Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-04 bureaucrat election

Start

When does it start, I already have 2 canidates picked out :) --Shadowphoenix 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April 6th. --Lemming 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

ah, ok.  :) --Shadowphoenix 20:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

gogo! --Blood Anthem 00:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A First

This is the first bureaucrat election in our history in which I am not a candidate. It feels really strange, to be honest. :) —Tanaric 05:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL!! -- ab.er.rant 05:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Brb, nominating Tanaric for a second bureaucrat seat. It might take some policy re-writing, but it's worth it to keep Tanaric in the running, right? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it every actually say that a sitting Bureaucrat cannot run for another seat? I think not! Go Tanaric! *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we're on to something here. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about "false" nominations

Should something be done with a few of the "joke" nominations? I see no reason for insulting other users with a sarcastic nomination and let everyone "lulz" at that persons expense. Hell, I would think its a borderline NPA in a way.--riceball 00:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's democracy for ya. Yes, I agree, there are way too many joke nominations, but do we just take them out? Is that even allowed by ELECT? -- Brains12 \ Talk 01:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

joke nominations are intentionally in. Some users believe they help people to not take things os bloody seriously. Backsword 01:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't work for riceball, obv. Lord Belar 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Well, I'm off to nominate Banjo!

I wish weak humor and insulting other users wasnt always defended with the "you take things too seriously" line. The only thing funny was the use of The Chewbacca Defense. But it really wasnt needed either. Oh well. I guess I better to back to being serious and lecture my dog on the suffering in Sudan and how she isnt helping the solution. Oh wait, thats not really funny either. Nuts.--riceball 01:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That was actually pretty funny. -- Brains12 \ Talk 02:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I laughed @ the sudan comment -- Salome 19:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they really hurt anything, I would say just leave them be for now --Shadowphoenix 01:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What are these elections for? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:216.161.219.12 (talk).

They are to choose our bcrat you can find out more here and here --Shadowphoenix 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Practical Issue

the term starts at 1 May. Election finishes after 1 May. What do we do about the terms?--Sum Mesmer Guy 16:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Make each phase four or five days? Calor 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

that could work, seeing as the phases are too long anyway.--Sum Mesmer Guy 16:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The term ends when it should normally end; Xeeron will retain his seat until the end of the election/when the first winner is decided. The winner will probably have a week cut off his term, but I don't think that would be too much of a problem. Reading the discussion that took place will probably help you with how this will work. -- Brains12 \ Talk 16:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Calor 21:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what happened now?

Too many joke nominations so it just... restart? Confirm yes/no? Damn, I was hoping to get my vote skillz on. - Vanguard 18:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the restart is due to Tanaric's resignation. Now there's two seats to fill, so the election is restarted to allow for a fairer elections to the second position.--Pyron Sy 18:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was a big note on top of that page.. See Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections#Vacant bureaucrat seat. poke | talk 18:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, saw the note but it just didn't click with me.- Vanguard 18:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, it didn't make much sense to me either, but I got it now. — ク Eloc 貢 02:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting

can someone tell me if i can vote here??? as i have no clue how to do it myself --Wild 13:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

to answer your question, no you can't as you have less than a 100 edits outside the guild/user namespace (I think you're sat at about 40+). Hope this helped. -- Salome 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup Sure does thanks --Wild 01:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Stage 3: Deciding winners - Discussion

Ok. We have two open seats, one normal and one shortened. We have 4 potential candidates: (supporting/opposing)

• Ab.er.rant: 47 -6 = 41
• Auron: 41 -11 = 30
• Defiant Elements: 24 -7 = 17
• Tanetris: 38 -5 = 33

I think we can can agree that Defiant Elements has not enough votes that he can get a seat (even if the number 24/7 is very nice :P). On the other hand, Ab.er.rant has the most positive votes with a low number of opposing votes, so I would say he gets the normal seat. The problem then is how we decide the second seat, as Auron's and Tanetris' vote balance is quite similar (+30 vs. +33).
Discuss! poke | talk 00:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tally. Someone recount that to make sure. Backsword 00:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I know the elections aren't purely decided by votes, but I figured some people would want them in one place. The top three candidates are Aberrant, Auron, and Tanetris (by votes). So statistically, Aberrant and Tanetris are the two winners, but we should discuss first. Discuss. Calor 00:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *topic-merge* poke | talk 00:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tanetris? Since was does 38 > 41?- Vanguard 00:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ratios. Calor 00:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Democracy is confusing.- Vanguard 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, no. Totals. Backsword 00:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This stage now is to discuss that problem. So let me ask a question to start the discussion (meh :P): What would make Auron/Tanetris a better bureaucrat than Tanetris/Auron? poke | talk 00:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) As has already been said, Ab.er is most likely getting the first seat. In regard to the second seat though, while Auron does have more supports (by 3) he also does have more opposes (by 6). Therefore solely going on the numbers Tanetris would probably get the second seat. --Kakarot 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Poke, was busy typing when you added that. --Kakarot 00:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a few people simply did not choose to vote on his page?- Vanguard 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is probably a reason for that... poke | talk 00:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, I don't feel that Auron should be excluded because a few extra people were more outspoken against him than the other candidates.- Vanguard 00:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, except there is hopefully a good reason more voted against Auron. And that would be that they legitimately did not want him to win - as opposed to them just wanting their "vote" to have more weight. And, since all those who voted against Auron or Tanetris, voted for the other that is a possibility. However, absent something to support that, I am will to assume they had a good reason (and some were explained). Likewise, everyone should assume that the reason I didn't oppose Tanetris was because I had no reason to, although I knew it would have given my vote for Auron more weight (Vanguard, is there a reason we should not assume the same for you). Thus, absent some meaningful evidence to the contrary, I would suggest that those few more outspoken people against Auron should mean that Tanetris wins the second seat this time. -- Inspired to ____ 01:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Choosing Tanetris, we lose a good sysop. Choosing Auron, we win a new admin. I do think it's a benefit to have them both, and would therefore suggest Auron. - anja 06:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) As I stated on Auron's election page, imho he needs to work on his ppl skills more b4 he is elected. As for Tanetris, I think he should get the bcrat seat this time and Auron could possibly get it the next go around (if he follows mine and some other users advice). If you wanna be specific Ab.er.rant won, Tanetris is the runner up and Auron made third. So from my perspective Ab.er.rant and Tanetris should get the seats this time :o) --Shadowphoenix 06:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this decision should be left to the discretion of other bureaucrats/admins. Both are very close together. Auron has a strong opposition, where not many (and see who opposes him, take a close look) really oppose Tanetris. Auron has also strong support on the other hand. He is much more controversial, but I would see this as a chance: He knows he will be watched and really has to prove something to the guys who voted against him, i.e. keeping his temper and language in check, being less blunt. He failed several times to get the admin position, if he now fails again as bureaucrat, it is really game over. I think Tanetris will become admin, bureaucrat or whatever sooner or later. He does a good job, and I voted for him. I think GW1 is basically over and done, not that much more content is to be expected. I think this is the right time to give Auron a chance. If not now, when ever? His persistance in candidating for the Wiki should be honored. I think he got the message and knows the concerns of his opposers, and will not go on a power trip and ignore that. OK. Enough preaching for today. --Longasc 06:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

While I would love to agree with you, I would like to take the next 2 months and observe him and his behavior b4 he gets elected.... Now as for an RfA I may have less of an oppose on that but as for this RfB I do oppose quite strongly atm --Shadowphoenix 06:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Longasc, have you actually spoken to Auron before right? As the things you described above don't describe him in the slightest. From the little I know of Auron, I honestly doubt he'll care if we're monitoring him and his actions or not. Auron is just who he is and I very much doubt that he will change that for anyone and for that he has alot of my respect, but unfortunately, I also believe that he isn't the right man for the job on this one. Also guys I know this is brought up every time we have an election, but whats the deal with votes? Like i know its not a direct tally, but then from most of the comments above from people seem to be in favor of Tenetris because he has the most yay votes over nay votes. Are we gonna change into a direct tally then or not, as at the moment it seems to be working that way. Anyhoo I'm in favour of Tenetris getting the second seat. -- Salome 08:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Same as with the past bcrat election (and previous RfAs), the main objection raised through the wiki against Auron is based on his (total) lack of "person skills", but we must remember that the bureaucrat position is not really one of community management, but of mediation when such management fails. As such, and knowing that the bureaucrat job requires a majority of the bureaucrats to decide, that a single bureaucrat has no real power, and that the point of view (or the applications of such point of view) is expected to differ between bureaucrats if we want such instance to mean something actually, i think Auron would be a better option than Tanetris (which i personally have found lacking a little in the self-awareness department, and i find him too close on behavior to what Aiiane has shown as bcrat).

In any case, i think it could be a good idea to allow the candidates a chance to reach a decision between themselves based on what they feel they can contribute with, same as it happened on the last election.--Fighterdoken 08:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Didnt the last one have an out and out winner though? Tanaric had something like 3 times the support of his closest runner up didnt he? -- Salome 09:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose that Tanetris beat Auron because if Auron was clearly the better candidate more concerned, 100-edit contributors would have rallied to voted for him to cancel out the negative votes. Also the three other candidates got about the same number (+/- 1) of negative votes, so some people obviously went out of their way to vote against Auron, above the level of the "background noise" of negative votes. --Pious 10:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think in reading over these comments, I would have to agree with Anja, in that by electing Tanetris we lose a good sysop, but by electing Auron, we gain a good bureaucrat and keep a good sysop. I believe Auron will do a good job as a bureaucrat, which is why I voted for him, regardless of his so called lack of people skills. He is blunt, yes, but he is also fair, and totally understands the role of a bureaucrat here on GWW. -- Wynthyst 11:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, from the votes it would seem that Auron is only marginally more supported than Tentris and yet He's significantly more opposed than Tentris. Although I agree with you Wyn, that by giving Auron the role we get to keep a good sysop, i don't think we'll be gaining a good bureaucrat. Have to agree with whats been said before, out of all the serious candidates, Auron is the only person i can possibly foresee getting himself banned with his comments and I really don't think he's cut out for the role of bureaucrat. It's not just that he's not good with people, it's that he doesn't even debate things in a none offensive manner. Even when i was debating with him on his discussion page for this election he put in wee caustic comments like "flawed logic FTW" and i just don't think that's the way someone wishing to be bureaucrat should discuss issues. EDIT: also if we're going to use the "keep a good sysop, gain a good bureaucrat" reasoning, then why don't we also drop Aberrant from consideration for the role as well and put Defiant in the role (I'm not saying we should do this but logically it would be a more consistent view point to take if you're putting forward this oppinion) -- Salome 11:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Side note: These are 6 month terms, long enough to see how someone does. Give 'em that chance.- Vanguard 12:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my last comment, solely going by the numbers Tanetris would be more likely to win than Auron but that really shouldn't be the only way to decide elections as we should also take into account why each one would and would not make a good bureaucrat; this is why having comments on elections would be good since we could also use the reason for the vote to help make a decision. While I do agree with Anja and Wyn in relation to Tanetris, in regard to Auron I'm not completely sure whether he would or would not be a good choice for the bureaucrat role. Yes he is rather blunt but he also does seem to understand the role of a bureaucrat. Having said all that I haven't had as much interaction with either of these two people in my time here so I can't completely gauge (or evaluate) the pros and cons of these two candidates.

