Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections

Archive

---

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4

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)

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)

Comments about Support/Oppose

Could someone please explain to me why we don't allow them on the actual voting page? Honestly I would think it wouldn't matter if they were on the talk page or on the voting page itself. --Shadowphoenix 14:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If no one can provide a proper reasoning, I would like to propose that we allow comments on the election pages. --Shadowphoenix 19:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The thinking was: Comments => discussion. Discussion = bad on the voting page. Keep discussion on talk page, thus keep comments on talk page. --Xeeron 22:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Then don't allow discussion on voting pages, just comments about why they voted that way. Do it the same way we usually do RfAs --Shadowphoenix 22:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between RfAs and Elections. On RfAs people comment on that user and sort their vote in a category (support/oppose/neutral). In elections we have a voting phase, especially with the last changes of this policy, all votes have an equal weight and only the number of votes decides which candidate will win. There is no evaluation of comments or discussions at that time; the number is important alone. That is why any comments or discussions should not be in the vote-list. poke | talk 23:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I still see no point why this is not allowed... --Shadowphoenix 18:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Because nothing stands to be gained by allowing users to comment except for user comments, which is the goal of the discussion phase, not the voting phase. calor (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting

I know people need 100 contributions to vote, but what if the person is on the wiki for a long time??? Why can't they vote? I think persons with fewer contributions then 100 who are here for a long time should vote for an important thing, because, well, they know the people who are nominated good enough to know or they are good or not..... Thanks, |Cyan LightHere!| 19:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Say someone joined the wiki the day it was created. That person then left two days later and came back only yesterday. Would he/she know who would be a good bureaucrat and who wouldn't? Erasculio 19:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, I was pointing to people who are active too on the wiki..... |Cyan LightSnowflakes...| 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And was pointing to myself ^^ |Cyan LightSnowflakes...| 19:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Same thing. Imagine someone who comes here every day since the wiki was created...And makes one edit per page at his/her userpage, ignoring the rest of the wiki. That person does not know who the bureaucrats candidats are or even what a bureaucrat is. In the end, the goal of the wiki is documenting the game; the bureaucrat election requires contributors to do that. Erasculio 19:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Also you have enough contributions to vote.. poke | talk 20:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What? Are you sure? -.- stupid me.... But in fact, there are people here who are active in the wiki community, but haven't enough contributions. I think they can vote on a honest way.... |Cyan LightSnowflakes...| 07:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It all comes down to whether you believe someone when they say they "check in daily", yet they don't edit. Vili 07:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, implementing this MediaWiki feature would be rather convenient for these sorts of checks. Vili 07:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup Cyan after checking your posts you seem to have about 120-ish qualifying posts. -- Salome 11:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Poke has a contrib count tool available here (bottom of the page) that everyone can use without the requirement of an additional extension being involved. -- Wyn 15:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about installing editcount is here. And Wyn, people who refuse to use firefox can't use poke's script. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 16:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Works in Google Chrome. --JonTheMon 16:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's probably because chrome bothers to comply with web standards, and IE doesn't >.> ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 16:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, but I think that there should be a rule that if people can show that they are knowing the wiki community good enough, they may vote... Not everybody can add much info to the wiki, because the wiki is very complete. But if they knowing the comunity they can vote honest.... Of course, if 'we' don't trust it, then we can remove the vote, and this rule can only be used for people who ask for it..... It is only an idea, and if it isn't possible or clear, I respect that, but I wanted to discuss this point... |Cyan LightSnowflakes...| 17:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is far away from being complete... Also if someone is not able to even get involved into discussions in GWW namespace, it is quite obvious that the one lacks knowledge of the candidates.. poke | talk 18:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well ok, I see your point. But I wanted to discuss this anyway.... And are you pointing to me or is that a random example??? ^^ |Cyan LightSnowflakes...| 18:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I have 1,960 edits, but bugger all for the last six months or so (big-time wikibreak). Who has the most insight into current bureaucrat candidates, me or someone with far fewer edits but who has been majorly active in recent months? Agent provocateur, c'est moi :D --snograt 18:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Im not the chosen one to aceept that or not, but I think you know that the best by your self ^^ |Cyan LightSnowflakes...| 18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked users

I would like to propose that we add the following line to the "These are not allowed"-list in Phase 1:

• Users that are blocked during more than two complete stages of the election process (not counting stage 0).

