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

An optional question from myself to the candidate:

1. How often and for how long do you expect that you might be "away from wiki" for a few days or more, over the elected term?

--Rezyk 16:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming I get the position? Not all that often. Even if I haven't made edits for a few days, I religiously check my talk page, and I'm usually available via IM or email as well. Seeing as this is an elected position with a great deal of importance, simply having the position makes me more active.

If there were ever a case where I knew I would be unreachable, I would notify the community in advance via my user page. Seeing as I don't take vacations, and when I do, I lug a laptop with me, I don't see this happening except in unforeseeable emergencies.

—Tanaric 19:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that, even though I'm starting a new job in August, I do not believe my wikitime will be cut short. I am not usually the sort to loiter here for hours, as I (generally speaking) don't edit that many articles anymore, and so the addition of an extra 8 hours of responsibility per day will not interfere with the hour I spend on the wiki each day.

—Tanaric 19:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mission statement

Per Xeeron's request on Project talk:Elections/2007-06 bureaucrat election:

I believe our current userpage policy is far too restrictive. I do not believe it is the community's place to dictate style ("please use non-jarring colors") or content length. The only legitimate concern brought up is bandwidth usage -- however, as a user's talk page is generally more important than the user page, and seeing how there is no length limit on a talk page, this concern seem mostly fabricated and superfluous.

I have no strong opinion on whether we should allow multiple image licenses for userspace. Since the most popular additional license appears to be Creative Commons non-commercial, and because such a license is necessarily incompatible with our gracious hosts, I think the issue is moot.

I think the guild pages are doing quite well. I think most are sticking to our formatting guidelines and I think those guidelines have been effective so far. I have no strong opinion on guild subpages.

I'd like to see userspace categories become more popular. The helper program is a good start, but other userspace categories, even somewhat silly ones, help build community, and that's one of the most important tools we have in building the wiki.

I believe that a useful builds site is necessarily non-wiki. However, the current builds proposal allows objective builds in mainspace with subjective builds in userspace, and I think that's appropriate and helpful.

I believe that being a sysop should be No Big Deal. I believe that being a bureaucrat, even, isn't a huge deal, though because the position requires the use of discretion when it comes to user disputes, I believe this election process is appropriate.

I believe mainspace should be used for documenting things that exist. Even though the Wintersday Festival is over, it certainly still exists -- people reference it and knowing about it is useful to playing Guild Wars. The Wintersday article should describe the event in full. On the other hand, Gain Olias does not exist and the quest has been removed from all quest logs, if I'm reading things correctly. Thus, a Gain Olias article which says "Gain Olias was once the quest to unlock the hero Olias, but was replaced in the X update by the quest Y" is appropriate, but detailing a walkthrough on how to complete the quest is inappropriate. I do not like the proposed legacy tag -- it adds nothing that could not be stated in the summary of the article instead.

Finally, I believe in discussion. I have changed my mind about things in the past. I have been verifiably incorrect at times. As always, if anybody wishes to dissuade me from any of my stances, I welcome the input!

—Tanaric 19:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious...

...as to why all the nay votes. I know Tanaric stinks at playing GW, but if I may pick the brains of the nay-sayers... what's up folks? --Karlos 13:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as well, any insight would be appreciated :) LordBiro 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this goes without saying, but I'm also curious. I can't improve myself if I don't get any feedback. —Tanaric 19:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Just think when Biro's term is up and all the opposed votes he'll get. :P If you aren't re-appointed, you can help me sweep and I'll even let you hold the dust pan. ;)