Finally I would like to see comments by the four primary candidates mentioned above before a final decision is made and since we do after all have a week to decide the winner it doesn't need to be rushed considering it is a six month term and I'm not completely sure if there is the equivalent of a Request for reconfirmation for the bureaucrat role. --Kakarot 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Vanguard "These are 6 month terms, long enough to see how someone does. Give 'em that chance", that makes no sense..... If we do not think they are ready for the position of bcrat why would we want to observe him while he was a bcrat????? You cannot just simply call up a reconformation for a bcrat if something was to go wrong..... @Kakarot, I agree I would also like to hear from the four potential canidates. --Shadowphoenix 13:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I know Auron and i think hes a great guy. But why dont you just go by the votes? So to me the guy with 33 gets the second seat.DrogoBoffin 13:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

@vanguard, using your reasoning we should just elect anyone then and see if they pan out. -- Salome 14:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

i voted solely b/c i didn't want auron in the position. however, i'd like to see what he says. if auron pledges to tone it down in regards to his rude comments, i'd be willing to reconsider in order to keep tanetris as admin. --VVong|BA 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the election policy, DrogoBoffin. poke | talk 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

@Salome: Anyone? This is an election with 3 people. I thought my side note was hinting at auron. I guess I have to make it in-face obvious in order for people to understand.- Vanguard 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

With 41 supporting votes I think it's unfair to say Auron lacks "people skills." He obviously doesn't. He's just not the carebear I am. The point of a bcrat is not to welcome people to the wiki and be the general nice guy. It is to solve exceptions and special cases. I don't see how a lack of carebearness would make a difference.
Auron is more outspoken, while Tanetris works "behind the scenes," and as a bcrat you will need to be clear with your opinion/decision in a case. I think Auron is stronger on that point. - anja 15:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To put it simply alot of the ppl that voted for Auron, don't like him but think that his blunt attitude would make him a great bcrat, and I agree; but you can be blunt and not rude in the process, imho Auron has not proven to me that he can stay level headed and at least somewhat polite and neutral in coverstaions. By his logic he is always right and from what I have seen it is extermely hard to sway him to agree with conceus. If Auron is elected at this point, I for see major arugments between the bcrats and him ignoring conceus altogether. If he can show me that he can respect people and at least try to see it from their point of view, then he will have my support in the next election. --Shadowphoenix 15:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

anja, auron has as many opposition votes as the two other candidates combined (and my opposition vote means more to me than my supporting ones). an argument can be made that he certainly lacks something. --VVong|BA 15:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I assume DrogoBoffin has read the election policy. I know I have, over and over again, and every time I come to the same conclusion. The community is to decide who won the stage 2 vote through discussion and consensus. Nowhere does the policy state or even suggest that this is an opportunity to rehash who should have won. Unfortunately, some people seem to attribute more significance to this stage then the policy gives it. If everyone would just realize that we have no "election commission" to count the votes and deal with disputes, so we have this stage, I believe this stage would be a lot cleaner. The policy clearly states the general metric to be used to determine the winner (support minus opposition) and nowhere does it state that this can or should be altered based on debate or discussion. Additionally, the policy seems very clear that changing/withdrawing of votes after stage 2 is not allowed which is just further evidence that discussion over who should have won does not belong here. Thus, absent some dispute being raised over the validity of some votes or the tally of them, I will continue to conclude that Ab.er.rant gets the first seat and Tanetris takes over the second seat. Finally, if anyone believes mine or anyone else's reading of the policy is incorrect, please point out the error in our understanding rather then just instructing us to read the policy. -- Inspired to ____ 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

@Poke I have read the policy. Read what I said again, If you know how to read and can understand grammar you will notice that it was in question form. I agree that Auron has an ego and is never wrong. I honestly think he would be good for the job.--DrogoBoffin 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2)  :"Both the total count and ratio of support/oppose votes should not be considered factors (e.g. a candidate who receives a support to oppose ratio of 5:1 could still lose to a candidate with a ratio of 2:1). The winner needs to have a "positive vote balance", that is, more supporting than opposing votes." votes play a somwhat minor role in the process of this election, but are still considered (personally I think the policy contridicts itself but, meh, I dont feel like making another policy draft :P)..... --Shadowphoenix 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You cant have a policy that contradicts itself. It is just stupid. If after the voting you go to a discussion to decide who wins, why even vote. Just take the nominees and have a discussion about it then.--DrogoBoffin 15:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, DrogoBoffin, but after you tried to vote 13 hours after the voting phase had ended without having enough contributions to vote, I simply assumed, that you did not read it.

And I quite agree with Anja, Auron would fit better to the group with Aiiane and Ab.er.rant. poke | talk 15:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah with the voting. I never saw anything saying it was over. I also am unaware of what my contribs are since I do have them on both wikis and am not sure exactly what I have done here and not there and vise a versa. I have also been awake for 2 days so GG--DrogoBoffin 15:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't read a contradiction in the policy. First it says support minus opposition and then the next sentence states that total count and ratio of support/oppose should not be considered. Those are three separate things and it very clear which is determinative. So absent another thing that I do not find (other than that the result of support minus oppose is positive which it is), the result seems clear. -- Inspired to ____ 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically put Tentris has a higher degree of consensus in this than Auron does and im not simply referring to votes here. People seem more polarized in their views when it comes to Auron whereas when debating Tentris we seem less at odds. Thus for that reason, as well as the ones i stated above, my support still has to be behind Tenetris on this one, as him getting the role of bureaucrat divides the wiki less in their opinions. That and the fact that I agree with what others have said that Auron is extremely stubborn in his view points and I doubt that, even when he is wrong, someone could sway him on the matter, which i think is a pretty major flaw in a person for a role which is basically about seeking consensus with the other Bureaucrats. -- Salome 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually quite sure Aiiane has swayed me on many an issue in the past.

You might wanna just stick with copy-pasting Tanetris' name, though. -Auron 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

@Inspired: The voting phase is aimed at accumulating user support, hence the reason why users are allowed to vote for multiple candidates. They're not meant to be elections per se, in that each user gets one and only one vote. The policy is designed (or at least, the original intention), was to use the support/oppose votes to gauge user preferences, and then use the discussion phase to determine who among the most supported is most suitable. @everyone, try to look beyond the numbers and think about how the wiki will gain the most by whoever takes up the empty seats. -- ab.er.rant 16:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

EC Most oppose votes arent fueled by "This user is not fit for the position" but mostly by ";;I just dont like this user".*cough* Mgrinshpon*cough*--128.211.236.137 16:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well apart from the fact that people didn't vote against Mgrinshpon just cause they didn't like him, they voted against him as he's a troll who completely disregards wiki policy and is entirely unsuited for the role.EDIT @ Auron, yup indeed i do suck at spelling user names. -- Salome 16:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) While I can't speak to past intentions, I have a hard time believing that someone intended for stage 2 to determine user preferences and then to have a stage three to reach a decision that bypasses those preferences. Also, votes can and do exist where you vote for multiple candidates in one election. I do so for both School Board and City Council. -- Inspired to ____ 16:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Truthfuly I am not fond of Auron, but that in no way sways my vote; like I said I could support him if he adpots a blunt but not rude attitude --Shadowphoenix 16:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Inspired, you can do whatever you want but fact is that this election is based on a decision in Stage 3, not on a voting in Stage 2! poke | talk 16:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah some people dislike him, and he doesn't help himself (see comment above). I'm not sure that disgruntled users not in good odour themselves, and few in number should be allowed to sway the election (I'm not referring to all oppose votes v Auron, only some). And more people positively want Auron than want Tanetris. Plus, we have more information (everyone seems clear that aberrant gets one seat) than people had in the initial vote, which may shift positions (balance of skills between bureaucrats). Personally, I'm slightly uneasy at someone so, err, blunt, being seen to be given "status" by the community...but that isn't really what being a bureaucrat is about. Rather, it's about the arbitration...and I think that Auron's "edge" gives a little something that the other two might lack (just as they provide many admirable qualities Auron may lack).Cassie 16:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok here is why I am opposing, I do not want an administrator who makes rude comments such as those (that are either NPA or borderline NPA). sorry for bringing that discussion back up, but it seems like the best way to prove my point. --Shadowphoenix 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

He got his point accross. Auron gets straight to the point, and doesnt sugar coat it.--DrogoBoffin 16:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is you can get your point across with out screaming, "shut the fu*k up", "You are an a*shat", etc. --Shadowphoenix 17:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2)For others' references, those quotes are mainly from User talk:Aiiane. Looking at it, that discussion shows Auron's strengths. OK, he didn't mince his words, but he fought for an unpopular contributor he held no brief for simply becuase he saw injustice & double standards. I don't think he was completely right or completely wrong (and I'm not going to get sidetracked here into why but read the arbcomm decision), but the point was he provided a good counterpoint to Aiiane, and as a bureaucrat he would provide the same service.Cassie 17:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of them were from there, but that is because I took that from a discussion which involved Aiiane's talk page (and other stuff). If he wants my vote he needs to stop screaming borderline NPA's and basicaly telling ppl to go fu*k off; I do not want an admin who has a large potential to get blocked.... --Shadowphoenix 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) = this conversation (i.e. circle) -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) On a side note, I would like to see the opinions of Aiiane, Xeeron, and Tanaric on this --Shadowphoenix 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tanaric's.. um... not here at the moment. Please try again later.-- Brains12 \ Talk 17:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL that actually did make me laugh out loud. Anyhoo, have to agree with brains, we've basically got to a point where we're just going round and round. Some people think hes a good counterpoint to the current bureaucrats because of his brash nature, while others think hes unfit for the role due to his inability to even attempt a polite response. Both are fairly valid arguments, so my question is what do we do now? If we have 2 groups of people firmly in opposing camps, where do we go from there? -- Salome 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's still the case by the time this stage is close to ending, we either wait until one of them withdraws or call ArenaNet in. At the moment, we still have a little over six days left, so wait for more input. -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If it were anyone else people would be like "okay, top two wins. End".- Vanguard 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, indeed mate. -- Salome 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) We wait to see who else may wish to lend their words to this discussion, this is not something the gets decided in a day by the first 10 people to post. I hope that more of the people who cast supporting and opposing votes for both candidates would take the time to join the discussion. It isn't simply a matter of "he who speaks most loudly, and posts the same opinion most often wins."-- Wynthyst 17:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this has become a "Why Auron can't be given administrative power" instead of a "Who is more fit for the bureucrat post, Tanetris or Auron" thread, i would like to ask those who oppose the A option: How do you think Auron's rudeness could affect his job as bureaucrat, specially since bcrats are not allowed to work alone, and their talk-page comments have the same weight than, let's say, anon?

