Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2007-06 bureaucrat election

Mission statement

Currently, the candidates pages only show a very short and neutraly framed description. Additionally, I would love to see a statement by the candidates themselves on there (under a new subheader). Especially what their opinions on some of the controversial topics on the wiki are, what they plan to do or not do if elected, and so on. --Xeeron 10:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So, Tanaric, do you support abortion? IS THAT SO? Ab.er.rant, what is your stance on gay marriage? Dirigible, The war in Iraq? Lol. How many controversial topics do we have on this wiki? -Auron 10:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User pages and guild pages spring to mind, there is a lot of disagreement on the policy for both of these. --Lemming64 12:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The size of userpages, the scope of guild pages and the userspace, the existance of builds and non-english articles, the retention of legacy articles, there are a few around, but of course I dont want a precise answer. Rather something like "I prefer a wiki closely focused on documenting the game" vs "I believe the wiki should allow users much scope to create non-game related articles" or "Sysops should strictly follow a large set of policies" vs "There should only be a small set of policies and sysops with large discretional power". --Xeeron 12:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's the slander, where's the bribes, where's the use of candidate funding to get a $300 haircut? Forget the important issues, I want to see the drama. :P Seriously, it would be easy to see the knowledge and ideals for the growth of GWW, instead of trudging through each candidates' contributions for any information regarding important issues. Quite frankly, and I'll say this now before the voting even starts, I believe a nomineee for a bcrat should be experienced as a sysop before even being considered, as it is a big step. Not exactly how I see the positions of sysops, members, and bcrats, but here is a decent example that comes to mind. You will hardly, if ever, see a regular worker be promoted to upper management. — Gares 14:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the bureaucrat/ArbComm position does not grant any additional say in terms of site policy, I don't see why this would be helpful. —Tanaric 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is important enough that needs to be made absolutely clear: bureaucrats have exactly as much say on content issues as anyone else on the wiki and not one gram more (we made sure of that!). See Guild Wars Wiki: Adminship, bureaucrats here are merely a conflict resolution mechanism, purely centered around user disputes (which may be User vs User or User vs Community). And as such, there's only two activities that bureaucrats can possibly do on this wiki: 1) give and take sysop powers, per community decision through RfAs and such, 2) work as a group through the ArbComm to solve those user disputes. That's it, nothing else.

If you still want to know the answers to those kinds of questions, (curiosity is always a perfectly acceptable reason), that discussion should probably happen in the talk pages of those candidates. A "Mission statement" header would be inappropriate, I think; we don't want anyone to be under the false impression that those answers have anything to do with these users' activity as bureaucrats.

And as for the regular worker being promoted to upper management issue, Gares, I don't think this is upper management at all. A bureaucrat here on the GWW is very unlike a bureaucrat on GuildWiki. You'll basically only hear about them when there's a RfA that needs finalizing and when someone calls the ArbComm to solve some kind of user dispute. These bureaucrats don't need to be experienced with the sysop tools because in their position they won't be using those sysop tools. There's no such hierarchy progression as "normal user --> sysop --> bcrat" on the GWW (for better or for worse). --Dirigible 15:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Forget the facts! I want controversy! So far, the best we have is your running for a position, which can only be won via votes, while haiving on your subpage the statement "What I'm against ... Voting – A poll to summarize opinion is okay. A vote that decides... anything! ... is not. Votes are about as unwiki as one can get, as they give everyone an equal voice regardless of their qualifications or knowledge. Discussion gives those with insight more of a say, which is how things ought to be."

While being ironic, it totally fails to satisfy the public craving for gossip, drama, and controversy! Don't any of the candidates watch TV? It's ALL about pointless drivel these days - even on the news stations the muck slinging is a higher priority than facts, logic, reason, and intelligent discourse!  ;-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay - enough with the humor. The full abilities / authority granted to b-cats is listed at Guild_Wars_Wiki:Adminship#Bureaucrats. Basically, the right to assign/revoke sysops, and the responsibility to act on the Arbcomm when called upon are the main issues. The question comes down to which of the candidates that people feel will be the most reasonable and fair in their judgements. That's really not something that can be expressed in a statement from a candidate - other than maybe linking to past examples. Reviewing prior contributions really is the best way to determine which candidate you will support. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Dirigible, I did say I didn't see the roles of members, sysops, and bcrats exactly as my example states, though the example does bring some truth regarding this process as my last sentence will show. I do believe and I have stated numerous times that everyone is equal and are all subject to the policies that bind us as well. As to GuildWiki, that is a separate wiki all together with a different style and shouldn't even be considered in regards to my post. Finally, while bcrats are only called on for certain duties, they should still be experienced and knowledgable with every aspect of the wiki. This includes policies, sysop tools, involvement in discussions, and diffusing user disputes. — Gares 15:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dirigible is right in pointing out that bcrats have no additional say about content decisions, so excuse my missleading header. I'd still be interested in hearing a bit more from the candidates instead of having to dig through thousands of old edits. I brought it up here instead of the candidates talk pages to prevent me from editing 4 pages instead of 1. --Xeeron 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've written a mission statement per your request and placed it on my candidate talk page. —Tanaric 03:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rezyk's statement about Mission statements

