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

Yay!, hes got my vote even if hes doesn't run for president bureaucrat ~ SCobra 21:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SuperCobra. I accept this nomination. —Tanaric 09:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's bloody Tanaric. How do you not support him? Armond 04:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing really against you, but I find that you're not active here a whole lot. Maybe if you were a bit more active. — ク Eloc 貢 04:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering ArbComm has only had to be active three times since the wiki was created... I think I can meet the standard. More seriously, I'm always watching, I just haven't had a whole lot to say recently. Honestly, if I'm inactive it means the wiki's in decent shape. :) —Tanaric 04:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Against Voting

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. - Tanaric's User Page

Who decides which persons opinion or proposal is the best one? Who is decided to be the more qualified or more knowledgeable? Unlike most real world situations this wiki does not screen people and check their credentials - I don't even know the ages of the people here. If someone deems themselves to be more qualified or correct, even in opposition of a majority vote, should their decision rule? Why shouldn't everyone have an equal say when most free countries around the world are governed by that principle? 122.104.231.28 16:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Because history has determined that letting the majority decide something tends to lead to bad decisions. However, people who have already demonstrated their ability to make good decisions should, imo, be allowed to make decisions. Armond 03:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know Tanaric was going by the name Armond these days :P. 58.110.136.10 06:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tanaric on GWW is like Gem on GW. If you post something on his talk page, don't be surprised if he suddenly appears to have changed names every five seconds. :P Armond 08:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon, the community decided which opinion or proposal is the best. The community decides which person is most qualified or knowledgeable. This sort of ideal requires a great deal of trust in the people you work with -- on the wiki, I have only rarely felt that trust misplaced.

A person can't simply declare that they know best and thus trump anybody else. Instead, a person must show themselves to know more. Everyone who's generally positively received here has done that. Look at the other supported bureaucrat candidates for an easy gauge of this. Aiiane has never said "I know best, listen to me." What she's done instead is convinced us all that she generally knows what she's talking about. In the end, this puts her in a position of power, as people are more likely to listen and take an interest in what she says. However, she got to that position the same way anybody can: one edit at a time.

In the end, everybody does have an equal say. Relying on discussion simply bumps up the average intelligence of each person. A discussionless vote allows you to have a dumb opinion. After a discussion, you may have a dissenting or minority opinion, but it's been tested by every other opinion out there and meets some indefinable minimum level of quality. That quality has translated into our quality Guild Wars resource.

—Tanaric 04:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question to the candidate

So you're running to take over Dirigibles seat. I'd like to know what difference you would on the ArbComm so I'm wondering: What would have been different had it been you, rather than Dir, who was part of the arbitration in the last three cases. (1, 2 and 3.)

Backsword

I would have recused myself from the case involving User:Karlos, as I was too personally involved.

Regarding the case with User:Skuld, I feel I made my disagreement with User:Dirigible pretty clear in the talk page of the arbitration. I agreed with Biro and Xeeron that ArbComm involvement was very appropriate. I support the conclusion they came to and would likely have come to the same conclusion.

I would have made exactly the same argument as Dirigible in the case involving User:Raptors, though admittedly I would have been far less eloquent.

—Tanaric 04:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel the need to post...

While I don't agree with [1], [2] was enough of a response for me. In all your edits I've seen, that first one is really the only one I've had an issue with, which imo, isn't enough to warrant anything but a support vote. -elviondale (tahlk) 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

lulz

ur smart. one of the only smart people here. sad, but true. --Readem 23:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Readem. :) —Tanaric 01:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

satiric's point

I might be too young on wiki to vote about this but sorry, but you never answered me, nor you retracted. Satiric's point. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Coran Ironclaw .

Sorry I missed it. I was busy moving my girlfriend 1000 miles to live me around then, and I didn't have a lot of time to look over the wiki.

Most policies are not arbitrary lines. They're directive in nature and provide a process to get things done. The ones that are include arbitrary lines (like user pages, blocking limits/guidelines, and signatures) I've generally campaigned against.

—Tanaric 11:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)