And speaking of anon, i agree with him above, this has become too much a "I don't like him" discussion instead of a "He is not fit for the position" one.--Fighterdoken 18:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive already explained my position on this on Auron's discussion page, as can be seen here. For the record I would just like it pointed out that I actually do like Auron. I respect his candor and I agree with many of his viewpoints. However just cause I like someone doesn't mean that I think they are well suited for the role in question. -- Salome 18:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I am not fond of Auron, but as explained above, Fighterdoken, that does not sway my vote. A bcrat has to deal with ppl during ArbComm, they need to consider the communities comments and opinions on a subject. What bcrats do not do is tell their opinion to the community and then enforce that because the bcrat thinks he/she is right, I am afraid that is what Auron would do in such a case (I have not seen anything telling me otherwise). Tanetris is level headed and neutral in most (if not all) discussions, Auron is not. Tanetris at least tries to be polite when informing someone that they are wrong or they made a mistake, Auron does not. Tanetris does not randomly scream obscenities at people when they do not agree with him, on some occasions Auron has. Auron is blunt and to the point which is a good thing, Tanetris is less blunt. Auron is very smart which can help out alot, but he uses his intellgence to intimmdate people (imo). Auron would most likely be a great bcrat, but until he can show me (as well as others) that he can be civil in discussions then I am against him being a bcrat (repeating again lol). --Shadowphoenix 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Shadowphoenix fairly accurately summed up my reason for voting against Auron as well. He may be intelligent, but his aggressiveness is an indication of a lack of impartiality. Anyone that hopes to make a good candidate for any position ought to have a level of meekness (that is, a quiet confidence). If you know you are right, why be emotional? Auron also is prone to elitism (notice his frequent references to those who make suggestions to Izzy as retards). Because you disagree or thought of something someone else did not makes them stupid and you smart? The more intelligent you are, the more you realize everyone knows something that you do not. Even "retards" can be learned from. The lack of humility and meekness in his conversations are indications of someone that is not impartial and is more concerned with believing he is right rather than actually being right. I would prefer someone who is right 50% of the time and is eager to become right the other 50% than someone who is right 90% and will not let go of the other 10%.
I admit that I am not as familiar with Tanetris, so I cannot in good conscience (and in fairness to Auron) assert that Tanetris would be the better bcrat, I simply know that for the reasons above I do not believe that Auron would make a good one. Mohnzh 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I, too, believe that Auron can sometimes be too caustic in his approach to certain people/issues. That is what ultimately made me vote in opposition to him. Don't get me wrong, I do believe he is an intelligent individual that has the tendency to be right a lot of the time, but the position of being a bureaucrat requires dealing with situations that have already become somewhat sensitive and, sometimes, ones in which emotions are riding high for all involved parties (see recent J.Kougar case). Having such a caustic and abrasive attitude would do no good in such situations, regardless of how right someone is. Unless Auron and others that voted for him can show me that he would be able to be polite while being blunt (and, as metioned above, the ability to show some humility doesn't hurt, either), I don't believe he is suited for the position and could possibly do more harm than good. Kokuou 22:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Aplogizing for going in circles again but... He doesn't need to be able to do it. Bureaucrats work as a team, and i am pretty sure the other two would be pretty much able to cancel any rudeness from Auron's part, something that wouldn't really happend with Tanetris (which would mostly be a second Aiiane bcrat-wise). If worse come to worse, and he pulls a rant out of time, i am sure he would be able to amend its course of action instead of, let's say, step aside and leave the bureaucrat team with one less member when a process is running.--Fighterdoken 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouchies. -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fighterdoken, I am getting tired of repeating myslef over and over, so I will try to re-word it again :P. Bcrat is the highest position on GWW, the position deals with senstive subjects that do not have room for a bcrats personal opinion on the matter. Auron's current behavior has shown that when he has an opinion he expresses it and does not budge, this can be a major problem since ArbComm should not and is not about a bcrats personal opinion. I do not want one of the faces of our wiki (so to speak) to basicaly tell a new user that made a mistake to GTFO cause he did something wrong (example btw). I do not care if the other bcrats can stamp out his rudness (even though they cannot, imho), the fact is he is still rude. From my point of view; the bcrats should basically repersent our wiki and if a bcrats starts screaming obscenities at people, it makes all of us look bad. If Auron shows improvement over the next two months, then yes I will support; but right now I am far from that. --Shadowphoenix 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, Auron was not trusted enough by the community to be a Sysop, I don't think we should give him the position of a bureaucrat. Tanetris, in other hand, not only was trusted enough to become a Sysop, but also has experience with the administration of this wiki, something important for a bureaucrat. The fact that we have to lose a sysop in order to gain a bureaucrat is a problem that is under discussion in the recent drafts for the Adminship policy, and that hopefully will be fixed soon enough. Between this and how Tanetris support/oppose rate is better than Auron's, plus the arguments mentioned above, I don't have any doubts about who should be the second bureaucrat. Erasculio 23:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fighterdoken, that's just it, he does need to do it. It shouldn't be up to the other two bureaucrats to balance Auron's shortcomings in his people skills. Yeh they do have to balance each other's viewpoints , but they shouldn't be asked to compensate for someone who just can't be arsed being polite and seems to think that an attempt at compromise or some form of social etiquette is a display of weakness. Also take this debate alone as an example, in regards to my posts, Auron has already made a crack about my spelling and called my logic flawed, now I'm not bothered as I'm not one to get offended about that kinda thing, however if I were a sensitive wee soul I could take offense at him making personal jabs at me. Is that behavior really what you think is best in someone that wishes to be a bureaucrat? -- Salome 23:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Shadowphoenix: In my opinion, bureaucrats need to have a personal opinion when handling arbcom cases.. The point is that arbcom cases cannot be handled by the community alone, so the decision about it will be moved to the three bureaucrats. If bcrats would listen only to arguments given by others, it would be senseless to have bcrats because the wiki users discuss alot - but without results (as you can see in this discussion again..) - so the arbcom is needed and the bcrats should be able to decide alone, so a personal opinion is really important. You should also note that one bureaucrat can never make a decision alone; there are at least two needed. So it is stupid to say that a blunt Auron can make mistakes alone; either the complete arbcom makes mistakes (which has to be accepted then) or everything is fine. But sysops are able to make something on their own, they can block whoever they want and delete whatever they want and cause major damage; so there is a difference between sysop and bureaucrat - and I would not say that bureaucrat is the more trustful job...

And I disagree with that bcrats should represent the wiki. The whole community (and the content represents) a wiki - you as a community-addict should know that. When people come to a wiki, they do not see what is happening in the background, they normally only see content pages. When they decide to dive into a wiki community, they will mainly see the whole community and not only 3 of 30k registered users (=bureaucrats). Plus: bureaucrats only work when there is an arbcom case open (or when approving an RfA which is robot work..), otherwise they are normal users with normal rights. poke | talk 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) To SP, you don't really need to repeat yourself. Your arguments are already here so there is no need. In any case, there is nothing on the policy or the function assigned to Bcrats that deny them of the chance to express themselves as users of the wiki as far as i know. It's up to them if they do so, but i expect from them to be able to separate their functions. If a bureaucrat express his opinion about a topic, he should be able to make such opinion not affect its work as bureaucrat same as you express that your personal opinion about Auron has nothing to do with your vote. If the opinion made public by a bureaucrat affect his job, he shouldn't have expressed his opinion from the begining. I actually trust Auron with being able to separate his functions as "bureaucrat" and "user", something i don't see Tanetris doing based on his actions as Admin. A bureaucrat can't just "let someone else decide".

To Salome, bureaucrats don't need to be "asked to" balance themselves, they do it in their actions. We can't just have three "Timmys" in a group, because they will all act as Timmy, and they may be unable to see flaws on their logic. I will not comment about your personal discussion with Auron, because that is something you both managed to create.

To Erasculio, i agree with you. I wouldn't give Auron admin tools because i am not sure how he could react if "shit happends", but we must remember that what is required for being an admin and what is required for being a bureaucrat is not the same. Some people can be capable of doing on of these without being able to do the other.--Fighterdoken 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are post after post after post here of people saying they done like or think auron isnt right for the job. And Shadowphoenix you just dont like him so why keep posting. everythink you have added has been the same thing again and again. your opinion of him is biased. and therefore your opinion shouldnt count. and if there are so many ppl who think he is the wrong person for the job why not just end the discussion and give it to the other guy.--DrogoBoffin 23:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there aren't that many different people posting against Auron, is just that they are more vocal about it. And unless one of the candidates steps aside, we have to keep discussing until concensus is reached or the time limit expires.--Fighterdoken 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It still hasn't been a day. We don't have to make this decision right now. We have over six days left until our time runs out, so other people have plenty of time to get their view on. Relaax duuude -- Brains12 \ Talk 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

six days and 13 minutes! poke | talk 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to balance Fighetr's comment above, their isn't that many different people arguing in favour of Auron either. Also to fighterdoken, honestly i'm not being deliberately dense here, but i didn't really get what you meant in your comment to me, as it sounded a bit like rhetoric to me but i'm guessing that I just missed the point you were making. EDIT: just to clarify i got what you meant about needing three different personality types so that you have 3 proper viewpoints rather than just wee clones of each other all thinking the same way. I just didn't get the bit where you said "bureaucrats don't need to be "asked to" balance themselves, they do it in their actions." -- Salome 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as I missed this huge discussion, I am not going to read the entire thing as I currently don't have time for that. I would have to say Aberant and Tanetris as they both have the highest support to nonsupport ratio. Also, Tanetris has previous experience, so he would know what to do off the bat instead of having to learn to do everything. — ク Eloc 貢 02:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

@Salome, if you really want to talk about numbers here... there have been 7 people indicating a preference for Auron, and 9 showing a preference for Tanetris. That is not an overwhelming majority by any means. The fact 2 of those 9 have written 2/3rds of what discussion there has been, mostly just repeating the same thing over and over just proves that you seem to think that this IS a case of 'He who speaks loudest wins', which is just not true. Both you and Shadowphoenix have made your opinions clear... repeatedly. There is no need to repost your position/opinion in response to every post made that doesn't agree with you. If someone has read the comments that have been posted and still post in opposition to you, repeating yourself is unlikely to change their mind.-- Wynthyst 03:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, guess I thougt if I said it differently each time my point would get across; now that I think about it, that was stupid on my part :P --Shadowphoenix 04:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