I kind of think these all really belong on the candidate subpages (where the votes will go) instead of here.. This page is where we talk about the election in general. --Rezyk 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well thats what I thought, and that's where I put mine, but then I thought I would follow the trend here. --Lemming64 00:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I liked your original way. =) --Rezyk 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they probably belong on candidate talk pages, not the candidate pages themselves. Honestly, I don't think my ideals for the wiki should have anything to do with this election, but I'm always happy to elucidate my position when requested. —Tanaric 01:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me too. It's really up to each candidate; even a user subpage makes sense. I would just prefer them..not here. (Providing a link to answer the question would be appropriate though) --Rezyk 18:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. --Rezyk 19:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sonner

Is this a real nomination or just an anon user messing about? Sonner has been a member of the wiki for a short time and his only contributions so far have been to the User namespace. --Lemming64 14:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything prohibits him from being added to the list of nominees. LordBiro 15:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My first point was the main point, a non logged in user added the nomination and has not completed it, which is why I was wondering if it was a real nomination or not. --Lemming64 16:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless that anon editor tell us otherwise, we should treat it as a real nomination. Of course asking Sonner whether he is willing to stand is a good idea, being new to the wiki, he might not be aware of being nominated. --Xeeron 16:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I shall leave a message on his talk page. --Lemming64 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have been more explicit, but I meant that both Sonner being nominated is acceptable, and an anon nominating him is acceptable, according to policy. LordBiro 17:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be addressed for next time as a separate issue, I find it bizarre that you need 100 or so edits to be able to vote, but not to be nominated :) --Lemming64 17:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right :) hehe LordBiro 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If no candidate nomination subpage has been created by the end of phase 1, I think by the current rules it can be considered an invalid nomination and stricken struck from the article. —Tanaric 18:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. LordBiro 18:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Time check

24 hours left for nominations. Remember, the rules specify UTC time, for better or worse.. --Rezyk 00:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Definition

What's Bureaucrat? I searched Special:Listusers/Sysop and there is only a red link to Bureaucrat.--Eloc 02:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put a redirect to Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship#Bureaucrats there. --Rezyk 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I noticed that the "Sysop" link on that page just redirects back to itself. Should that one be changed to point to Guild_Wars_Wiki:Adminship#Sysops? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and changed it to eliminate the circular reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Banner

Am I jumping the gun a bit in wondering if the banner should now be updated to note that the election is now in the voting phase, not the nomination phase? Unless it has been changed and I've got some weird caching thing going on that hasn't spotted it :) BramStoker (talk, contribs) 08:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It has now been updated. -- Dashface 10:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Same thing again, it stills says voting phase on the banner. --Lemming64 16:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The sitenotice banner is deactivated o.O? poke | talk 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The site notice was blanked as soon as the voting phase finished. I imagine in this specific election this is okay, since there is an unambiguous winner, but in future elections I think we should keep the banner up with the current phase noted.

Note that, due to the caching mechanism of Mediawiki, it takes a while for site notice changes to propagate.

—Tanaric 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Votes from people under 100 edits

Do we just strike these out or leave them until stage 3? --Lemming64 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Strike them out at the beginning for stage 3, IMO. MisterPepe talk 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Strike them out ASAP, I think, to iron out any points of contention early. --Rezyk 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if we strike them out at the beginning of stage 3, they would have some time to meet the 100 edits req by June 19 which is unlikely for new users unless they truly want their votes to count. You can strike them out now or later.--Bane of Worlds (talk • contribs) 21:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I made sure that the 100 edits have to be before stage 2 according to the rules (look under the list of not allowed stuff) so we shouldn't have to worry about those kind of catch-up edits during voting. --Rezyk 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WTH?

