Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2007-12 bureaucrat election

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

WHAT THE HELL? I'm amazed we have so many candidates... LordBiro 10:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone wants your job :). --Indecision 11:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with LordBiro. Positively amazed, I should add, this time users have a real chose among a lot of good candidates. --Xeeron 12:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm slightly amazed at the high number of mock candidates. Erasculio 12:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
ya XD - Y0_ich_halt Have a look at my page 15:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Be happy, Raptors is not on the list yetKiller Revan 02:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Impossible. — Eloc 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yea, how sure are you one those up there ain't a sock for Raptors :D -- ab.er.rant sig 06:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
100% — Eloc 07:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Kinda sure...ish...wish i had more contribs thoKiller Revan 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Take some of mine. >_> - BeX iawtc 01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Naw, take some of Aberrants. He has more than all of us. — Eloc 01:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
take dirigible's, he doesn't care about them XD - Y0_ich_halt Have a look at my page 10:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I care dearly about mine though! Don't take them! (remember that me, Dirigible and Gaile Gray are the same person). — Eloc 11:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Got my edit count up, amazing how many articles are stubbed into the wrong place(all used normal stub despite subcategories)Killer Revan 01:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Gratz. — Eloc 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice, and I'm Mr. Whomever Userchecker, Eloc. Also, I think a very devout supporter of Raptors just got on the politics boat. Ohh, Raptors, never fails to find a way into things... Calortalk 03:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
? That didn't make sense too me. What did you say about Userchecker and me? — Eloc 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

can i still enter? XD - Y0_ich_halt Have a look at my page 11:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused[edit]

...On the difference between a B-crat and a Sysop. I read it all but they seem to be the same. Someone give a basic sentance on the difference for me? VanguardUser-VanguardAvatar.PNG17:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sysops have the ability to block users and delete/protect pages. Bureaucrats aren't allowed to, but they have the ability to promote/demote sysops and form a committee for arbitration.. --Talk br12(talk) • 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Bureaucrat are the community relations managers kind of things. — Eloc 19:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think one summary is "Sysops manage content; Bureaucrats manage the community".—Ebany Salmonderiel 20:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
there's a reason they're called system operators and bureaucrats... - Y0_ich_halt Have a look at my page 21:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything expect for y0's sarcastic reply made it clear, thanks. VanguardUser-VanguardAvatar.PNG22:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

it wasn't really sarcastic. really, sysops are the ones who manage the system itself, bcrats manage the paper stuff :P - Y0_ich_halt Have a look at my page 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The italics and my obvious mention that I didn't know the difference says otherwise. VanguardUser-VanguardAvatar.PNG22:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
well then, i used the italics here to stress, not to express sarcasm. i just noticed quotation marks might've been better. the association between names and jobs was clear for me, but translating stuff like this is rather hard for me at this time of day... and, ok, maybe there was a bit of sarcasm in there XD - Y0_ich_halt Have a look at my page 22:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Elections are dumb. Voting is dumb. It ends up just being a giant (more polite) epeen popularity contest. Gfg. --Readem 00:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I believe it's a popularity contest overall too. I've also noticed a trend in voting. Say someone who is overall support, the people who haven't voted yet will vote support because everyone else is. It also works the opposite way (see my election), some of the users who voted against me, I've had 0 contact with them at all. The entire election is mainly all undecided voters mainly, with the odd real person who put thought behind their vote. — Eloc 02:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to have seen them, they've seen you. Welcome to the public eye. - User HeWhoIsPale sig.PNG HeWhoIsPale 02:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Or the fact tha most of them are undecided voters. — Eloc 03:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Voting Conflict[edit]

Noticed Keirou was struck out on DE's voting for the following reason.