@Wyn, just to clarify I didn't raise the issue of numbers. Also it seems I was under the mistaken assumption that this page was for discussion not to be used as a notice board where we all get one shot to put up what we think and leave it at that. Although it is true that I have posted a fair bit on this topic, I have not posted just to fill up the page and hear myself speak, as each of my contributions have been in response to what someone else has said. I'm accustomed to using reasoned and balanced debate to solve a problem (I'm not saying that I'm always reasoned and balanced in my arguments but I know that's a flaw in myself at times) and in this instance I feel that I have tried to keep respectful of other posters and just put forward my point of view. I have posted repeatedly not to "shout the loudest" as you rather offensively termed it, but rather to point out what I think the flaws are in someone else's stance on this matter. Also while we are on this, out of the 12 posts I have made on this discussion, I would say that only 1 of them has even been remotely repeating itself and even then it went on to expand in a new way on what I was saying. If you read my posts again here you will see that I have put forward different reasons and explanations in each of my posts and gave extra clarification where needed. I have not been rephrasing my original post over and over. If all you mean by "repeating myself" is not changing my opinion on Auron being unfit for the role, well then that's your right but personally I think it's a wee bit glib to dismiss a debate in such a general manner. Just becuase someone doesn't change their stance, doesn't mean that the person is repeating themself. Using that reasoning then it would seem that anyone who has posted more than once and not changed their viewpoint in that time, has repeated themself. Also Wyn just on a slightly pedantic side note, Shadow and I have been responsible for less than a 1/3rd of the debate in this discussion (not including this post). I know that's still quite a substantial amount out of 15 total posters, but it's nothing like the 2/3rds you stated above. -- Salome 11:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, my contribution was to state that we should really have a good reason to over-turn the results of a vote if we collectively want future votes to be taken seriously. I haven't read any good reasons yet. --Pious 13:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the policy, the vote (count) is not the deciding factor in the election. -- Wynthyst 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the best solution would be to make Tanetris the current bureaucrat (since this term is a shorter than normal one) and allow Auron to run for Sysop again right now (of course, if he wishes to do so). We would have time to see how Tanetris handles being a bureaucrat until the next election (so in a couple months, when his term expires, we'll be able to judge whether he made a good job or not) and time to see how Auron handles being an admin, so when the next bureaucrat election comes (two months from now) we would know how good he was working as a part of the system. Erasculio 14:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Erasculio's suggestion might be the better course of action. What it seems to me is that those against Auron hold that position because of traits Auron has already exhibitted. Those opposed to Tanetris are so because they feel like his viewpoints are not going to be significantly different than the other two bcrats. The former is observation, the latter speculation. For that reason, confirming Tanetris as a bcrat for a short term seat would give us time to observe if that is the case (and if it is, whether that is a negative situation or not). Mohnzh 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wynthyst, you are misinterpreting the policy. It says that the metric of "amount of support minus the amount of opposition" should be used, while the metric of "total count" and the metric of "ratio of support/oppose votes" should not be used. Basically, it just tells us how to count the votes. --Xeeron 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I was getting at Xeeron is that the vote count by itself was not intended to be the determining factor of the election. That's why we have this stage of discussion. Otherwise, why are we even bothering with this?-- Wynthyst 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's being discussed because it's Auron. If it were anyone else, like I said, there wouldn't be this big of a debate.- Vanguard 15:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well done. You now see that we're discussing the candidates and their ability to be a bureaucrat. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not just why we have this stage Wyn but also why it's almost a week long to allow for discussion and consensus. --Kakarot 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

i don't know Tanetris at all, as with the other candidates i didn't vote on. i'm not particularly fond of Auron, however, i think that he would be a good bcrat, especially as it is a shortened term. i've nticed that this has been "Auron this" and "Auron that", but no-one has really discussed Tanetris. can i suggest that as the next course of action?--Sum Mesmer Guy contribs 15:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy is not 100% clear on that, but you are taking the words "Both the total count and ratio of support/oppose votes should not be considered factors" as meaning "we should discuss who is the better bureaucrat and put less weight on the vote", which is wrong. While the policy does not forbid any discussion about the bureaucrats qualities, what it calls for is a discussion about who is the winner of the election. The sentence I quoted above only tells us which measure to use in that discussion, not to disregard the 2nd stage. --Xeeron 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Then tell us who that winner is so we can get on with it? How are we supposed to discuss who is the winner if only vote numbers count (support - opposition) and nothing else? I thought much of the drama of the last elections came from too much reliance on numbers, and when we're trying to get away from that it's wrong again. I think I'll just not bother. - anja 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Logically the discussion of who would make the better bureaucrat, and their qualities, is something that should have happened primarily before the election. Otherwise you risk seeming to seek a way to overturn a reasonable set of results. --Pious 16:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a problem with relying on consensus: it's IMO the best possible system, but when it becomes a matter of taking a decision...Who is going to take it? In this case, we have only two options: either Tanetris wins, or Auron wins. On the discussion above, users have stated their opinions of who should win, just like on the voting itself. However, what kind of consensus could we reach here? A compromise to please both sides? That would be hard, given how it's a "X or Y" situation (although I have proposed what I see as a compromise above). To make those who want Auron to win change their minds so they think Tanetris is better, or the other way around? I think that would be very unlikely.

I wasn't around for the last election, but I remember the election between Xeeron and Tanaric; then it kinda went into a "what do we do now?" mode until someone decided to stand and say, "so this is what we will do", and that was done. IMO, this time we will eventually end with a decision like that: if a compromise between those who want Auron to win and those who want Tanetris to win is not possible, just make the one with the most votes win. Not the ideal outcome, but it may be the best possible one. Erasculio 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Pious, I have to admit i too have always kinda thought it should have been discussion first and then votes. However that would then raise the question about who do we discuss? As in this election alone their was 9 candidates and out of them the only 4 with any real support were the ones listed at the start of this topic. If it was discussion and then votes, we might end up wasting our time discussing people who don't have a hope of being elected in anyway. Although that's just me playing devils advocate as I always kinda felt that stage 2 and stage 3 should be reversed and then use a simple "biggest positive vote differential" wins, as it just seems to make more sense to me. -- Salome 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it a little differently and I know I made a lot of "going by the vote" above and stand by that. But, that should not negate the purpose of discussion. It just does't seem helpful to discuss the merits of the candidates at this point. There was plenty of time for that during the nomination and voting stages. Anyway, do any of us really think that a significant number of minds will be changed now (if anything a discussion at this point will just cause most people to entrench), and besides the policy seems to prohibit one from changing their vote after the voting stage anyway. However, votes can definitely be changed during the voting stage due to discussion, etc. So why this stage? Well maybe, quick and simple formality - see below on ab.er.rant. Or maybe, someone wishes to discuss the legitimacy of someone's vote. Things such as number of contributions, are they a sock puppet, etc. that affect whether their vote is counted. And perhaps finally, and this seems most unclear and problematic, do they actually have a reason for their vote of opposition. Thus, although hopefully no one believes this should be an definite absolute based on a vote tally, I don't see how it is called for or helpful to debate the merits of the candidates at this stage. I'm sorry this has become more a discussion of the policy, but maybe better now then never. -- Inspired to ____ 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as of right now, concensus would call for Tanetris being picked, since there is only a small amount of "doubts" about his performace, and little opposition to his election. On the other hand, Auron has a very vocal "opposition" to his election that just doesn't care about his possible performance as bcrat (because that opposition just can't understand the difference between a bureaucrat and a sysop).

Someone said above that we could pick Tanetris and give him the chance to prove himself as bcrat, while giving Auron a chance to run for sysop. But we could do it the other way also, since Tanetris has had time to prove himself as Sysop, which is something i don't see happening for Auron since many of those who voted for him as bcrat also opposed to him on his previous RfA.--Fighterdoken 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The whole idea of 'letting Auron prove himself' should be moot as his performance as a sysop on GuildWiki and his performance as a Bureaucrat on PvX already demonstrate he is capable of both roles. As for Tanetris, he is a quiet, intelligent guy, who very capably fulfills his role as a sysop and would just as capably fulfill his role as a bureaucrat. I don't want anyone to think that just because I have added support to Auron that I would not be perfectly happy to have Tanetris fill the seat. I just feel that Auron would provide a better balance of the bureaucrats with his passion and willingness to play devil's advocate if he feels it necessary.-- Wynthyst 18:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Auron has not proved himself here. As I have said many times before, this wiki is not GuildWiki and it's definitely not PvXWiki - the fact that Auron has recently been rejected as a sysop here and recently been chosen as a sysop on GuildWiki is one among many ways to show how both wikis and both communities are different. Even assuming he has done a good job somewhere else, if he would be a good admin here, on this wiki, remains to be seen. Erasculio 21:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying Wyn, but imho it would not balance them out. Tanetris (imo) has exceded as a sysop and has shown all of the qualities that a bcrat should have. Auron is a good guy deep down but he needs to work on it a bit more b4 he gets elected. Tanetris has a bcrat personality, he seems like he is neutral in situations; which is what a bcrat must do. So I say Tanetris. oh and btw lets try to stay on topic shall we? --Shadowphoenix 18:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this has gone off-topic. As for my opinion, I agree with Wyn -- Auron would add something different to the bureaucrat table and arbitration cases, which is a positive thing. Tanetris would make a good bureaucrat -- with qualities already discussed up above -- but may be a little too similar with what we already have at the moment. In this case, where both candidates would be equally skilled at being a bueaucrat, I would go for variety with Auron. -- Brains12 \ Talk 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC

The ppl who are discussing policy not the canidates, I think that belongs here :P --Shadowphoenix 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(reposition) @ Salome, if people thought that only 4 of the candidates were serious candidates before the election then they should have just said this and then concentrated their discussion on the more plausable candidates. Discussion afterwards is clearly worthwhile but people should expect to be raising something quite substancial if they expect to be able to overturn a vote after the fact. My interest is in fairness, nothing else. --Pious 19:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be totally against policy to have a run-off where each user has only one vote and can support (not oppose) one candidate? All it would take is creating a page with Auron and Tanetris' names on it and the community would sign under the name they choose. This would give a solid number to assign each candidate. I know there is no precedence or policy for this, so it may not be possible, but just a suggestion. Mohnzh 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

@Pious and all those who are going off-topic: Please avoid discussing the merits of the current elections policy and focus on discussing candidate suitability. Please raise change proposals instead. Regardless of what you think should be best, attempting to change the original meaning/idea or the implementation of this policy at this point is not possible. -- ab.er.rant 02:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ab.er.rant, but if this stage isn't just about who won the vote, then everything should be on the table since the policy obviously doesn't exclude anything from the discussion. On a more important note...since your here, are you okay with what what is discussed below and taking the first seat while we continue to ramble on (I mean discuss) the other seat? -- Inspired to ____ 02:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This stage isn't about who won the vote. It's about who, out of several most supported, should take the seat. Hence, because this election started off based on what the policy says, attempting to change its interpretation or meaning, is going off-topic. An election should not and cannot have its rules changed midway through it. We get comments about how an election is supposed to work during every election. But once that election is over, usually no one's interested in finally and appropriately discussing what needs to be changed, resulting in a stale and dead discussion between a very small number of users. Which would finally lead to no changes taking place and the cycle repeats. As for the open seat, if no one opposes, sure. -- ab.er.rant 02:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent and huh? Unfortunately, and ignore all my comments completely if you want, there seems to be honest disagreement over what the policy actually says and means. And, why if people refuse to agree what this policy says when the English words and the meaning of those words seems very clear and unambiguous to some of us, would we choose to come up with another policy that will just be ignored so people can argue what they want. Finally, if you can, please point me to the election under this policy where the results ended up being other than the candidate who had the most net votes. -- Inspired to ____ 02:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm getting confused. Let continue this elsewhere. -- ab.er.rant 04:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This stage may not about who won the vote but it should be a consideration and I believe that it was not being given enough weight. After all Ab.er.rant and all the other candidates were taken out of this discussion due to the conventional voting results.