Comments please. poke | talk 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just be careful with how that will open the sysop staff to accusations of blocking people to prevent them from being elected. I don't really care whether the line is implemented or not, but the sysops/bcrats should think very hard about the implications and what accusations they want to deal with in the future. Misery 18:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If a user is blocked on or near the time of an upcoming election, for reasons totally irrelevant to it (e.g. NPA or somethin), then it should be totally obvious to anyone with half a brain that it's in no way an attempt to "silence the candidate"...especially because aside from a few perennial nominees, it's never certain who will get nominated; and conversely, you can never anticipate when a user will decide to be baed and get blocked. It is a completely different story if a user is blocked during the election, because that could be seen as some form of ladder manipulation electioneering...but if it's blatantly obvious the ban was warranted, no valid accusations can be made anyway. (e.g. blocking a candidate because they are using socks to inflate their vote count = can't complain about that).

About Poke's proposal - are banned users allowed to start/edit an RfA for themselves while banned? Didn't think so. I think it is fine to add the line. Vili 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why something like this wasn't added since we have it in the RfA policy ("contributor in good standing"). So yeah, I think this would be a good addition to the policy. --Shadowphoenix 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there the line was from - if you like we can change the initial text to "Any registered user in good standing may be nominated [...]" instead. poke | talk 19:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no need. If they truly are so bad, people won't vote for them. SO why prevent that? And yes, misery is right. Things we're set up much more formalistic for elections as there is noone to take the positions of bcrats in rfas. It was intentionally made so that no group of established editors could be excluded. I see no reason to abandon that. Backsword 02:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Backsword. --Xeeron 11:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What about trolls? There are plenty of trolls out there that would love to get someone like Shard elected as bureaucrat. I think that this is a good way to ensure that something like that doesn't happen. --Shadowphoenix 16:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You think there are more trolls than constructive users on the wiki? Interesting. Misery 16:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but I do think that this would be a preventive measure. --Shadowphoenix 16:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone who you would exclude from being elected becomes elected it suggests a significant change in the climate of the user base to a point where they should no longer be excluded. Disallowing blocked users from running is like disallowing the communist party in democratic countries. Misery 16:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I see both points here but I have to admit I agree with Misery on this one, one must have faith in the system. If all the trolls came together and voted for 1 person, say the troll king, then we may have an issue, but I'm sure we have more than enough constructive editors who would vote against such a person to block it. If not, you can always request the person reconfirm. If that then fails, then we would have far bigger problems than 1 troll sysop, as the user base would have changed to a somewhat negative basis. -- Salome 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem allowing nominations of blocked users, just as I don't see a problem allowing joke nominations. If we want to emphasize on the "good standing" part, joke nominations should be blocked as well I think. Also, since a blocked user can't technically accept a nomination using their own account, should we say that nomination acceptance by proxy is disallowed? -- ab.er.rant 08:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is no requirement for a nomination acceptance, so that wouldn't make the nominations invalid. However I think you are right that the community will reject those nominations, that should not be valid candidates, automatically, so I'll remove this from the proposed policy changes. poke | talk 12:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Requirements

Are there any requiremnts to vote in these elections? Never really voted in them before. — Jon Lupen 02:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Registered user with at least 100 edits in relevant namespaces. Backsword 03:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

How can I go about getting a count of that? — Jon Lupen 03:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some scipt tools people have made to make it easy, but you don't really need them, just sort your contributions page by namespace and add up. Backsword 03:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. — Jon Lupen 03:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Poke/GuildWarsWikiTools (at the bottom). poke | talk 16:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

By my reckoning you have 24 relevant contributions, so you are quite a bit short. Feel free to correct me, my knowledge of policies isn't that sound. Misery 16:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I count 87... poke | talk 16:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I get 87 too :P -- Brains12 \ talk 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The last time I checked mine I read it as 193 ... did I count wrong? (I can't use Poke's script ...) Ghosst • Talk • 23:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