  • Keirou 03:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC) below minimum 100 edits outside of userspace

As you can see that was on the 15th, but Keirou still has a few "valid" votes going on, examples include:

  • Keirou 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC) - ab.er.rant
  • Keirou 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC) - for Aiiane

So I don't know if this person's vote should be unstruck on DE, or if these others need to be struck down as well.--Riceball 16:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I struck the other two, it seems Kairou does not have the required 100 contribs. - anja talk 16:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Stage 2 Summary[edit]

Of the candidates with a positive vote balance, here's how things worked out:

  1. Aiiane: 43 net votes (46 support, 3 oppose)
  2. Tanaric: 39 net votes (43 support, 4 oppose)
  3. Ab.er.rant: 30 net votes (39 support, 9 oppose)
  4. Tanetris: 14 net votes (18 support, 4 oppose)

I didn't run through and check credentials on all the users -- I assumed that those struck were correctly struck and those left were legal votes. It might be wise to double-check.

As things stand, the polls support Aiiane.

Tanaric 04:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, am I missing something or should there only be 43 net votes for me? There are 49 entries under Support on my page but 3 of them are struck out (and striking out does not keep the wiki list system from numbering that line). Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It's clearly all part of a grand conspiracy... I guess Belar was right, this is like a Russian election ;). Although, Tanatic was smart, he only added 3 votes as opposed to thousands, makes it look much more realistic. User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I knew that seemed high but I just couldn't figure out why. :) Thanks Aiiane, I fixed it. —Tanaric 04:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
let's make aiiane, aberrant and you, tanaric, bcrat! :D - Y0_ich_halt Have a look at my page 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a big chance we'll be losing a sysop... Talk br12(talk) • 18:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I would say I pretty clearly don't have the support any of the others do, and the large (relative to the top two candidates) opposition to Ab.er.rant brings this down to Aiiane or Tanaric. While not as close as the last election, I'd like to see what some people think of their respective pros and cons. Tanaric does have experience in the bcrat role, but Aiiane's been more active lately. My personal leaning is toward Tanaric, but I think either one of them would do a good job, so I'm happy either way. - Tanetris 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All four are longstanding editors and all but Tanetris also long standing sysops who have shown capable of handling all aspects of the wiki. Given the vote distribution and nothing big that speaks against either of them, I see no reason not to declare Aiiance winner. --Xeeron 19:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before; stage 3 doesn't have much meaning. If the vote is clear, no need to talk as the outcome is given; if the result is close, that alnoe shows that it's complicated enough that no consensus can be reached in a week, esp. when one group has the default on their side.
So, basiclly, Aiiane wins. Backsword 22:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, please don't jump to that conclusion. If stage 3 were not intended to have meaning, it wouldn't exist. Furthermore, your logic is flawed - "it's complicated enough that no consensus can be reached in a week" might be true if voters could only choose one candidate, but that's not the case: voters can vote for multiple candidates, and so it's quite possible in a fairly equal situation that the same people voted for both tied candidates. Stage 3 allows for actual discussion of the relative merits of the candidates rather than the absolute merits; please don't sabotage that by jumping directly to "we have vote results we should ignore anything else". Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, Aiiane. Hopefully people will let me say that without assuming I have an ulterior motive -- I don't care which of us is chosen as bureaucrat, but I'd really like a meaningful stage 3 to get us to that conclusion instead of a mere vote count. I think we're close enough to justify some discussion on the matter. I've started a poll below to get some more data. —Tanaric 05:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Those are all nice thoughts, but the world doesn't work like that. Intentions are not results. And in a diverse group of 30+ people, you are going to have conflicting preferences. Backsword 11:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Conflicting preferences are not mutually exclusive with consensus. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
They are when no compromise is possible, time is limited and one side has a stong incentive to do nothing. Backsword 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the crucial point is that you might have, say, 10 users support A, 20 support B, and 30 support both. So at stage 2, A has 40 "votes" and B has 50 votes. But it might be that all 30 supporting both would prefer A. In that case, you'd have a clear consensus on A as the choice, even though B appears to have more "votes". Stage 3 is to tease this sort of thing out.Cassie 14:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (forgot signing, sorry, new to this)
That would not be a diverse group. Perhaps if we had a harsh screening process for contributers, that could happen. As is... Backsword 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I know this is a last minute call, but I want to voice my opinion before going on holiday again. My "vote" (don't kill me) goes for Tanaric, simply because Tanaric can do what he already does fairly well while being bcrat, but losing Aiiane as a sysop would be a bigger loss. Aiiane does more of the "everyday blocking and conflict solving". - anja talk 21:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll[edit]

Going only on your personal preference, and not your interpretation of voting or policy, would you prefer Aiiane or Tanaric as bureaucrat?