It is observable that Tanteris won the vote, that a consensus was forming for Tanetris and even people more partial to Auron stated that Tanteris would be a good bcrat, therefore giving an even broader concensus for Tanteris. --Pious 07:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yes, but the votes, although present, aren't as important as discussion. For me, my opinion on this mattered was settled as soon as I ran into Anja's: "Choosing Tanetris, we lose a good sysop. Choosing Auron, we win a new admin. I do think it's a benefit to have them both, and would therefore suggest Auron. - anja" I might believe that Auron is too forceful for the role, but I can't bring myself to disagree with what Anja says. MiraLantis 19:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but its a little hard for me to believe you're not being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable, or should I really assume your opinion is so easily swayed (well, at least that would explain why some people think its important to have a discussion on the merits of the candidates at this point). For everyone who hasn't already noticed, I say this because not only did MiraLantis vote for Tanetris and not for Auron, MiraLantis actually opposed Auron. -- Inspired to ____ 22:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Failure

So, how long do people plan to go on until they realise that this does not work, can not work? No matter how fiercly you argue, people aren't going to just change their mind. Even less so in just a week.

This is what has been tried before when results were close. It's never worked before. Read Dirigible's comment here, on the same issue in an earlier election. (And I'm surprised some old hands have forgotten those elections already.)

Time could be spent more wisely. All we'll get is flaring tempers. Unless one or both of the candidates would like to withdraw, and this is good point for that, the last one really, I'd suggest we discuss the validity of the votes. (It's the information Anet would have to go on, if it comes to that). Backsword

Well, we coud always try to change the policy into something that

we can actually use (maybe reducing the discussion time to 1 day XD), but i guess i am not the only one lazy enough to not do it himself. In any case, unless there is a clear reason to revoke certain votes (like sockpuppeting, non-compliance of rules, etc) i don't see how that could help either.--Fighterdoken 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we move the discussion under "Faliure" here since it really doesn't apply to the canidates..... --Shadowphoenix 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mildly disagree...it seems to belong just fine. If anything should be moved, its all the comments directed at individual candidates that should be moved to their respective discussion pages that were set up for this election. They really don't seem to belong here any more then they belonged on the vote gathering pages. Some are way too close to personal attacks for something that one shouldn't be able to avoid if they don't want to go looking for them. Of course, it could be just me getting a little annoyed reading how Auron should change to get your vote in the future. -- Inspired to ____ 20:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you would be annoyed, since my opinion does not apply to you, just Auron..... --Shadowphoenix 21:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think its the fact that he's annoyed by that you think Auron should be seeking you're approval in some way and that you should sit in judgment of him over the next couple of months. This isn't me attacking you, just playing devils advocate again, but you are phrasing your comments about Auron in an offensive manner. However to inspired, I would say this, your suggesting that comments directed about the candidates be moved, is flawed. If we are not strictly going to go by most votes wins, then this page has to be about discussing the candidates themselves and their strengths and weaknesses to ascertain who the community thinks is most suitable for the role, removing the option to discuss the candidates, leaves us with nothing to debate and would effectively render this stage impossible to carry out. Also I would like to point out that the candidates when agreeing to go forward in the election, know that they are putting themselves up to public commentary and debate and in essence are seeking approval from the community. Frankly its the old adage of "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". If one doesn't wish to open themselves to public scrutiny, one shouldn't put themselves forward for the role of bureaucrat or accept being put forward for that role. Getting upset that people are scrutinizing the candidates and commenting upon them, seems to suggest a lack of understanding of how running for a public office operates. -- Salome 22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

EC. Because most complaints are against his personality and I hope you don't expect anyone to change their personality for you. That and because I don't believe that is an appropriate discussion to be having here and thus don't see how it would be appropriate to respond to your attacks on him here. Besides, the natural direction of any such discussion would likely evolve into a discussion of the value of your opinion which would be just as inappropriate. So...a little annoying.

Also, I'm not upset. -- Inspired to ____ 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

@Salome. I'm not sure this is a public office or at least shouldn't be considered as one. I would argue its actually a private office or at least should be treated as such. Either way, neither requires attempting to cut one candidate down to advance the other; although I agree it does often happen, especially for public office. -- Inspired to ____ 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Inspired, unfortunately the way this stage seems to work necessitates a degree of analysis of the candidates in question. Also I agree that we should not be undercutting a candidate to favour another, however pointing out the traits of an individual which you think makes them poorly suited to the role, isn't undercutting, rather it is just supplying some reasoning to a viewpoint. Admittedly though it does seem that this discussion has centered around the negative, as in why Auron or Tanetris is not suitable for this role, rather than why they are. Which I admit is in a large part my fault and for that I apologize. -- Salome 23:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I can get carried away with making a point. But, I hope we can both agree that none of the four candidates with positive vote balances will be the end of this wiki as we know it. So, while I probably should be more concerned with whether Auron (whom I voted for) or Tanetris (who I didn't because I think occasionally people need to be told to f*** off, including myself, and Auron is more likely to do so while being right when he does), I'm actually more interested in seeing that these silly elections for hopefully meaningless positions don't cause more harm than good. After all we can all be glad that we didn't have 50 new users all register in the last couple weeks, get there 100 edits and vote to elect Mgrinshpon or whomever they chose to nominate for 2 positions. -- Inspired to ____ 00:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) @ Inspired, I am not attacking him; I am telling what he should work on (not change) in order to be better suited for the role. I do not want him by no means to change altogether (thus, he would lose the reason why I would support him in the next election). The people who commented on my election did so in a somewhat similar manner, so why should I do it any differently? I am not going to "beat around the bush" about why I think he shouldn't be a bcrat.

@ Salome, yeah it was a bit harsh got to admit that; but as I said above I am not gonna "beat around the bush". I do not hold myself to a higher standard then anyone else that is involved in this discussion, I was telling my opinion from my point of view, not everyones. Tbh I have said that if he does not amke it during this election, then yes I am going to observe him, so that he can gain my support. --Shadowphoenix 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

@Inspired, ROFL about Mgrinshpon comment. Completely agree with everything you said! -- Salome 00:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RI. If we are indeed to focus on the positives, I think I'll throw in my opinion that Auron would be better for the role. His personality contrasts a bit with the other incumbents, and I believe a bit of diversity among Bcrats is a good thing. He's shown that he can handle the roles elsewhere. He isn't likely to put up with any attempts to game the system or otherwise "use" our bureaucracy to a trouble maker's advantage. He often is right, and I frankly find his viewpoints refreshing - and he isn't, from my eyes, absolutely stubborn or immutable. And lastly, adding bcrat rights to him does not remove admin rights. I like Tanetris. I like Tanetris being an admin. I think he'd make a fine Bcrat too (but will refrain from listing his positives simply because he's not the one I'm making the argument for), but I think the overall interests of the wiki are best served by electing Auron. And to those with misgivings, I'm not going to repeat what's been said, but I think that given the role and duties of a bureaucrat, there's really nothing to fear: outside of an ArbComm, he has no powers. Inside of one, I think he'd be good to have around. And lastly, its only four months. We only rarely even GET ArbComm cases. I really think, given that in addition to all the points aforementioned, that the fears and oppositions are overblown. — THARKUN 01:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not arguing, but in relation to Tharkuns post, these three pages might be of note; Guild_Wars_Wiki:Adminship/draft_B, Guild_Wars_Wiki:Adminship/draft_E and Guild_Wars_Wiki:Adminship/Draft_2008-Jan-12. All of which propose a change to current policy and state "Bureaucrats are sysops with these additional powers...". Thus if any of these did make it through into policy, it would make alot of what Tharkun said void. -- Salome 01:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This may be better brought up elsewhere, but would said changes affect current Bcrats? Since its a change of powers, I assume it'd go into effect for everyone, rather than procedures waiting until the next election. And I daresay it would not make my entire post void, but rather change or force a reconsideration of (parts of) it. And no need to post again to say "ok ok, mr pedantic, I was overreaching with my words." :P — THARKUN 02:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to point out one more thing. Everyone's been so focused on Auron that everyone's been ignoring DE. If side A prefers to have a more neutral-seeming Tanetris, and side B prefers Auron's different perspective from the current bcats, why not DE? I don't think we should just simply not consider him for having the least total support out of the 4 listed above. If no one can decide Auron vs Tanetris, go for someone else and see if we can get consensus. -- ab.er.rant 02:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Its nice to know the voting system I've suggested multiple times probably would fix these issues, since it would make clear what the voting trends actually are. Instead of the mess of a so-called voting system/election this thing currently uses. It was broken in past elections for this exact same reason. But the powers that be would rather do what they want instead of listen to an outsiders different concept I guess. Best of luck to you people.--riceball 02:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out where your recommendations are? I'd like to bring up to the spotlight again. -- ab.er.rant 04:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

@aber:DE isn't mentioned because he didn't win. By like, 15+ votes.- Vanguard 13:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

@Inspired - first of all, it's really hard to take what you're saying with a grain of salt, since frankly, I've never heard of you. Still, even though you've been at the wiki for less than a month (so less people are inclined to believe you) I'm glad to see passion in your text and hope that once you establish yourself here that you'll rally for positive changes. (cont)