Why is this not run in the style of a democratic voting system? Why are people getting multiple votes? I say we change the voting process to be each person gets a positive vote for ONE person, to avoid what I'm seeing, as people are voting for one person, and voting against all others. This is not balanced, and not fair, and I'm sure, there are some groups that could be inadvertantly manipulating the vote. - Drago 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As it stands now, because of majority voting(groups of people all voting against the same person, and all voting for the same person, is causing a rigged vote, and disallowing others to gain the seat of Beurocrat. - Drago 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A better place for this discussion would be here. --Xeeron 17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't really mean "democratic." You mean "plurality." As it is, approval voting is significantly more fair, mathematically speaking. —Tanaric 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't in practice. - File:Drago-sig.gif Drago 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There was plenty of time to discuss this before the policy was approved. Bit unfair to change it now mid election. --Lemming64 20:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that it's unfair in practice. Considering I'm the second to least favorite candidate in this election as stands with this voting method, I think that says a lot. —Tanaric 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. "Groups of people all voting against the same person, and all voting for the same person"? "People are voting for one person, and voting against all others"? Really? Here's the numbers I'm seeing here:

There's 5 candidates. For the 31 editors who have supported my nomination so far, the numbers are:

• 16 of these editors have only given support votes.
• 8 of them have only given out 1 oppose vote each.
• 4 editors have given 2 oppose votes each.
• 3 others have given 3 oppose votes each.

Which is a total of 71 support votes and 25 oppose votes between the 31 of them, with an average of 0.8 oppose votes per each editor. Might want to rephrase those claims, because right now they're sounding a bit shaky, and maybe explain a bit more in length why you find that aspect of the system unfair.

The way I see it, the particularly nice aspect of this kind of election system, is that you're not forced to pick between candidates by comparing them to each other, you're free to decide about each of them for their own merits and defects, just as if it were a classic RFA. You're not limited with an "either ... or ..."; you can say "I'd be happy with either A or B, I definitely don't want C, meh about D and E", and you can also say "I definitely don't want A or B, but really don't care who you pick from the rest" and thus have 2 oppose votes and 0 support ones (which has in fact actually happened during this election). Doesn't that sound like a good characteristic of this system to you?

I'm not saying the current policy is perfect, I myself have in mind a couple of points that may need to be examined again, but I really don't think that this aspect of it you're bringing up is one of them. --Dirigible 05:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on the approval/disapproval voting is here. -- ab.er.rant 08:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Stage 3 in half a day

About 12 more hours until stage 3. I don't think there's gonna be much last minute voting. -- ab.er.rant 11:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I don't know I might vote for the people I haven't voted for yet. But knowing me I'll probably patrol RC or play GW instead... --Jamie 11:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless there is some flurry of last minute voting, stage 3 should be pretty uncontroversial. --Xeeron 13:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Stage 3

Considering the overwhelming support during the voting phase, I don't believe this will be controversial. Dirigible for the win. —Tanaric 01:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

yay, Congratulations Dirigible -- Scourge 01:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, don't see how anyone can not agree to Dirigible. Do we really need 7 days to decide this? -- ab.er.rant 07:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think the time period should be cut in half from this stage, otherwise this stage is simply trivial. --Jamie 08:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

iawtc. - BeX 09:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

iawtc = I agree with this comment or... I also wave to camels, although I think the first option is more likely. --Jamie 09:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

i spilled water on my kb :( on-screen kb sucks - BeX 09:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bex waves to camels on a regular basis, so I think this needs further deliberation. -Auron 09:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) lol Auron, I agree but what kinds of camels? someone do one of those drop rates researches on Bex's camel waving activities --Jamie 09:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to Dirigible, I can't see how anyone could disagree with him being choosen in stage 3. Just keep the 7 days for now, not all votes might end this obvious. --Xeeron 12:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for moving to stage 4. Give him the keys to the wiki already!! :P --Karlos 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Key ⇒ Dirigible :P -- ab.er.rant 12:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there going to be some sort of ceremony? Can we all go to Lion's Arch and form a procession or something? LordBiro 12:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nar, we're meeting at Abaddon's Mouth to give him the Scepter of Orr afterwhich he'll summon powerful Titans to run the wiki for us. :) --Karlos 12:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll organise some camels. - BeX 14:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I want 3 of our best drop rate researchers there at least. --Jamie 14:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bex's camel-waving activities, resulting drops:

Mode	Type	Drop	Signature
N		Hardened Hump from Wild Camel in The Black Curtain	Dashface 06:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
H		Sand of Souls from Desert Griffon in Ships of the Desert	Dashface 06:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
N		Spitting Water from Junundu in Crystal Overlook	Dashface 06:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this is getting a little ridiculous... :) -- ab.er.rant 07:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well they do have some time to kill. :P - BeX 08:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently so... MisterPepe talk 08:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

lol... this is so awesome. --Jamie 08:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

---> - BeX 18:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

rofl, Bex xD nice camel poke | talk 13:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)