I prefer Aiiane[edit]

I prefer Tanaric[edit]

  • User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • --Readem 05:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Armond 05:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Skakid HoHoHo 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Tanetris 22:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Anja (per conversation above)
  • Snograt (per conversation below)

I have no opinion / I prefer not to choose[edit]

why prefer not to choose[edit]

Since apparently the results of the first vote weren't convincing, we're voting again? No offense to anyone, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. If you want a discussion stage, use it for DISCUSSION, use it to figure out a consensus on the merits of the candidates (however you were planning to do so), not for yet another vote. --Dirigible 05:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The voting phase is a great general metric that narrowed down the field of acceptable candidates to me and Aiiane. Now that it's clear to most of us that we two are the only candidates generally acceptible, we as a community must choose between us. I think a separate poll that acknowledges the one-or-the-other nature of this phase provides another useful metric toward the final decision, just as phase 2 provided a useful metric getting us to this point. This poll is not intended to replace or supplant discussion -- it's meant to augment it by providing an unambiguous tally of preferences which the phase 2 voting simply cannot provide by its very nature. —Tanaric 06:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me partly repeat what Dirigible said above: This straw poll does not make sense. For one, it is very arbitrary (why a poll between Aiiane and Tanaric and not between all candidates with positive support for example?), it is also not in our election policy. Second, it moves the process in the entire wrong direction: Away from discussion. We added stage 3 with the specific aim of complementing the voting with a discussion. I'd much prefer those who put their name up above to provide arguements why one or the other should be choosen. --Xeeron 11:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with Xeeron. Either have all those with positive votes (thus effectively redoing the voting stage) or don't have this after vote at all.--brains12(talk) • 14:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
to be honest, i couldn't decide between these two. i like them both, they're both active and i don't know anything where i've seen one of them do something plain bad. i've actually only seen aiiane solve arguments, but i suppose that's just because i don't know tanaric very much yet, and i've likely missed most of his doings. - Y0_ich_halt Have a look at my page 15:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a poll to determine, in bullet form, the opinions of the userbase on a particular issue. It doesn't solve any problem by itself, and it certainly doesn't replace discussion. It's a tool to acquire data to come to a meaningful conclusion for stage 3.
Nowhere did anybody say "Stop discussion and vote because this vote determines the outcome." I'd be more than happy if people would discuss this and figure this out in paragraph-based debate form. My experience on this wiki leads me to believe that nobody will do that -- this election is proving that as well.
The only way this poll could ever serve as the sole metric for stage 3 is if everybody wastes stage 3 by focusing solely on the poll!
Tanaric 19:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A poll like this is a very good argument for that stage 3, but not the only one. It is just that. I see no reason why people think does not make sense. Coran Ironclaw 20:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I prefer not to choose, Aiiane has both less opposing votes and more supporting votes (food for thought). — Eloc 22:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The net votes above sorta just showed that... Talk br12(talk) 22:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
So? — Eloc 22:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That's hardly indicative of anything. If you look at the candidate talk pages, Tanaric's is pretty issue-free. Again, not very indicative of anything. I think it makes more sense to get a poll or some statements of opinion from all those who supported both candidates. -- ab.er.rant sig 15:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Tanarics page is inactive as he isn't really as active as Aiiane. — Eloc 04:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This wouldn't be a problem if we were able to make only one positive vote. 58.110.137.98 06:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Bingo! — Skakid HoHoHo 15:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
One positive vote has its own problems. What if two candidates are tied (or close) in votes, but all the people who voted for candidate A also support candidate B and none of the people who voted for candidate B support candidate A? Worse, what if a lot of votes are split between candidates A through L, all good candidates that everyone suppports, but candidate Z winds up with more votes than any of them? The current system provides a much clearer (though not perfectly clear) picture of where the community stands on each candidate, and a one positive vote system is hardly tie-proof. - Tanetris 19:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Damnit, this is a mess. Personally, I prefer Tanaric purely due his vast experience. Problem is, I really wanted Ab.er.rant and Aiiane as well, which just ain't possible :/ Maybe a system of preferential voting would have been better, where each voter gets 2 votes and indicates which is first choice and which is second. It's used a lot in British politics. Then again, so is corruption. --SnogratUser Snograt signature.png 22:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Some thoughts[edit]