That said, can we do a runoff please? Two candidates, only one vote per eligible voter? MiraLantis 19:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting it in bold wont lend extra weight to your suggestion and in regards to your suggestion, I doubt we can as we can't change policy mid-election. -- Salome 19:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The runoff has been suggested in the election call for change page. If you wish to support it for future elections, that is the place to do so. Mohnzh say what? 19:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

@Salome - that is why this is in the section about why this election is a failure in that respect/proposed changes. @Mohnzh, please don't edit talk page posts - you can always post again! MiraLantis 19:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This entire section does not belong on this page, it belongs on this page. This page is to discuss why or why not you think the canidates are ready to become a bcrat, not to discuss the policy. How many times do we have to say it, I propose this section be moved to GWWT:ELECT. --Shadowphoenix 22:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

@MiraLantis. I suppose I should read all threads before commenting, I hope you don't take my above statement as having anything to do with your comments here. Anyway, I stand by mine. I realize that I haven't been on here long, although having an account is not fully indicative of how long someone has been around the wiki. That is the very reason I have actually tried refraining from commenting on many things relating to the candidates, etc. However, I do not believe that makes it any less important to follow the letter of the rules because that's all us "new users" have to go on since we weren't here for prior elections and discussions. I have attempted to read through some of the prior elections, but that gets very boring and difficult without the day to day context that they occurred in. Finally, I wasn't even clear my vote would count, so since it looks like it did as much as any other, that's enough for me. The rest has just been my not so always subtle attempt to make this place better. -- Inspired to ____ 22:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick note regarding my candidacy: for what it's worth, I think I fall somewhere between Auron and Tanetris personality-wise (keeping in mind that while I know Auron pretty well, I don't know all that much about Tanetris): my best guess is that I'm more outspoken than Tanetris but nowhere near as blunt as Auron. That said, however, I'm 99.9% sure that throwing my name back into contention would accomplish little or nothing because I doubt many people would be willing to support my nomination over Etris'/Auron's given the voting gap. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on 1st seat?

The election policy states that: "Whenever a stage end date is changed to arrive sooner (through consensus), it should generally be set at least 3 days later than the time of that decision."

Seeing how in the above discussion there was a pretty clear consensus about who won the first seat (Aberrant), I wonder whether we can make him into a Bureaucrat at Mai 1st (implying a shortened stage 3 and 4 for that seat, with a 3 days warning). That would be 3 days from now and also coincide with the original end of my term, meaning we would be able to hand over that seat exactly on time.

Is anyone opposed to that? --Xeeron 17:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems like a good idea to me :o) --Shadowphoenix 17:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I figured this went without saying, yea.- Vanguard 17:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any dispute raised against this so far in the discussion above; barring any sudden issues being brought up in the next couple of days I'm all for this. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup I agree with Aiiane on this. -- Salome 17:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with this idea as well. -- Wynthyst 18:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

iawtc --Kakarot 18:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

agree. --VVong|BA 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Is anyone opposed to that?" - and everyone is posting! o.O poke | talk 18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point Poke but I guess it's better to have people say that they agree than to assume they do because no one said they oppose ... that makes sense, right? --Kakarot 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I AM UTTERLY OPPOSED >:O figure someone has to post right in this section >.>--128.211.236.137 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Shadowsin to lazy to sign int

Sounds fine to me. -- Wandering Traveler 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed... to opposing this. Double negatives ftw. Anyways, yes, Aberrant should take the first seat. Calor 20:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am absolutely sure that Ab can fit this role well, and any delay to his coming is a mistake. He'll do well, but I would ask him, just as a respect. --People of Antioch 02:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested as much before the election. Backsword 18:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm a little curious as to how the arguments in the previous section would turn out if it became a discussion of whether Tanetris or Auron should take the longer term, heh :P -- ab.er.rant 02:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no one seems to be opposed... I guess it means my days of gleefully using poke's excellent GWWT for deleting stuff and slapping bans will end in a couple of hours. -- ab.er.rant 05:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed. I think you should have to wait for midnight in Anet's timezone... bwahaha! — THARKUN 06:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"using poke's excellent GWWT for deleting stuff" - w00t?! You can delete things with GWWT? h4Xx0r! I'll miss the "Ab.er.rant deleted XY".. :( But maybe you are allowed to help us out again when the new adminiship is accepted :)

Tharkun, the term starts with UTC time :P poke | talk 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you poke. I was just trying to voice some nonsensical opposition. It was supposed to contradict the policy and be pointless. Just like this post. :( — THARKUN 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And you thought I didn't know that.. ow! poke | talk 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I assumed you did from the :P, but I wanted to make sure nobody would accidentally take me seriously. That'd be trouble. — THARKUN 18:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Call for changes

For all users who find the concept of ignoring the voting numbers strange, and for users who find those who insist on the numbers weird, I invite your participation in this :) Let's all go and talk about how this election and the previous elections turned out and how we can improve things when it comes time for the next bureaucrat change. -- ab.er.rant 05:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Auron vs. Tanetris - summary format

In the interests of allowing those who have not been involved in the above discussion threads from the start (and perhaps, even those who have), may I request that those who find themselves having the motivation to be outspoken regarding the choice between (apparently) Auron and Tanetris for the second bureaucrat seat in this election to place a one line summary of any individual reason they may have to support one candidate over the other in the two subsections I have created below. Please be brief. If there are multiple reasons, feel free to add each of them, one per line. Please do not add duplicate reasons; if someone else already listed essentially the same thing, you need not add it again. Please do not sign reasons, as this is not intended as any form of voting process, but merely a summary of potential issues that might differentiate between the candidates in order to facilitate discussion of the relative merits of granting either candidate the seat. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor of Auron

• Retention of Tanetris as sysop.
• Has experince with the tools of bureaucrats and sysops in other large Guild Wars wikis.
• Is trusted and respected by Entropy and Gcardinal.
• Possible better fit with Aiiane and Aberrant for personality diversity.
• Does not sugar-coat his dealings with people. Will not mask the truth in a way to make everyone "feel good".
• Has not caused NPA breaches that have required admin to block him.
• Accurately interprets and understands situations.
• Changes currently proposed to the Adminship policy would allow Auron to be a bureaucrat and sysop; thus we would gain an extra sysop.

In favor of Tanetris

• A local sysop.
• Won the simple vote tally.
• He doesn't have strong and vocal opposition.
• Changes currently proposed to the Adminship policy would allow Tanetris to be a bureaucrat and a sysop, instead of having to choose between being one or the other.
• Level headed in most (if not all) discussions.
• Polite, to old and new users alike.
• Proven on this wiki to be a good mediator and arbitrator in disputes.
• Has not caused NPA breaches.
• Possible better fit with Aiiane and Aberrant for personality diversity.
• Accurately interprets and understands situations.

Comments based on summary above

Based on the various points people have added to the summary sections above, here's my personal thinking:

• We shouldn't be basing our decisions off of the potential loss of a sysop. There are many, many users on this wiki who would make excellent potential sysops, and thus it should not be an issue, should we see a need to maintain a level of sysop activity, to find more sysops to make up the difference in activity.
• Likewise, we shouldn't base our decisions off of the potential gain of a sysop either. If we need a sysop, we should have one go through RfA; it exists for a reason, and there are no real limitations to how often we can use it. Furthermore, the bureaucrat elections shouldn't be used to circumvent the RfA process.
• I'm not sure what the "NPA breaches" being referred to above are, but neither user has been blocked (for anything other than wiki testing etc.), and I don't see anything that would imply any other formal administrative action; friendly warnings are tossed around between all wiki users and aren't something that I see as problematic. Also, this seems to be a subjective point at best given that at least some individuals believe it applies to both users.
• Likewise, "accurately understands and interprets situations" seems to be a plain difference of views at best, since it appears for both.
• The simple vote tally, guided by the metric as stated on the elections page, is far too close to be considered of determining importance. Until or unless the elections policy is changed, this should not be making the difference unless the candidates seem so otherwise balanced that a coin flip would do.

Thus, I find that I tend to discount the points above, leaving essentially 3 main considerations (in no specific order):

• On-site versus off-site administrative experience
• Manner of discussion: blunt versus polite
• Diversity in mindsets in comparison to other standing bureaucrats

With respect to the first point, I think that people need to consider more how they believe the given individual will perform on this wiki based on the sum of their knowledge of that individual, no matter where it was acquired. Anyone who knows Auron from other wikis where he acts in an administrative role should keep their knowledge of his performance there in mind as well as his actions here, because in the end we are voting for people, not simply user IDs in a database. People don't magically have their minds and personalities wiped when they browse between websites. Thus, I see no reason to simply toss out endorsements from users simply because they base those endorsements on knowledge not recorded on a GWW page. At the same time, we should still consider who is doing the endorsing and their relative familiarity with the position they are endorsing for - if the most reknowned doctor in the world tells you that person A whom you've never heard of is a good doctor, they're probably right, even though you don't know person A at all. On the other hand, if person B who you've never heard of tells you that person A is a good doctor, it doesn't really tell you much. So, that said, I think Auron and Tanetris both have ample evidence demonstrating that either one could acceptably perform the duties of a bureaucrat, so I will move on to the other points.

The question of personality intrigues me, because it's probably the most difficult one to draw a decision out of. On one hand, a bureaucrat who is blunt may provide simpler and clearer resolutions to cases, with less "fluff" involved. Bluntness might also drive a point home to someone who has come as far as to need to be involved in arbitration. On the other hand, it might also backfire: individuals involved in arbitration might be less likely to accept a ruling if they didn't feel the were respected by the bureaucrat(s) delivering it. Overall, I feel that it is possible to be blunt without being disrespectful, but Auron does not always manage to strike that balance, and thus at least on this point I find myself leaning towards Tanetris.

In my mind, at least, the issue of diversity among bureaucrat mindsets is somewhat alleviated by the fact that Tanaric's seat is the one in question here; most arguments regarding mindsets have been predicated on the assumption that Tanaric and I were the sitting bureaucrats and thus our similar mindsets needed to be offset. That is no longer the case, given that Tanaric has stepped down and thus the other two bureacrats are now myself and ab.er.rant, with whom I believe most would agree I am less closely aligned. Furthermore, I think that you would find both Tanetris and Auron to have about the same proximity to my own mentality, even if it doesn't seem so at first.