At least you have enough. poke | talk 00:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I'm dumb, I didn't count the GWW space. 17 edits, GOGOGOGOGO! Misery 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant 13 edits GOGOGOGO! ;) -- Salome 00:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly math is not my strong point. Misery 08:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

11 to 7

Can we reduce the voting stage to a wqeek? It seems needlessly long. Seven is not short, but we extend other stages to a week so that people on a weekly shedule can participate. Another four days just makes elections longer than needed. There is alwats a lull in the middle anyways. Backsword 09:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you forgotten the previous discussion on this matter? Vili 09:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the long time; it's not that we need to hurry with elections.. poke | talk 14:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with poke. --Antioch 00:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Qualifying edits

Should image uploads that are for use in User or Guild space count as qualifying edits? -- Wyn 14:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally not, but it would make it a bit too complicated to count imo.. poke | talk 14:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not that difficult, I just don't see considering someone qualified to vote who has uploaded 100 images for use in their user or guild space. -- Wyn 15:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, we should probably update the policy to exclude edits in the feedback namespace. Misery 20:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I agree. While feedback is useful, I don't think it would help "qualify" someone to vote for a bureaucrat. Freedom Bound 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything in Guild, User, ArenaNet, and Feedback namespaces is excluded - right path to head down? I think so... Anyone disagree? calor (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Antioch 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's only sensible since the Feedback namespace is replacing 90% of the ArenaNet namespace. I would like the policy clarified regarding the images as well if everyone agrees. -- Wyn 23:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree to adding the Feedback namespace to the list of excluded edits, about the image though I am unsure at this time. --Kakarot 03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Wyn. If we are excluding these namespaces, then it stands to reason that images uploaded for sole use in these places should be excluded also. -- Salome 03:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Salome, but aside from doing it by hand, there's really no way of checking that. calor (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And your point Calor? Of course it means checking it by "hand". Does everything have to be automated to be good? -- Wyn 21:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well... yes. Just kidding. Honestly, it's fine, just people should be aware they'll have a bit of a hassle counting. But I'm fine with implementing the clause about guild/user images as well. calor (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Talk namespace edits should also not qualify. I was all ready to score out a useless person's vote, but discovered they have almost exclusively used the Talk namespace. What do people think about people that only make edits in the Talk namespace without ever actually contributing to an article? Biscuits 15:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion in the talk namespace is often almost as important as article edits themselves. Very much opposed to discounting them. By the way, where were you going to strike it, seeing as the voting stage for this election has not yet begun? -- pling 15:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I just tried to say the same thing, so I'll just say, +1 to Pling. -- FreedomBound 15:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It was on one of the recent RfAs. I see your point about discussion being useful. Some people exclusively keep their contributions to the feedback, user, guild, etc. namespaces, with the talk namespace being an expansion of that. I'm talking about the "here's my two cents" kind of posts. Not that I can really talk, my contributions here have been pretty minimal for ages. Biscuits 23:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the contributions in User, Guild, and Feedback namespace are not qualifying edits to begin with, discounting those talk page edits is also not an issue. I do believe that contributions to discussions in the allowed namespaces should count (policy discussions ALL happen on talk pages) and lead to often valuable changes to the associated article. -- Wyn talk 23:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

RfAs don't require qualifying edits, by the way, only the bureaucratic elections. -- FreedomBound 00:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That's because RfA's aren't decided by a simple vote tally. Vili 点 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's Time...