I somewhat regret starting the straw poll above, as it seemed to inhibit discussion instead of augment it (I had hoped for the latter). That said, I have doubts that any discussion would have been particularly relevant, after last election and what little has been discussed this time around. Should we consider changing stage 3 to hinge on a traditional vote -- that is, only one vote per qualified voter per the stage 2 qualifying mechanism -- between any candidates with a positive vote balance after stage 2? I hate votes, especially for something like this, but so far this election, the poll I started has been more illustrative than most comments have been. —Tanaric 07:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, neither the poll nor the comments have really been illustrative in an absolute sense - compared to the number of people involved in stage 2 voting, the participation in either element of the post-2 analysis has been minute. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed wholeheartedly --"more" above was definitely a relative term. I'd like to add "keep a sitenotice for stage 3" to my proposal above. I'd also like to consider this election whatever the equivalent to a mistrial would be. The communities preferences are not at all clear and going to ANet in such a state would be folly at best. —Tanaric 08:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, if my opinion matters, I'd say Aiiane as she has both more supporting votes and less opposing votes, which ultimately leads to a higher net vote. Also, Aiiane is a bigger contributor to GWW while Tanaric is kinda inactive a lot of the time in my opinion. — Eloc 08:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
the poll was not official and had no advertisement. I like the idea of an official one vote only poll between the 3. Coran Ironclaw 05:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Final decision time[edit]