Thus overall, given equality (in my mind) for the first and third points, and a slight leaning towards Tanetris in the second area, I find overall that in my opinion Tanetris would be the optimal choice for the third seat. This is not to say Auron would be a bad choice - far from it. This is not a case of "one's bad, one's good, pick the right one", this is "they're both good, so let's nitpick". Regardless of who we eventually appoint to the seat, I highly encourage the other candidate to run for the next seat which comes up for election. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of your points here Aiiane. I am (obviously) going for Tanetris for this election, but I would like to see Auron run next election, and possibly gain my support; as well as some other user's, that opposed this time, support. --Shadowphoenix 05:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

agreed with Aiiane. Although I do believe where someone has gained their admin experience, is a more important factor than you state it is, as the GWW community is vastly different to the PvX community. However apart from that, i agree completely. -- Salome 15:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, let me state that, while Tanetris would do an excellent job, I still "support" Auron. That said, while many people have dismissed this discussion, I personally have found it enlightening for a number of reasons, particularly posts like Aiiane's above which are well-reasoned comparisons of the actual merits of the two candidates. I read over all of the discussion last night, and while I will say that a clear-cut winner has yet to emerge, the feeling I got from the whole discussion was that, vote tallies aside, the discussion seems to favor Tanetris. The discussion doesn't lean hugely in his favor, but, it does so enough (in my opinion) that I felt it was a noticeable leaning. That's my two cents on the merits of this discussion and where it's heading. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

First, let me state that I do not believe consensus has been reached nor will it be reached that the second seat should be determined based solely on the vote tally. Thus, if consensus is to be reached it must come from some other method.

Which brings me to Aiiane's discussion above. And while I would prefer if a sitting bureaucrat remained neutral in the choosing of other bureaucrats, she’s entitled to express her opinion just as any other user may. However, I for one refuse to defer to it and give it more weight. Actually, I believe it becomes even more important to examine it critically because of this potential conflict of interest. Thus, here are some thoughts I have that resulted from her observations above.

• “So, that said, I think Auron and Tanetris both have ample evidence demonstrating that either one could acceptably perform the duties of a bureaucrat, so I will move on to the other points.”

Why isn’t the the question: Who will perform best, not acceptably? Although, I don't have an opinion on which if either that would be so at this time I'm also left with acceptably.

• “Overall, I feel that it is possible to be blunt without being disrespectful, but Auron does not always manage to strike that balance, and thus at least on this point I find myself leaning towards Tanetris.”

I believe many people realize this and yet chose Auron to be bureaucrat; and not inspite of that bluntness, but because of it. I include myself in this group.

• With regard to diversity, it is stated that “most arguments regarding mindsets have been predicated on the assumption that Tanaric and I were the sitting bureaucrats and thus our similar mindsets needed to be offset.”

This seems to be false, Tanaric resigned before this election and I believe everyone commenting here was aware of that. Thus, while I won’t comment on your mentality in comparison to the other candidates, I am surprised that this reason given for choosing one or the other, is dismissed by leading in with this. Also, I’m unclear how this whole reason is dismissed so quickly based on your statement that: “I think that you would find both Tanetris and Auron to have about the same proximity to my own mentality, even if it doesn't seem so at first.” And yet no evidence for such a claim has been provided. This is not an argument I have made and personally would not view this type of diversity as relevant.

So, after 5 of the 7 days that are allowed for discussion, based on the above, you "find overall that in my opinion Tanetris would be the optimal choice for the third seat.” So first the vote isn’t determinitive, and now we have your opinion which is presented as if it should somehow be viewed differently then everyone elses. Interesting…

Well anyway, overall in my opinion, Auron remains the optimal choice for the third seat. -- Inspired to ____ 05:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, whatever gave you the impression you were being asked to defer to my opinion? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, Inspired; you make it seem like you think that the bcrats shouldn't express their opinion about this...... I never got the feeling the Aiiane thought her opinion is on a higher lvl than ours (which is what it sounds like you are saying to me). --Shadowphoenix 07:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would submit to you this question: how would you suggest that we resolve this election? Obviously, we've all made our feelings clear regarding the candidates, but what I haven't seen many people talking about is how to resolve those differences. The section I created above was an attempt to gather the various issues that had been brought up in an attempt to move towards resolving them, but that's not going to happen if no one wants to reach a resolution. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, and since none of the candidates seems willing to withdraw, nor the vocal oppositions willing to step back, i think is clear that the outcome is not clear, so we just keep the process going to the next step if nothing happends before the time limit. Policing things helps for stuff like this.--Fighterdoken 08:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"since none of the candidates seems willing to withdraw" - Have you actually asked them about this? As far as I can see, neither candidate has said much of anything on this matter. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also submit that both, being reasonable people invested in the policies of the wiki, would wait until the very end of the alloted time provided for the community to reach a decision. If they haven't posted anything after the expiration of this deciding winners phase, and nobody is able to get anything from them (and, having talked to one candidate about the situation, I suspect we will hear something), THEN it might be valid to move to the next phase. At the moment, you're being altogether far too hasty. All that said, I have no brilliant idea on how to resolve this. — THARKUN 09:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, we should just choose Tanetris. While that's not an unanimity, consensus has never been about unanimity in the first place; and as mentioned above (by someone who supports Auron, even) the discussion so far has been leaning more towards Tanetris. Also remember that today is the last day to choose the winner. Erasculio 15:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily the last day to choose the winner, just the last day that we get to discuss the merits of each candidate and decide who gets the seat since we still have "Stage 4: Final judgment" which if necessary allows ArenaNet to review the results and make their own decision. However since it does appear that the discussion has a slight preference to Tanetris over Auron he may be the optimal choice at this time as Aiiane mentioned. Also since we have another election in under 2 months whoever doesn't get the seat can if they wish put their name forward then again and if that person is Auron he has the possibly to gain the support of those that opposed him during this election. --Kakarot 16:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, it does appear Tanetris is favored in recent discussions. While there is no consensus, none will be reached if this continues. Calor 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

@Aiiane. I realize that you did not directly ask anyone defer to your opinion. However, you did initiate the summary format of listing the reasons to support Auron or Tanetris. And since you are respected, and requested that simple reasons without attribution or discussion over the relative merits of the reasons be listed, that is what happened. A process which I believe it was obvious from the beginning would take a few days to complete and which had as its stated purpose “to facilitate discussion of the relative merits of granting either candidate the seat.” And, I for one took this that you would express your views on the lists when you thought they were sufficiently complete, after all they were “your” lists. And finally, I must admit that my impressions may be influenced by an existing proposal for an election policy that you supported which would make existing bureaucrats the final determiners in an election.

To your next comment…exactly. I’ve made that point elsewhere. Discussion cannot resolve a situation like this unless the majority don’t actually care enough to stick out the discussion and instead leave it to the few who remain. Of course, a majority of those who voted never actually took part in this discussion. Maybe it should have been noted when they voted that they would need to enter this discussion at the end of the voting stage if they really wanted to have a say in the outcome.

More to the point of the election and consensus. A review of the overall discussion actually seems to show a number of people who have moved from supporting Tanetris to supporting Auron, and less movement the other way. This, excludes a couple who maintain they support Auron but believe Tanetris should be elected for the sake of consensus, and excludes many more who thought Tanetris won because of the vote tally. -- Inspired to ____ 18:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"A review of the overall discussion actually seems to show a number of people who have moved from supporting Tanetris to supporting Auron, and less movement the other way." It's nice to say that, but I'd like it if you could actually point out numbers and/or names, as some people may disagree with your assessments. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

why not re-vote for the second place, this shit solves nothing. --Cursed Angel 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't think i would EVER say this, but I think cursed might have a point. Also to Inspired, sorry but i don't see evidence of anyone who favoured Tanetris change their view to favour Auron. Examples would be helpful mate. -- Salome 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-vote? -- What makes you think that would change anything?

It was mainly my perception, but I remember making a comment to someone about changing their vote easily. Anyway since I don't have time in the next couple hours for a thorough analysis, I won't push that point. Besides, if any individuals who moved either way aren't going to make their own case now, too bad for them and I'm not sure how much weight should be put into somewhat vague statements made a couple days ago anyway. -- Inspired to ____ 22:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

CA and Salome may be right here. One vote per voter, support only. Person with most votes wins. Three day period? Calor 22:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For a community that freaks out when Bureaucrat succession doesn't follow policy to the letter, I'm surprised that a complete change to the election system is proposed in the final hours of this election. — THARKUN 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh, not the system, just proposing a solution to this awkward election. Either way, anyone opposed to the suggestion? Calor 23:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It could work, but not for this election. We can't change the game rules when there are 5 minutes in the clock and we are losing 20-19. I, for once, would like to see Anet taking an active part in the wiki management, if at least for a bcrat election where users don't seem to agree.--Fighterdoken 23:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) well less than 20 mins left. So intrigued to see what happens. -- Salome 23:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with Anet intervention if necessary or wanted. Calor 00:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As neither Tanetris nor Auron stopped this discussion - which is what they wanted to do already on the first day of that discussion - I think it would be best to complete the test of the current policy and "[pass] the list of potential winners [...] immediately [...] to ArenaNet [...]". poke | talk 00:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The list includes the third candidate, true? (i mean...)--Fighterdoken 00:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Who would "ArenaNet" be -- Regina or Emily? -- Brains12 \ Talk 00:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As it was never officially approved by ArenaNet that they would help us, but Gaile offered to help, the first step, I would do is (pressing "save") and ask Gaile about it.

And as we have a consensus that it will be either Auron or Tanetris, I would not include DE this time. poke | talk 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I, personally, would rather go to Regina. But anyway -- let's go to a vote lasting seven days, then discuss which person. Hmmk? -- Brains12 \ Talk 00:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x3) Any I'd guess since they would then discuss it with the rest of the ArenaNet staff to make the decision. --Kakarot 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the election policy, especially the part I quoted above, I just asked Gaile on her talk page. poke | talk 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Sorry about the delay in getting this posted. I meant to post before stage 4 started, but RL intervened. I hereby withdraw from the election, and congratulate Auron on winning the second seat. This has been my intention all along if there was no clearly agreed-upon winner, but I held off because Auron and I both wanted to let stage 3 run its course and see if the community came to a decision. So why am I withdrawing and not Auron?

1. On principle, I don't like last minute "strategic" vote-changing to try to affect the outcome.
2. Auron's abrasive personality aside, he has a good head on his shoulders, and he's as qualified if not moreso than me to be a bureaucrat.
3. I like being a sysop. I may not use my sysop powers as often as some of the others (I don't do deletion sprees, and I'm often beaten to the punch on banning vandals), but when I do I feel it's important. Some have brought up proposed changes to the adminship policy, but proposed changes don't really matter until they get accepted.
4. There's always next election.