Seriously, I am suprised someone who played a pivotal role in the communication between us and ANet to actually create GWW has so much opposition with no explanations behind them. — Gares 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what's that supposed to mean? :( lol LordBiro 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think it is due to the explicit statement that Tanaric feels that the User page restrictions are too strict. Xeeron views are in a similar line (he wants user space community to flourish) and has many of the same opposing voters. --Lensor (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong and I seriously hope I'm correct that you're wrong. Opposing them simply because of the user page restrictions would be really silly. -- ab.er.rant 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Guild/User space policy is a very central part to the direction this Wiki will take, (Pure Wiki vs Wiki/social GW resource) and having a bureaucrat in the "opposing" camp is probably something many dont want. This is of course pure speculation on my part, and I might be completely off (I kinda hope that I am).--Lensor (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel you got the direction right. Of course it is not only about user space policy, but that is one of many fields where Tanaric has been outspoken, maybe more so than the other candidates. Voicing your opinion on controversial topics always risks turning people against you who have different views. Furthermore, there might be some who feel that being outspoken is a bad idea for bureaucrats in general.

Lastly, Tanaric has been at the center of attention due to his exposed position for a long time now. Both his good and bad moves will have been noticed more than for other users and it is my belief that users remember mistakes much more then any positive action, therefore he is at an disadvantage. --Xeeron 08:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... ok, a possibility I guess. But I'm wondering if what happened at GuildWiki carried over. But the naysayers aren't talking. -- ab.er.rant 08:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at BeXoR's talk page for reasons to vote against me. I can only guess, but I would think that the same reasons lie behind the vote against Tanaric. --Xeeron 09:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I voted against him, but it's not because of any of his views, or his outspokenness, or this "what happened at GuildWiki" (I never edited on GuildWiki, so I have no idea what you're talking about). I just want to get some fresh blood into these positions =\ It's nothing personal, and I'm sure that many of the other people who voted against him have completely different reasons - but mine's that simple. Honestly, I've voted for presidents for worse reasons before...

Actually, my real reasoning is a little more complicated than that, but it's not really important. I chose to vote that way, and it doesn't really matter why I did =\ MisterPepe talk 09:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My votes too were for a combination of reasons (I woud like to see some fresh faces in power too, amongst other reasons) but Xeeron put that nicely - it's the people I found that were outspoken and with strong opinions that I voted no for. And as an outspoken person with strong opinions I don't mean that as a negative thing about a person - I think it is part of what makes a good editor, but I don't think it really makes a good arbitrator. - BeX 09:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We should explicitly state this: Noone expects you to explain your vote, MisterPepe. It is your full right to vote whichever way you like without any explanation at all. Explaining your vote on the talk page is optional, not required. --Xeeron 09:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is why votes fail tbh. -Auron 12:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(Reset Ident) Xeeron makes a good point, though I wish he didn't in this case :P as I am for explanations so, as Tanaric put it, the nominee can approve upon why the opposed believe he is not fit to be appointed. No one can learn if all they receive is a yes or a no. But from the explanations I have seen thus far, I see nothing on which these individuals, Tanaric and Xeeron specifically, that needs improving.

As the policy is now, it makes no mention of allowing a user to forgo explaining his support, yet it does seem to persuade to comment why you vote opposed. The passage include, "The basic support one can give directly to a candidate is to sign a vote onto the candidate's subpage (and perhaps give a convincing positive argument on the candidate's talk subpage). To directly oppose a candidate, one can file an opposing vote and give a negative argument on the candidate's talk subpage (but avoid personal attacks; consider simply giving links to evidence, if necessary)."

Also, I am in agreement with Auron. My pet peeve as a member/admin/forum mod/DM admin/etc on any site I've been involved in over my near 11 years was to see a "yes or no" voting style as a means to solve anything. I also never vote in real life for the same reason as I believe voting is pointless, but here, for this situation, I feel it is something I must do.

And to respond to Biro way up there above, you've seen the explanations about wanting to see fresh faces. Your face isn't that fresh either :P Mwah, ha, ha, ha, ha. j/k — Gares 13:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Defending myself is moot, since Dirigible is a shoe-in for the seat, but I'm going to do it anyway. If arguments like these stand for further elections, and this becomes a popularity contest, well... User:Skuld might just be right.