Well, both the straw poll and the (albeit limited) discussion seem in favor of Tanaric. I've seen two points brought in favor of Tanaric over Aiiane (Tanaric's experience and wanting to keep Aiiane as a sysop), and I haven't seen any in favor of Aiiane over Tanaric. Do we have a consensus on Tanaric? - Tanetris 08:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think having Aberrant as the new BC would be the best decision here. Both Aiiane and Tanaric recently bullied Eloc when he didn't breach policy. Tanaric went on to ban Eloc for a few days sighting a breach of AGF.... which is a guideline not a policy. Both users stated in recent conflicts they don't think policy needs to be enforced and Tanaric went on to say that there is nothing saying we need to abide by policy. These recent issues are incredibly alarming to me as they demonstrate two of the candidates for the BC seat have no respect for policies which the community has a consensus for. Rather than trying to change policy to one they like, they use current policies or guide lines and twist their meanings, or outright lie to justify a stance against a user - that is if they justify their vigilante bans with policy at all.Two of Aiianes recent bans this month showed poor judgement, one of them which banned an innocent user for being a "suspected" sockpuppet, a power not given to admin. The other was a user who made a single edit which did not violate any of our policies and time had passed since it was made before the ban showing the user didn't yet start and possibly never planned to start harassing the wiki. Aiiane frequently will mask her personal agenda and beliefs as "spirit of the policy" in situations where she can't justify an action with a community consensus agreement. This kind of "weasel wording" is bad for the wiki as it allows them to take actions which aren't justified but appear to be so. Tanaric has also indicated he wouldn't sit out of an arb com discussion about himself, which again shows very poor judgement and understanding of the BC position. The only reasons for opposition to Abberant's nomination were based around the idea that he didn't personally have an ambition to become a BC but rather would do it if elected by the community if they believed he was right for the position. At least one BC has said they would be cautious of anyone who had personal ambitions to become BC and that is a good point. I think Abberant would be much better suited to the position of BC than either Aiiane or Tanaric, he also has less opposition aside from people who don't want to lose him as sysop or don't think he wants the role (he wouldn't have accepted if he didn't). 122.104.227.220 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how two reasonable people like Aiiane and Tanaric (don't try to say they don't listen and try to explain if there's some trouble) using their admin discretion for the best of the wiki would not fit as bureaucrats. - anja talk 19:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Banning innocent users when they didn't breach policy for their paranoid suspicion that they were sock puppets is in the best of the wiki? Banning someone for asking a user known to go as far as to say they don't plan to follow any of our rules and policies and calling them stupid to comply with out policy? The one asking for compliance was the user that was banned. Having the belief that their actions and agenda constitute consensus as opposed to actual consensus is best for the wiki? Saying that the wiki's policies which were agreed upon by the users - with actual consensus as opposed to their personal beliefs, don't need to be followed at all as no-where does it explicitly state that? Masking everything with the "spirit of the policy" argument is best for the wiki? Maybe you need to take a step away from your little clique and try to think like someone who considers everyone on the wiki important, not just your admin friends or the people you are used to and then you might see it under a different light. 122.104.227.220 19:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Eloc wasn't innocent - you can pretend so all you like, but this really isn't the first time he's harassed other users and made an issue out of nothing. I can't say the same about Aiiane's blocks, but they weren't "disgusting" (as you said on her talk).
If you don't understand what the "spirit" of policy means, that's fine - but don't lie about it and try to make it out to be something it isn't. The "spirit" of the GWW:SIGN policy is to make sure users don't use obnoxious signatures that make reading discussion pages hard. That is the point of the policy. Anything past that is too unimportant to be considered the "spirit" of the policy. When you have to dig into the fine print of the policy to support your argument, you're wikilawyering - and missing the point of the policy. I know it is an abstract concept and hard for some to follow, but it isn't simply a mask; you'd do well to understand the difference before trying to debate, because without that understanding you're just trolling.
This is not to say that digging into the fine print shouldn't ever be done - it is the job of the sysops to enforce policy. If a user refuses to conform to the fine print (once he has been made aware of it), it is the admin's job to step in and either warn him or block him for violation of policy. However, as has been stated on other pages, that is not the role of another user.
Either way, bickering about bans that bureaucrats aren't even able to perform is moot. Do you have anything to say about Aiiane or Tanaric's ability to perform as a bureaucrat or did you just want to attack their character a bit and make them appear less suited for a job in which they can't block users? -Auron 07:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mention Eloc or anything else, I was using examples of these two users recent actions to demonstrate why I don't believe they should be given the role of BC. I don't think they respect our wiki's policies and have a skewed view on what consitutes consensus - their own opinion, or whether our policies should be enforced. This is not the place to dsicuss Eloc's ban or the merits of wikilawyering, you can do that somewhere else. Spirit of the policy is an interpretation by upir definition, as any person familair with critical reading knows, everything in a written text is there for a reason just because a user does not understand the fine print of a policy we have does not mean there is no reason for it. Spirit of the Policy argument ignore the fact that a policy has fine print for a reason and those reasons are usually thought out. Again this is not the place for this discussion you managed to sidetrack me from the point I tried to make and that is the actions of these two sysops to me demonstrate why they shouldn't become BC. Their stance in these issues I beleive are unhealthy for the wiki and unfair - and that's not what I want in a BC. Abberant would make a more fitting BC than either user and like I said before, he had less opposition aside from people who want to keep him as an admin. 58.110.142.135 07:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you need to take a step away from your little clique and try to think like someone who considers everyone on the wiki important, not just your admin friends or the people you are used to and then you might see it under a different light. lussh 19:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're trolling now? Come back when you have something constructive to add. 122.104.227.220 19:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Come back when you have something constructive to add. lussh 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the discussion you started! The election is nearly finished and either Aiiane or Tanaric will be the next bureaucrat. And because of the votes you can clearly see that there are no problems with both, otherwise they would not have that many positive and that less negative votes. poke | talk 15:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, after just reading this entire section, I see some points and decided to join into this conversation. For one, well put 122.104. Auron, I was inoccent. I was following exactly what GWW:SIGN said. Read Guild_Wars_Wiki:Sign_your_comments#Failure_to_adhere. I posted a notice on their talk page in what the entire policy says to do and that's all I did. I was completely within policy. As for the noticeboard, I posted in the most appropriate place, which was at GWW:NOTICE in which it is said to contact a Sysop on GWW:NPA to deal with personal attacks. — Eloc 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The policy is there so people don't have sigs with huge great animated pictures of the first thing they found on the internet. Not to go round causing arguments when someone over-reacts to you being over-zealous. Following the policy to the letter isn't the point of policy. Not that it excuses the other guy raging. Lord of all tyria 20:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
So by me following a specific section of a policy, I get banned? That makes no sense. — Eloc 20:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discusss Eloc's ban. Neither Tanaric nor Aiiane is suddenly a different person for making one decision that you (this is the general you, all of you) don't agree with. However strongly you feel about it and regardless of how fresh the upsetment is, it is irrelevant to this talk page. We had a vote, we had a discussion, and Aiiane and Tanaric came out as the two leading candidates for the bureacrat seat. The talk page here is about which of them we're going to make bureaucrat. All other discussion should go on Tanaric or Aiiane's talk page, or be taken to Arbcomm, or GWW:SIGN's talk page, or somewhere that it's actually appropriate. Now can we please move on? - Tanetris 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to Tanarics page. — Eloc 22:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. - Tanetris 02:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Personally, I disagree with the conclusion that Tanaric is the winner of the election. Partecipation in the poll was minute compared to the number of partecipants in the election, and the actual discussion on which candidate would be better was also largely lacking. We don't consider just a handful of people sufficient consensus when discussing important policies and guidelines (which is the main reason why we have GWW:RFC), so why would we consider it sufficient here?

