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

maybe these are helpful: Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election/Defiant Elements and Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election/Defiant Elements--Sum Mesmer Guy 06:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Any Difference?

Has anything really changed here in the past 2 weeks or whatever its been since the RFA failed? Has anything really changed that much from past failed bcrat runs? I dont believe anything has changed significantly. And if not, I dont see how this could or should work any better, no matter how good a guy DE is.--riceball 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that Defiant Elements would make a good arbitration committee member, but using the same reason as I used on his RfA just a couple of weeks ago, he needs to be more in touch with this wiki and familiar with its practices. I'm not sure if that constitutes an opposition vote since it's more neutral, but I don't think the first point on its own is worth a support. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Past elections

These are my only questions for you this time:

1. In your opinion, why do you think you received so little support compared to opposition in the past two elections? Feel free to be as detailed as it takes. I'm not really concerned with why you disagree with those who didn't support you; I'm only trying to get an idea about how well you've understood why we opposed you in the past; trying to figure out whether all that was written has fallen on deaf ears.
2. Based on your answer to the above question, why are you running again for bureaucrat? Do you believe that the community has changed (their opinions) that much over the past month? Have you changed over the past month? Or is there some other reason?

In other words, I'm hoping you'll be able to shoo away the worries I get when I open your third bureaucrat candidature statement to read you talking about your level-headedness and rationality, and not a single retrospective word about your previous experiences with running for adminship on this wiki.

Thanks for your answers, --Dirigible 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok... here goes (if you'd like me to go into more detail, I'm happy to do so, but the following is a list of the major themes I remember from my previous ):

Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2007-12 bureaucrat election/Defiant Elements

• Role of non-GWW PvX users in the discussion process
• Use of Bureaucratship as a bully pulpit
  • "Forcing change from above"
  • The actual views I espoused
    • Questions of whether GWW should change period.
      • "Bureaucrats are not what's wrong with this Wiki"
• Inexperience on GWW
  • Knowledge of policy
  • Lack of name-recognition (for lack of a better term on GWW)
• Seriousness of the nomination

Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election/Defiant Elements

• Use of Bureaucratship as a bully pulpit
• Lack of understanding of the Bureaucrat's role
• Questions of whether GWW should change period.

I'll answer question 2 a little bit later if you don't mind. *Defiant Elements* +talk 02:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

On to question 2! So, things that have changed (I'm gonna come back to some of them later), PvX has played no role on my involvement on this Wiki, my knowledge of policy and my name recognition have improved tremendously, and this nomination is entirely serious. Two themes that have remained constant (as I see it) through both previous elections is the use of the Bureaucratship as a bully pulpit. And this gets at the heart of why I didn't include any substantive mention of my previous nominations. At their core (both in terms of my motivation, my candidate statement, and the majority of the discussion that occured) my previous nominations have been about inciting (for lack of a better word) discussion, promoting change, etc. That's not to say that I didn't think I'd make a good Bureaucrat by any means, but my opinions about how wikis should be run, etc., were still at the heart of both nominations. This nomination is... different. My opinions about wikis remain unchanged, but that's not what this nomination is about. If it had been, I would not have run. This election is pure and simple about my suitability for the role. Does that mean I wouldn't hope to change some things if I was a Bureaucrat, of course not, but I'd be doing so in the capacity of any other user (as I have done despite the failed status of both of my previous nominations). So in that sense, while you could still oppose me because you don't think Bureaucrats should encourage admin discretion, etc., that's really not what this is about (I realize I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but I feel the need to get the point across). Same goes for the question of whether or not GWW should change at all. As to the question of whether I understand a Bureaucrats role/whether that role has changed, I see that as an issue for others to decide, so I'm not gonna address it (at least not in this response). I think/ hope this is more what you were looking for than my answer to the first question which is, in its current, state rather pitiful. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If I get 4 more contribs

I should be able to vote for ya, yay. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag pictures. But remember, a vote for me is a vote for kittens! Lord Belar 23:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I love kittens! — Teh Uber Pwnzer 23:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then vote for me instead of DE! Lord Belar 23:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You can vote for more than one person! — Teh Uber Pwnzer 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..

DE is fail, it's not like he admins on other Guild Wars related Wikis. --Guild of Deals 01:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Blasphemer! Lord Belar 01:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The plan

is to not vote for you this round, get Auron in office, and wait until next round. I think our position [of you being denied so often] will generate a strong sympathy vote in our favor. (<-- O c wut I did thar, from memory too.)

Honestly, though, I think Banjo would support you. Hey, maybe we should have Banjo run, we could use a god for a bureaucrat... -- Armond Warblade 09:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to try that, but DE said Banjo would turn down the nomination. D: Lord Belar 20:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If I know Banjo, and I think do ;), I'd say he prefers to working from the shadows, avoiding the public spotlight. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he was certainly in the public spotlight on Canthan new year. -- Armond Warblade 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2008-04 bureaucrat election/Defiant Elements

Support

Intelligent, level-headed, and a strong advocate of using common sense. — Skakid 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GL :) Dominator Matrix 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

lol i supported 3 ppl!--Raph Talky 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

I see the same mentality as "forcing changes from above" as before. The (weak) PvX wiki system isn't good enough for this wiki. Erasculio 13:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

lolwut? What do you mean by weak PvX system? ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the same mentality as "forcing changes from above" as before. The (weak) PvX wiki system isn't good enough for this wiki. Erasculio 13:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Erasculio is not a great fan of selfdeclared "Elitist" systems. There's history. Ask Armond or Auron. Or don't. Backsword 13:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Where am I trying to force change? I'm attempting to affect change as a normal user, that's true, but I thought I made it pretty clear that that had absolutely nothing to do with this nomination... Also, what does PvX have to do with anything? Different wikis, different systems. I'm inclined to argue that, in some ways, the GWW is "weaker" (although I consider the entire concept of a "weak PvX system" to be somewhat arbitrary and relative to the point of being nonsensincal) but that's entirely beside the point. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is for data, where elitism isn't good. PvX is for opinions, where w/o elitist's the mundane-ness of average users would tear apart any accuracy. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)