It's almost time for a new election for Misery's BCrat seat. As I see it, it takes about ~22 days or so for a full election to take place and complete. When is the optimal time for the new page etc. to be created? I would create it now but I want to reach a consensus on this as to when new election pages should be created. -- Lacky 02:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I allways thought they were created when the sysops chose to do so. Drogo Boffin 02:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"An election subpage should be created (by anyone) at Guild_Wars_Wiki:Elections/<Date>_<election type>"

- Nope. -- Lacky 02:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn Drogo Boffin 02:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, so should I create it or should we wait a couple more days? -- Lacky 05:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It gets started, when it needs to get started, not earlier or later. poke | talk 08:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that's what I was asking. When does it need to? By my recollection it should be around the 8th or 9th or so. -- Lacky 20:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The policy states how long each phase goes, the term ends on the 31th at 23:59. poke | talk 20:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So eager to get rid of me Lacky? :< Misery 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Go away.
On a more serious note, do you plan to run for reelection? — Why 22:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I partially want to see how things pan out. Misery 22:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. I was planning to slap your name on GWW:RFA as soon as your term was over. — Why 23:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

@Misery: Why would I want to do that? I love your moo cows.

@Poke: Exactly, and an election takes about 22 days or so, so if we get prepared now, we can be right on schedule. -- Lacky 23:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "preparation" necessary. The page gets created when the nomination period starts. - Tanetris 23:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well as I was asking originally, when is the optimal time for that period to start? -- Lacky 00:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

When the term ends, which isn't for a month... – Emmett 01:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's actually incorrect, the end of the election is supposed to coincide with the end of the term. Lacky's question is reasonable, so I don't know why anyone hasn't answered it:

Stage 1: (December 10, 2009 – December 16, 2009 11:59 PM UTC) Nominating candidates. Misery 08:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I wanted him to count himself. poke | talk 09:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even count ^^ Misery 09:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I did count Poke, however I didn't know if there was any leeway with it or something.

Cheers Misery! -- Lacky 10:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Voting (2)

Here's a hypothetical situation. Some user has multiple accounts, say, User:Rawr Rawr and User:Imma Dinosaur. He has made at least 100 edits on both accounts, so both are eligible for voting in a bcrat election.

My question is, would it be allowed to do so? And does it matter if they are known to be the same user or not? There are plenty of us out there who have known "shoepuppet" accounts which we do not use to contribute but that we reserve for various reasons such as signature redirects... and, on the other hand, there are many sock accounts which can't be proved to belong to any particular user. Vili 点 05:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that a user is not given multiple votes on account of having several hundred or more edits, I would assume the answer is no. –Jette 05:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not really allowed to vote with sockpuppets.. But as we won't be able to know all sockpuppets, try it and be happy that you successfully cheated in the election. poke | talk 12:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And we'll be happy that you wasted that much time getting to 100 edits on multiple accounts. -- FreedomBound 13:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you really have that much edits on your socks Vili? O.o — Why 16:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the first sentence was "Here's a hypothetical situation," and anyway most of Vili's socks were made for nifty one-liners or similar situations. – Emmett 18:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was merely jesting. Shutting up already. — Why 01:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a sock with enough edits to vote. Maybe even a second one. But you can when I am on one of my socks. Drogo Boffin 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Forcing acceptance statement.

Since in last bcrats elections we have had candidates that didn't declare they were actually running (and some of them that didn't even know they were running) would it be possible to modify the current policy from:

• Candidates who are nominated by another user are urged (but not required) to indicate a clear acceptance or declination before stage 2.

To

• Candidates who are nominated by another user are required to indicate a clear acceptance before stage 2. Failure to comply will mean the candidacy was not accepted.