Since it seems to me we don't have consensus, I propose we bring this issue up to ANet, as per our elections policy. --Dirigible 02:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get Tanaric Vs Aiiane? Aberrant was also very close in his vote count and less than half the people who voted in this election were involved in the discussion above, so unless you are trying to influence the election without any kind of consensus I don't know where you got your Aiiane vs Tanaric mini election from. Any action on this wiki by any of the candidates is up for scrutiny, even if it occurred after the election took place. The most recent actions are the most relevant. 58.110.142.135 03:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
So sysops upholding the spirit of policy and the idea of consensus? Sounds like they'd make pretty good Bureaucrats to me. -Auron 03:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus where? They were upholding nothing. Neither of their actions upheld anything other than personal judgement, which is obviously biased as Brains12 was also included in the discussion and several other users have said on numerous talk pages they didn't like what happened there. So is consensus Aiiane and Tanaric's friends now? 58.110.142.135 04:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above a few days ago, I agree that the results of this election are far from conclusive. I do not support a stage three choice for either Aiiane or myself.

That said, I've never supported stage four... I suspect that ArenaNet will refuse to honor such a request from us. I'd prefer coming up with another plan that doesn't involve ArenaNet. Such an alternative plan would require non-controversial, inarguable consensus to have any meaning however, since it would go against current policy and expectations.

My idea is to expand the bureaucrat pool to five users, and to add Aiiane, Ab.er.rant, and myself all at once from this election. Would this be a better solution than asking for ArenaNet arbitration?

