Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2007-12 bureaucrat election/Ab.er.rant

Promising Candidate

I think aberrant will make a promising candidate. I just wanted to point out how important I think it is that a bureaucrat know his/her way around the policies and I think aberrant can certainly demonstrate that. Anon

Agreed. I think Ab.er.rant would be well suited to the bcrat position. LordBiro 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

He's got my support as well, of course. —Tanaric 19:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And mine, I think he would be a good, if not great bcrat. (PS Can I vote for multiple people if I get the contributions in time?) —Ebany Salmonderiel 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't already have the required contributions, you're not allowed to vote at all. You have to have the contributions before the beginning of the entire election, not just before the voting phase.

If you were eligible to vote, you would be able to vote for as many candidates as you wished.

—Tanaric 19:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Only one support/oppose/neutral vote per candidate though. Calor — talk 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Stage 2: Voting: Votes from registered user accounts that have not made more than 100 edits before this stage. From Guild Wars Wiki:Elections. According to this, all someone needs to do is qualify with 100 votes edits prior to stage 2, which is the voting, so she/he still has time. 122.104.228.3 07:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious. It was always said before that you had to have the requisite number of edits before the election started. I didn't see any discussion of changing this on the talk page. —Tanaric 09:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ya, that's what I thought it was too...— ク Eloc 貢 10:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What kind of contributions do you need 100 of? It is just in the Main or do contribs on Main talk pages count? Lyra Valo 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Any contributions which aren't in the user/guild namespace. — ク Eloc 貢 21:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Any easy way to count these contributions?i have over 150 contribs, but i dont have a clue of how to count non user/guild contribs...Killer Revan 02:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No easy way, afaik, besides adding all the categories except guild, guild talk, user, and user talk. I just counted for you. You have 69 non guild/userspace edits. 31 more. You can do that in about an hour and a half, and you have through Wed. the 12th. You can get 100 by then no problem. Calor — talk 02:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

TY Calor, just checkid and ive had about about 41 edits since then, even ended up creating and correctly wording / formatting a userpage stub template...it was scary tho because it looked like that part would blow up in my face :) (Did not realize what part linked to userpage stub part)Killer Revan 01:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution

I think knowledge of the rules is important for a bureaucrat but I think also important, likely more important, is conflict resolution skills. In electing a bureaucrat I think it is important to consider whether the nominee has demonstrated an ability to deal with a conflict without resorting to a ban or quoting rules. I will ask you the same questions I asked br12. Have you been involved in any conflicts with users? If so can you demonstrate or explain how you handled the situation? Would you describe yourself as a diplomatic user? Do you think it is important to look for solutions to a conflict outside of resorting to bans or simply quoting a policy? How flexible should a bureaucrat be when dealing with problem users? 122.104.231.28 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I diplomatic? I honestly don't know. I just try to maintain a balanced view of both sides and aim for somewhere in the middle. I tend to outright refuse "extreme" (as in not compromising or too-needlessly-strong-towards-one-side) suggestions in discussions although if you dig hard enough, you might find a few where I lost it. I don't like typing a response in irritation and so I tend to take my time typing and phrasing just so I can re-read what I typed. Again, I believe you can still find some exceptions where I just blew it (and with typos too, ack!). What I'm trying to say is that, that is how I act, I don't like to hold hard and unbending positions, yet I will also not give in wholly. I readily confess to committing mistakes from time to time, and I will admit them and not be adamant.

I believe that being too strong-willed or too forceful is just counter-productive. A little compromise, flexibility, and tolerance goes a long to reducing conflicts. Being a still-learning first-time sysop, all the events or "drama" starting from Karlos's arbitration up until recently have shown me that a certain degree of firmness is necessary, just not right off the bat, yet not overly so. That sounds really corny and subjective... I don't know how else to say it. If you're looking for conflict situations, perhaps the talk archives of GWW:ADMIN and Karlos's arbitration show something? Or Raptors and Readem's talk archives for something more recent? My talk page and its archives might show how I tend to respond. -- ab.er.rant 04:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Voting against

As you might have noticed, I'm not voting in favour of Aberrant. This is not a popularity contest. Had the question been 'Do you like Aberrant', I'd be first to vote yes. But here, we should vote for what's best for the wiki.

Do I then think Aberrant would make a bad ArbComm member? No, I think it would work perfectly fine. But. It would mean an end to SysOping. And we need Aberrant there. It's not just skill and high activity, but being one of only two sysops in those time zones, the other being Lord Bexxor. In no way am I trying to say she's not doing a good job, but leaving everything to one person, who is not as active as Aberrant in the first place, would not be a good idea.

So I'm hoping others will follow me and vote no. Backsword

I agree. I was neutral on this a few days ago, as I realized how valuable abeerant was as a SysOp, and losing that would harm the wiki more than help the wiki with him being a B-crat. Aberrant sysop > bcrat imo. Calor — talk 02:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you want this?

Ab.er.rant, do you want to be a bureaucrat, or are you volunteering because you think you'll be good at it? —Tanaric 04:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think my answer will change your vote. My reason is more the latter. If people prefer that I become a bureaucrat, then I'll try to be one. -- ab.er.rant 06:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. You sound similar to me right now, but you have more at stake. I rarely exercise sysop powers, but you're one of the more prolific sysops we have. If I become a bureaucrat at the community's request, losing my sysop role doesn't make a difference. If you do, we lose a great deal.

You're right, you've changed my vote. I think you'll be happier and more effective as a sysop than a bureaucrat.

—Tanaric 06:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

removing my vote now thaat this has come up, pretty much im for Aienne or Tanaric as wellKiller Revan 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"You sound similar to me right now ... I think you'll be happier and more effective as a sysop than a bureaucrat."

On the one hand, I feel this is the wrong way of reasoning: People do have a chance to refuse the nomination and there are enough serious candidates around that noone should be feel pressured to stand. I don't think anyone up for votes will become unhappy from being a bureaucrat. On the other hand, if anyone expressed that they long to become bureaucrat and would be happy if becomming one, I would be weary to vote for them. --Xeeron 22:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

gl with your election. Even if I disagree with your decisions over half the time, you still have a brain (which is something even I admire). You have my support. --Readem 23:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

we need you as sysop, not bcrat :)

(agree with above, imo you are the best sysop, keep it plz) (moved from article) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Lyra Valo .

Thank you to the both of you. I really appreciate it. And Readem, I'm grateful that you find that I don't totally fail, room for improvement then :) -- ab.er.rant 09:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposing, because I don't think someone should be part of a position that they don't absolutely want. That said, you're a great sysop, will be a great bcrat, and I don't really midn either way! Good luck =) Ale_Jrb (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been undecided about this, but Xeeron's comment above has swayed me. LordBiro 18:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sysop > Bcrat?

Yes, he's a great sysop, but the world won't blow up if he stops being one. Actually, when I check the Admin Noticeboard I usually find Anja to be the most active sysop. On the other hand, I've found Aberrant to do a great job at solving disputes and reaching consensus. I think the best of this sysop is the bcrat in him, but may be that's just me.reanor 09:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

i agree, but as long as Tanaric and Aiiane are up for bcrat (who would do just as well i think), i'd prefer to have aberrant as sysop. well, they're all very nice persons, so maybe it's pretty much unimportant who of them is bcrat now :P - Y0_ich_halt 13:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)