This, to make the bureaucrat candidacy selection consistent with the admin election process (and to save everyone a bit of work when voting for unknown names posted by sockpuppets).--Fighterdoken 01:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in this... Looks good. calor (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, if you're gonna make it a req, at least push it back to stage 3. So when stage 2 comes around, you can give a warning. --JonTheMon 04:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As for stage 3, i see it already a bit late for the intended purpose. Forcing it at stage 2 would save having to discuss about candidates that aren't actually "running".--Fighterdoken 07:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider, a moment, the scenario of someone who's been nominated right at the end of the nomination phase and doesn't check the wiki hourly. Weigh this against a few "wasted" words on whether that person (who, even if they don't accept, might run in the future) would make a good bureaucrat or not. Which people tend to discuss during the nomination period anyway. - Tanetris 10:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That, Tanetris could obviously be an exception to the rule, or there could be a separate clause for those people. But honestly, think about it. How many people in the past have been nominated right at the end of the nomination stage? Weigh that against how many elections there has been as well. It's very unlikely to happen. -- Lacky 11:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, for example, the winner of the most recent election was nominated with about 8 hours left in the nomination stage. Separate clauses for exceptions would only serve to complicate the policy. - Tanetris 12:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what Fighterdoken proposes sounds fine. --Antioch 07:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is a great idea. It shows who is too lazy for the job and who isn't. -- Lacky 08:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's actually not what it shows at all. -Auron 08:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It rather shows possible inactivity. -- Cyan 11:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just say people have three days to accept or decline after being nominated. Looking at the last three elections, no real candidate took more than two days to accept, and three days make sure the nomination isn't missed for being in the weekend. Erasculio 12:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why we should amend policies to fix nonexistent problems. Placing burdens on potential candidates to ease the illogical stresses of certain voters just doesn't make sense to me. Vili 点 15:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The only real problem I can see with the way things are is the fact that some users didn't realise they were being nominated. Maybe just make it a requirement for whoever nominated the person to notify them on their talk page. They can always decline at a later point if they don't want to run. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That is already common practice anyway, I don't see a need to codify that into policy either. – Emmett 16:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is already common practice, what harm would codifying it cause? The most common form of policy is writing down what we already do. elix Omni 16:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I guess i will put two examples of what i talk about:

• 42's nomination by a first-time user/sockpuppet. Note how 42 never ever talked about the nomination.
• Xeeron's nomination, that he only found out a week after the election already finished.

Is not really a problem of "seeing who is active". My intention is just to prevent candidates running when they don't know or are unable to know they are nominated (ie. Xeeron), or for easily troll-able candidates to be put up just for the lulz and in order to bash them into oblivion (ie, 42).

Also, the intention behind this is not to force candidates to make a speech about their qualities, just to put a simple "Accepted" mark on the page.--Fighterdoken 17:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with Xeeron running and not even knowing about it. If he was the best candidate and won (which is possible) then he might have missed the first bit of his term. With year long terms, missing a week or two is not a big deal. I would be very surprised if someone who missed say, 3 months of their term, would ever be elected in the first place, as it would be a huge coincidence if a 3 month unplanned absence of the best candidate coincided with an election. As for the 42 incident, obvious trolling, should have just been deleted using sysop discretion. Instead of making unnecessary policy changes, I recommend we simply be more powerful. Luckily I happen to now be in a position to put my money where my mouth is. If someone geniunely objects to the deletion of a nomination, it can simply be undone. It's been done before when we had an influx of troll nominations and I don't know why it didn't happen this time. At the very least, move the automatic decline until the start of voting for reasons already outlined above. Misery 18:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidates who are nominated by another user are required to indicate a clear acceptance before stage 3. Failure to comply will mean the candidacy was not accepted. This is better so a candidate will have at least three days to contemplate accepting or declining a nomination. Loves to Sync 18:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

After a second thought on why the "at least 3 days" argument keeps showing up, i think it would be fine that way.

@Misery, discretion is intended to be a way to solve things that policy can't cover, not to be a "i do what i think it's fine" rule (or else, we end with a "revert perma-bans" situation). As for the situation at hand, it can be easily solved for trolling nominations by just changing the mentioned line.--Fighterdoken 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to act on common sense than attempt to cover every situation with rules. Naturally I realise this has come from a problem that has actually occurred, so I am not strongly opposed to a line similar to how my good friend Loves to Sync worded it. I'm just pretty "Meh, if you really want to" about it because it is conceivable that for example, that Defiant Elements gets held up while holidaying in the depths of the empty zone in Saudi by a sandstorm and misses the window to accept his nomination by a couple of weeks, completely unplanned and as such without informing the wiki population at large, even though everyone was happy by his service and would rather retain him for the next year than the only other candidate who is currently running, everyone's favourite candidate, Loves to Sync. I'd love it if someone could write a policy line that would encompass both situations, but it doesn't exist. I do accept that the sandstorm is a less likely situation though, so I won't oppose the changes proposed with the additional suggestions, but it would be cool if you could think about the other problem too. Misery 22:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal because it solves no problems and creates additional ones. If the incredibly unlikely case that this proposal is meant to solve actually occurs, we can deal with it under the existing "vacating seats" section of the policy. —Tanaric 22:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) ... and what if he didn't want to run for another term? Do we still force him? A candidate being present can affect how other candidates are voted, so just "running the list" or picking by hand is not the best option.