I can't fault anyone for claiming that I have fairly strong opinions about site policy, because I verifiably do. However, my strongest opinion of all is that these opinions have nothing to do with the bureaucrat role. As a bureaucrat, I would 1) sysop users, which has nothing to do with policy, and 2) be involved in interuser disputes, which only involves interpretation of current policy. Neither of these points have anything to do with my opinions. I would have thought that my voluntary removing myself from the bureaucrat position based upon a draft policy and an arbitrary term limit I imposed would indicate that.

It can be said that, even though the bureaucrat position does not, by its own virtue, grant any control over policy, merely by being a bureaucrat and having that notoriety grants a measure of additional control other editors do not have. I'm not sure how true this is or not, but because I believe it might be, I have deliberately distanced myself from many policy arguments, only making the most cursory of inputs.

Finally, it's upsetting that there's so little trust in User:LordBiro and User:Rezyk. Stating "If Tanaric is elected, he will rampantly abuse his position in order to shape the wiki as he sees fit" implies that the rest of the bureaucrat team/ArbComm would sit idly by while this occurred. Perhaps it's because they're grandfathered in as well -- I'm not sure -- but I still think such a judgment on them is patently unfair.

I don't particularly care about getting the seat -- I'll do the job if the community prefers it, and so far it appears that they do not -- and I don't mind at all that Dirigible will end up with the position -- he's probably better than me at the task, and at the very least, he'll be just as good -- but I fear for future elections for this position. At this point, I am beginning to think that simply having a cool statement on your candidate page is the key toward getting elected. This is something I purposely avoided so that people would necessarily have to research a candidate before casting a vote in either direction. As it is, well, I'm just glad Dirigible is good at selling himself, even for a position he doesn't necessarily believe he's good for.

—Tanaric 13:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't particularly like having to write a "mission statement". It's too easy to have it taken at face value and undermines past contributions. -- ab.er.rant 14:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I respect Xeeron and he had every right to see that information, but I placed it on my talk page so it wouldn't be the only thing people saw. —Tanaric 14:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Being new the the Wiki electorial process, I must say I was kinda surprised to see that there was an option to vote "against" in the first place. I understand that the Wiki runs by consensus, but I still find it somehow peculiar. It also creates problems interpreting the vote, for instance: candidate A gets 5 for and 0 against. Candidate B gets 20 for and 5 against. What does that mean, who "won" the vote? To me the most "fair" way would be to not use opposing voting, but rather use the talk pages for debating the merits and faults (in the context of the actual position) of each candidate. I think Rezyk did a good job to try to "standardize" the candidates with his specific questions. I would have loved to see a list of bureaucrat-relevant questions answered by all the candidates, for easy comparison, in stead of the "mission statements" that are probably too personal in nature. --Lensor (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Add: Ok, I went and read the talk page for the elections policy, and see that you already went through this in exrutiating detail. I still think it is a peculiar system though.--Lensor (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What do content issues have to do with bcrat elections? Whether Tanaric is made bcrat or not, he will have just the same amount of say in whether user pages get implemented. LordBiro 22:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, this is kinda like a trial run for the elections process. So many things were hammered out in Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections. We can always go back to the drawing board again after this round. -- ab.er.rant 08:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, when you're a veteran of the wiki, you will have a "history" and like a Senator running for US president, your voting record will always be there to haunt you. i.e. Your run-ins (if any) with other editors will sometimes rub people the wrong way.

However, to avoid popularity contests, and to avoid the "lack of a record" being an advantage (see Bush 2000), we should have rules that say that only a user who has had his first registered edit 6 months before the elections and has had at least.. 300-500 edits can be nominated. It's important, in my opinion, that these positions are filled by people who have duked it out in the wiki. Not just some glamorous figure with a cool user page and a posse of friends who jump in and vote for him early making him/her look like a favorite candidate. The process can be manipulated right now, much like the build section was. --Karlos 09:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)