Tanaric 06:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree stage 4 isn't great and probably even prefer your option is it reasonable to ignore our policy in the middle of the election? An issue came up in another election where we wanted to change something but it was decided any change to the policy should not effect an current election. I'm not familiar with who at ArenaNet would be making the decision and whether they were following the election enough to make a decision of one person or another. We are currently in stage 4 so I don't think discussion matters. 58.110.142.135 06:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's reasonable to do something other than policy if consensus supports it. Our goal must be to find out if consensus supports it, not to find out if the consensus has basis in policy. —Tanaric 07:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal, although I have a question; would the number of ruling Bureaucrats for a single ArbComm case remain at 3 or raise to 5? -Auron 07:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it would up quorum to 3, but optionally involve all five if they all wished to participate. It'd give all of them more freedom to abstain, which I think is good. As an aside, there's nothing saying we can't postpone concluding this election while we discuss an alternate proposal. —Tanaric 07:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a three day recommendation for stage 4, which has already begun. How do you expect to gain consensus for something which has already begun in less than three days? The other stages were designed to allow people who are away from the wiki time and warning to have their say in relevant stages (which at the moment stage 4 isn't community discussion) and people have warning to prepare for that. It was mentioned people are often away from the wiki or unable to edit within three days, and that takes into account the month long reminder that an election is happening. This is particularly important atm because of Christmas, New Years and the holidays means many people might be away. They might not expect an important consensus seeking decision to take place after stage 3 as the policy states otherwise and any change now is unfairly excluding people who aren't here right now. 58.110.142.135 07:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said, there's no saying we can't delay at this point to allow more people more time to chime in on the issue.
That said, since I would be uncomfortable with anything other than complete agreement for avoiding ArenaNet involvement, and such agreement simply isn't going to occur, I withdraw my candidacy for bureaucrat. Give the job to Aiiane. Somebody fix our election policy so that this doesn't happen a third time. —Tanaric 07:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I cannot believe that you did that. The timing of the final stage of the elections is indeed very unfortunate, but it was all known long ago, including the final judgement by ANet in stage 4 if no consensus is reached. But I think it is STILL enough time to reach consensus. Consensus does not mean that everyone is of the same opinion at the start of the debate. I also cannot understand that you want to keep ANet influence in check, and even if this Wiki is run by the community, it is ANet's Wiki after all. Thus I do not have that much problems with ANet making the final decision. Besides that, as I already said, there is still time for discussion. I thought you would be the right person for the job, that you resign now because of things you already knew for a long time puzzles me. I also support the idea that this election has to be finished with the ruleset it was started - and that the next time rules need to be improved. --Longasc 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It was a big mistake imo to not use the SiteNotice for Stage 3.. poke | talk 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't really think it would have helped. It would just have made the impossibility of reaching consensus clearer. And it's already clear enough. Backsword 20:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it would have helped or not it seems contradictory to advertise stage 2 (which apparently means very little when there's more than one favored candidate) on every page of the site, and to not mention stage 3 (where all the important discussion is carried out) anywhere other than the recesses of Guild Wars Wiki policy pages. --NieA7 01:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Longasc, I appreciate your sentiment, but we passed from stage 3 to stage 4 two days ago. We're not supposed to be discussing anything anymore. No consensus was reached, so it's either Aiiane or I withdraw or Anet involvement at this point. I chose withdrawal -- I think it's better for the community. —Tanaric 03:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons[edit]

Am I nuts, or has there been like almost no discussion on this? I saw a poll from a poll. I saw some debating of a ban. Talk about how this final stage fails and whatever else. Shouldn't discussion on final judgement actually be talked about here, in a clear manner? Not as a poll, but as actually listing who you prefer and why, and why over other people. Like maybe 'insert name here' would probably be better for this reason, isntead of this other person. Then people can respond to that, debate it. Give counterpoints, etc... From all this, it seems like there is nothing but the previous vote to go on. Or is all of this debate occuring somewhere else for some reason?--riceball User Riceball Sig.JPG 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not nuts. This sucked. —Tanaric 03:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I think that both Aiiane and Tanaric would suit this position well. I think that Tanaric would suit this position a bit better since he has a lot more experience with it and has been proved to make decisions that are helpfull to the wiki and his decisions aren't influeced by his personal likes and dislikes. -- Gem (gem / talk) 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Having done the work before isn't reason to think they are the best option this time. Experience helps, but I hardly think it should be the deciding factor. I've also seen many people say they don't want to lose someone because they do sysops stuff. That they don't want to lose that person's ability in the clean up functions of the site. Doesn't this site have like 12-15 sysops who should all be doing such functions as well? I don't think thats fair to hamstring a person if they would like to become a bureaucrat. All of this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Then again, this election was supposed to have been final yesterday :P --riceball User Riceball Sig.JPG 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It is final. I withdrew. Dirigible and Aiiane should trade chairs. —Tanaric 05:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)