So thank you all for your support, and congratulations to Auron on your bureaucratship. I also encourage everyone who's voiced concerns about the election policy to continue working on new drafts, not just forget about them until next election yet again. - Tanetris 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright then... That wasn't expected. Calor 02:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't done this. I understand that Auron has been prodding and bugging you during this entire week to withdraw from the election, and that you're nice enough to actually do it, but I still wish you hadn't. --Dirigible 02:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any prodding or bugging on anyone's part. It is and has been Tane's intention since the vote was concluded as he stated above. -- Wynthyst 02:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't seen any prodding either, and if I recall correctly, Tanetris had his mind pretty much made up when voting ended. *Defiant Elements* +talk 02:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Tanetris clearly had this thought out; Auron didn't play a part in making his decision. Calor 02:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't totally unexpected since he did vote for Auron instead of himself. Anyway, gotta like the last minute plus 2-1/2 hrs. Unless someone objects for some reason this should be over for...well about 1-1/2 months. Oh, and congratulations Auron and well done Tanetris. -- Inspired to ____ 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I object! He didn't decline in time! (dang, i wanted to see what aned had to say, but looks like this is settled anyways, unless Auron also declines now for the same reason XD).--Fighterdoken 03:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, withdrawing makes you a bigger person (note: not comparatively to anyone) in my eyes. Done with grace. --People of Antioch 03:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much. I'm quite capable of counting votes. My motivation was to avoid the nonsense that I predicted would follow a close election, something I see as significantly more important than you and Auron. Backsword 04:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, given how Tanetris has for all pratical purposes declined his nomination after the period in which he was allowed to do so, he has basically voided all the votes of those who supported him. In order to fix that (and given how the current policy does not cover what to do in such cases), I say we begin the election again. Erasculio 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when is going to stage two considered crossing the Rubicon? Calor 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume the suggestion was more sarcasm in order to make a point. In any case, alea iacta est. — THARKUN 19:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Eh? As we not have a one-vote only voting system, there are no votes voided. And where do you get the rule from that somebody is not allowed to withdraw? You cannot force somebody to become a bcrat. poke | talk 19:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

After Tanetris' withdraw, all votes supporting him have been voided; those users may not have had all their votes voided (thanks to the lack of a "one-vote only" system), but one of their votes was made useless. And notice how I said "declined", not withdrawed - per our current policies, candidates are expected to decline before stage 2. While we cannot force anyone not to be a bureaucrat (this began exactly because no one here could possibly force Tanaric to remain as a bureaucrat), what the community does or not when someone gives up on being a bureaucrat is under our control.

In the end, though, I would rather have an election in which there is more than one viable option. Between the withdraw of Tanetris and the requirement for a positive balance (again, per the current policy), Auron's so-called win is more a matter of WO than a valid representation of the community's wishes, IMO. Erasculio 22:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, clearly for a week no one disputed that the community was split between Tanetris and Auron for the second seat. And whatever point your trying to make by differentiating between decline and withdraw doesn't change anything, and besides it appears even you can't keep track of which word you're using. -- Inspired to ____ 22:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"clearly for a week no one disputed that the community was split between Tanetris and Auron for the second seat" - Exactly. "Clearly", we may see from the above discussion that we ended such split with two opinions - one that the discussion was leaning towards Tanetris, the other that there was no obvious consensus. To just choose Auron as the bureaucrat now would ignore both the side of the community that was defending Tanetris and the consensus itself - after all, "clearly" the majority (if it matters) and the consensus did not decide, after one week of discussions, that Auron should have been the winner. And what validation could possibly have a bureaucrat that was not chosen by consensus? Such would be "nonsense". Hence my suggestion - given the lack of a consensus, and how the current election has fallen outside the election policy, I believe the best outcome would be to begin the election again. Erasculio 01:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no way most of us can put up with another election. Auron won't kill the wiki if he's bureaucrat compared to Tanetris. And he's bureaucrat only for a very limited period of time. Calor 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The same argument could be made for the wiki to have just 2 bureaucrats until the term expires: the wiki would not die for having 2 bureaucrats a while, and it would be only for a very limited period of time. My issue is that Tanetris' declination doesn't really change all the points above that led this election to a stand-still; ignoring the previous 7 days feels too much like ignoring the community. In other words, if people kept resigning, would we end with someone who got 10 opposing votes and no supporting vote as the "chosen" bureaucrat? The current situation isn't too different from that. Erasculio 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The current situation, where both candidates had ~40 support votes, is similar to one in which the winning candidate has no support votes? I don't follow your logic, assuming there is any. -Auron 01:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That was a bit uncalled for..... --Shadowphoenix 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My, what is the difference between ignoring consensus...And ignoring consensus? Unless you plan to say next that those "~40 votes" equal consensus, case in which the above discussion becomes ilogical. But then again, logic is obviously too complex for some people...You know, Auron, for all the talks about how you have changed, I'm still seeing more of the same: insults, lies, etc... Erasculio 01:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Auron ur comment "I don't follow your logic, assuming there is any", imho is insulting. You are basically saying he is stupid. --Shadowphoenix 01:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be a matter of interpretation. I would read it as saying the argument is illogical or has at best weak logic. I'm not actually paying attention to what the argument is, but I don't read that as an insult at all. Maybe I need to get a thinner skin and assume bad faith. — THARKUN 02:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) That my opinion, and u have urs. I think it is insulting, but others may not. --Shadowphoenix 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you heard of Slippery slope fallacy, Shadowphoenix? It's where we pretend that no gray area exists in an argument, and assume that the situation goes automatically from Black to White with no way to stop it. In this case, either the election proceeds as he wants it to or it doesn't and (by his argument) the chances of the runner-up having no support are too high to allow the runner-up immediate promotion. Basically, If Tanetris doesn't get elected, all other candidates are automatically unable to do the job and thus a re-election must occur - to prevent the runner-up, who in theory could have 10 oppose and no support, but in reality has that many opposing and 40 support, from claiming the seat.

I'm fairly certain Tanetris would not have withdrawn if the next runner up had 10 oppose votes and no support votes. However, by Slippery Slope, it is assumed that Tanetris would withdraw regardless, and that the next runner-up could have no support. Hence my comment on not finding the logic. I apologize if it came across as a personal attack, though as Tharkun says, I didn't read it as an insult. -Auron 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that the way you worded it was uncalled for, you could have put it differently, that is all I am saying :) --Shadowphoenix 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As your pals would have said, Auron, "lulz". Too many assumptions for too little content - if you can make an effort and actually read what I have written, instead of coming with cute and pointless expressions like "slippery slope", answer me this: who has decided the winner of this election? Consensus, who did not pick a winner after 7 days of discussion? Or Tanetris, who stated, after having declined, that you would be the winner? And who was expected to decide who would win, consensus or Tanetris? A bureaucrat who has not been chosen by consensus is, IMO, not fitting to exist on this wiki. Erasculio 21:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you don't remember or were not here for the Guild_Wars_Wiki:Elections/2007-12_bureaucrat_election where Tanaric withdrew on the last day of the "Final Judgment" election period and allowed Aiiane to have the bureaucrat seat. Withdrawing so the election can be over with is not something new and is reasonable. There is absolutely no need to have another election. Auron won the second seat since Tanetris doesn't want it anymore. If you want another election, then wait 3 months for the next regularly scheduled one. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:70.231.243.69 (talk).

Honestly, the "withdrawing to decide the election" is a horrible precedent, and not one that was intended to be continued with after Tanaric did such. I'm rather disappointed that such was the result in this case as well. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a necessarily bad precedent. It may not be ideal, but it is a resolution to this impasse. Regarding Erasculio's concerns, the fact that there hasn't been issues regarding Tanaric's withdrawal previously, I do not see why we have to treat it differently now. We just need to keep this in mind when revising the policy. If there's a concern regarding consensus on this, let's just put that stage 4 paragraph into effect and get ArenaNet into this. -- ab.er.rant 09:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's a rather good precedent - two strong candidates managed to work it out between themselves. That's how the wiki works - cooperation and compromise. What's a bad precedent is the way the community totally failed to do so, despite both candidates agreeing to give the community the chance. Although I backed Auron, I think the community should have reached consensus around Tanetris because it is apparent that some anti-Auron voices just aren't going to play ball (see sour grapes about candidate behaviour and attempts to manufacture an incident right away). While I would think it a shame that the community have to take account of that, that's the downside of consensus. It's the worst form of decision making, apart from all the others. (If anyone wants to see why voting doesn't work, see the tactical switching of oppose to support, as Tanetris highlighted). Well, now to see how Auron plays out for the next four months, and let's get Tanetris in at the next election.Cassie 11:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The bad precedent is not particularly the eventual outcome, so much as consistently having elections decided by it. Which you seem to acknowledge, so I won't repeat it further. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes more sense to me for the candidates to work it out between themselves if the users can't. Much better then ArenaNet or the bcrats as has been proposed elsewhere; and heck it might even be fair to say that if they can't work it out themselves, none of them should be a bureaucrat anyway. Hmm...maybe there's an answer to some policy problem in that...or maybe not. -- Inspired to ____ 13:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right...So between leting the consensus decide who's going to be the next bureaucrat (something that did not happen here) and allowing the bureaucrats to choose who the next bureaucrat will be...You would rather allow the candidates to make the decision. Sounds definitely a lot more reasonable - we could have avoided wasting all this time and just asked Teh Uber Pwnzer, Mgrinshpon, Defiant Elements and the other candidates who they believed should have won. Erasculio 21:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

lol. First, I did say if the user's can't. Second, your right, I should have been more clear that I was referring to the narrowed down list that the users had been considering which is the same one that ArenaNet would have been choosing from. Also, I tried to be clear that I wasn't actually making a proposal, but this is effectively a couple elections where the top candidates did actually decide the winner. -- Inspired to ____ 21:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really fond of your idea, but it is better than the current system. I mean, asking Arena Net to choose who would win? What would be the point in that? Thankfully, there are discussions now about changing the policy, and I hope it becomes either a matter of, in those cases the users can't make a decision themselves, just counting the votes or allowing bureaucrats to choose. I also hope a new policy is implemented before the next election, instead of being forgotten only to be pointlessly discussed four months later : P Erasculio 00:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Erasculio, if you live in America (or even if you don't) you probably know about all the drama and such surrounding the current democratic primary, which has a number of parallels with this bcrat election. Tanetris withdrawing and giving the bcrat seat to Auron is essentially the same as if Senator Clinton or Senator Obama were to drop out of the race. It ends a highly divisive race between two highly competent candidates and allows people to start focusing again on what's really important. By dropping out, Tanetris essentially "chose" the winner. However, he would not have dropped out if there was not another candidate he believed qualified who was also supported by the community. By voting for Tanetris, people expressed their trust in him and in his judgment. Tanetris allowed Auron to win because he believes Auron will do a good job and benefit the wiki. If you trust Tanetris' judgment, then trust him when he says that he believes Auron will do a good job. You don't have to like it, but complaining about it and saying things like "I say we begin the election again" is not in the best interests of GWW. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 02:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am swimming in drama. This is hilarious.- Vanguard 11:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you're happy. I'm just amazed how well this whole consensus thing worked out again this time. Unfortunately, I have a hard time believing we'll continue to be so lucky in the future if changes aren't made. -- Inspired to ____ 13:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)