tired of policy discussions (and this one in particular), but I think it's high time to revisit the question of term lengths, a question that was largely set aside in the last policy proposal in the interests of consensus. With three Bureaucrats, each with a six month term length, we have an Election every two months (six elections a year). Given that each Election is not quite a month, we spend nearly half of our time in "Election mode." I understand the qualms people have when it comes to increasing the term lengths, and I'm not gonna bother re-asserting my own arguments (which can be found on the talk page of the most recent Election proposal) yet, but I'd like to at least attempt to restart the discussion. Thoughts? *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Less elections, somehow. If it's longer term length, so be it. But as this point in time, I'd also like to introduce the possibility of not staggering the terms. Have an election every six months. The top three candidates, by votes and discussion (rwad: how it is now), become bureaucrats. One out of every six months would be spent in election mode. Calor 21:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the current total time for an election is only 22 days and with six per year that's a fair bit less than half the time (about 36%). Anyway, regardless of how often we're having elections, the important thing is how long the term is. There are plenty of things that are done continuously around here and I would see no problem if we were in continuous election mode. All things considered, I believe the current scenario of three bureaucrats each being elected to a six month term works well for this wiki. -- Inspired to ____ 21:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it either; as you can see from the current election it is quite drama-less and really easy to work through it. So if there are more or less elections doesn't really matter. poke | talk 21:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I for one think that 36% is still too high. And I don't see the benefit of continuous election mode. While turnover can bring fresh blood/renewed energy to a position, people currently in the position tend to be more productive the longer they have been working. --JonTheMon 21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the basis for your claim that Bcrats tend to be more productive the longer they have been working? -- Inspired to ____ 21:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would expect a Bureaucrat to be faster and more knowledgable in a 2nd term than a first term. Besides learning the tools, the Bureaucrat has to learn how the policies fully apply to him/her and what is expected of him/her. He/she also may not have gone through an arbitration or similar situation before. --JonTheMon 21:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that I really agree there's anything to your claim; but if there is, it would rather seem to be an argument to elect someone who has already been a bcrat, assuming they had done a good job, etc. and not an argument for longer terms. -- Inspired to ____ 22:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Personally i am not a fan of longer terms. In any case, another option could be to just consolidate the three elections into one. Since current candidates can still run, and our winning method is clear, i don't think there are problems with that option anymore.--Fighterdoken 21:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would be more agreeable to removing the staggered terms than to lengthen the term. -- ab.er.rant 03:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me if that's what people want. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That's what we need, the possibility of three new bureaucrats at the same time...oh wait, I suppose that would just basically guarantee that the existing bureaucrats would be re-elected because no one would vote to risk a complete change all at once. -- Inspired to ____ 03:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Slippery slope. That is all. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Inspired gets to the critical point: We deliberately introduced staggered terms to ensure that there are always 2 "experienced" bureaucrats around. Giving that up simply to reduce the number of elections seems a bad trade for me, especially when the easier method of having longer terms exists. --Xeeron 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

we could have 9 month terms, with elections every 3 months. That seems to me a good solution because if i remember corectly 1 year terms were quite unpopular, so this would be a good middle ground.--Sum Mesmer Guy contribs 10:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to a situation where all 3 bureaucrats are re-elected at the same time, there could be issues where by an existing arbitration could not go ahead during the election due to uncertainty over who would actually still be in place to arbitrate it. Also the idea of replacing all three at the same time potentially leads to a situation where you have 3 bureaucrats with zero experience between them. At least with staggering there is someone with at least a few months under their proverbial belt. --Lemming 21:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration responsibility falls to the users that hold the responsibility at the time the arbitration request is made. But I can understand the concern; I just don't think the experience issue is that big a deal. Either way works for me. -- ab.er.rant 15:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Given recent history, the possibility that all 3 Bureaucrats would be replaced at one time seems slim, if you look at the candidates nominated in the past few elections. The chances that incumbent Bcrats are not all nominated (much less elected) seems a bit of a reach. Unless we had a total shift in community population, I don't believe it would be realistic to anticipate 3 inexperienced Bcrats at one time. This being said, I really have no problem with the way the system is now. What real effect does it have on the workings of the wiki to have elections going on as often as we do now? How many ArbComm cases are there ever going at one time? I don't believe the current Bcrats have had any since the past election. The shorter terms simply give the chance for more people to have the opportunity to participate in the process. -- Wyn 16:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)