In any case, as for your concern, we could just allow preemptive acceptance of nominations. We all know when elections are going to come, so if a user feels that he would like to be nominated (instead of doing it himself), but won't be on-line when that happends, he could just leave a note on his userpage or ask another user (through the wiki to leave a record) that he wants to be nominated.

Preemptive acceptance shouldn't really conflict with the proposed change since it would still be an "explicit acceptance statement", even if not on the page itself.

@Tanaric, as you say, doesn't really solve any problem. It's just intended to prevent bashing on ignored joke nominations, non-aware users running with them being not aware, and ensure that we all vote for candidates that are actually running instead of just being there to "see what happends" without pronouncing once. Even more, the vacated seat section is intended for, well, vacated seats, not for "right after the election", even if it can be applied.

In any case, i don't see what real problem could this originate; care to elaborate?--Fighterdoken 23:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Since two bureaucrats can already remove the third bureaucrat according to our policy ("Bureaucrats can only be removed before their term end [...] by unanimous votes of the other bureaucrats (as long as there are at least 2 others)."), they should be able to remove joke/troll nominations as they see fit without a perception of unfairness or non-democratic-ness, as perhaps would occur if sysops were the ones to do it. That said, I'm not opposed to sysops just deleting joke/troll nominations, but what we have in GWW:ADMIN already caters (somewhat) for an unsatisfactory bureaucrat candidate. -- pling 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? I think this is the solution to an non-existing problem. Despite the many elections we had, I have not seen a single one where we had a problem. If there is a non-serious vote, some 20 people vote oppose, done. That said, I have no problem with forcing candidates to state they are running either. However, I am against sysop discretionarily removing candidates from the vote. That should be left to voters (via oppose votes). We never, ever want to come into the position were candidates are removed simply because sysops feel they will not be voted for. --Xeeron 23:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with the reasoning. There have been (and likely will be) troll nominations, where the nominated user was nominated solely to generate negative votes, where the drama caused by removing said nomination is much less than it could be, were the nomination allowed to proceed. Those should be allowed to be removed, via the method they already have been, sysop discretion. -- FreedomBound 23:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, those joke nominations (42 case comes to my mind) would be removed without having to use "discretion" with the proposed change (since the affected user just ignores it). On the other hand, joke nominations where the user actually wants to run "for the lulz" (ie, Shard) would still stay.--Fighterdoken 23:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to...

...impose a requirement of 100 edits if you want to nominate someone. Those troll sock nominations aren't helping. — Why 10:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this shouldn't be implemented; it won't hurt anyone. If a user without 100 edits wants to (seriously) nominate someone, he/she can always ask someone who does have 100 edits. - Mini Me talk 10:20, 18 June 2010

It's a good idea. For simplicity's sake, the requirement ought to be the same as the requirement to vote, but that's a minor point. elix Omni 10:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The sock nominations should just be closed or reverted like mis did to one earlier. Not a really big deal. -Auron 11:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Mis just reverted because it was too late. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to either the requirement or Auron's solution, since obviously the community can't realize when they are being trolled through the election process and just leave it alone. -- FreedomBound 11:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you also mean to exclude the possibility of legitimate proxy nominations? For example, lets say Auron hates me, but he really thinks I would make a good bureaucrat, but no one else will nominate me. He makes a sock to nominate me so that he is not seen to be publicly supporting me (Armond would call him a shitter), but the nomination goes through. Also, look at the candidates, is it actually a problem? Misery 12:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Auron is not the kind of coward that would hide behind a proxy IP, so your argument is invalid. elix Omni 12:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this idea to keep anonymous nominations possible (what Misery said). poke | talk 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)