Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-06 bureaucrat election/Defiant Elements

Well, I just figured I'd make it so that you're not the only candidate without a talk page (which is weird, given that your talk has been the largest in the last, like, 3 elections :P) Good luck ^_^ ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess pretty much everyone knows about Defiant Elements' stances from the last elections, that explains the lack of questions. --Xeeron 11:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

DE is win. That is all the argument you could ever need. -- NUKLEAR IIV 16:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

(I'm also jumping on the bandwagon of people who ask the same question to all candidates, so bear with me a bit) I would like to ask, in what ways do you think being a bureaucrat would allow you to help the wiki more than as a common user or a sysop? Erasculio 02:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: it wouldn't. Long answer: let's face it, being a Bureaucrat doesn't change things much. As is, I try to comment on ArbComm discussions, RfA discussions, policy discussions, etc. to the best of my ability. It's less a question of how I think I would be able to help the Wiki more and more a question of whether the community thinks that it would be beneficial to invest me with the additional responsibility, because my contributions themselves would be unlikely to change (except, of course, that I'd be playing a different role in ArbComm decisions and RfAs). Personally, I think my personality and my modus operandi are better suited to Bureaucratship than Sysoption. I'm perfectly happy to do "janitorial" stuff, but I think the Bureaucrat position best reflects the role I try to play on GWW as a user, but that's merely an opinion. Obviously, I think I'd do a good job and that I'd be beneficial to the Wiki (otherwise, I wouldn't have run), but, again, I don't see that as relevant. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Who else?

I just had a quick question. If you were not able to vote for yourself, what other current candidate would you vote for and why?--Yankeefan984 22:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to say exactly who I would vote for or against at this time because it would be, at best, a preliminary answer. However, if, as you've indicated on Aiiane's talk page, you're more interested in what I think is "important in a candidate," maybe I can give you a better answer. Obviously, any good candidate is going to be reasonably intelligent, rational, level-headed, and impartial; that's a given. They should, of course, have a comprehensive knowledge of policy (which can be hard to gauge, but it's usually a pretty good bet that Sysops, former Bureaucrats, older and more experienced users, users who are frequently involved in policy discussion/creation, etc., have a pretty good grasp of policy). Note that when I say "comprehensive knowledge of policy," I mean that Bureaucrats should not only have read the policies and know what they say but also know why they exist (commonly referred to as the "spirit of the policy). They should understand the intricacies of the Bureaucrat position (both the concrete responsibilities inherent in the role as well what it means to be a Bureaucrat on GWW -- which also means that they should have a pretty solid understanding of GWWs current WikiCulture). They should be well-respected and in good-standing (note that this is not to say well-liked). They should be active (high edit counts are not a requirement, but their presence should be felt and they should be able to check in at least once a day or so) and dedicated, again, these things are obvious. Other than that, in order for me, personally, to support a candidate I need to feel like I know them pretty well (I wouldn't necessarily vote against someone I didn't know, but I certainly wouldn't support them) and, in a similar vein, I need to be able to implicitly trust that the candidate will always keep the Wiki's best interests at heart. Other considerations include the candidate's personality and how that personality fits in with the rest of the Bureaucrat team, but that's a much more vague distinction in many cases. Other then that, there's really not much else of which I can think. As to the question of whether I have the aforementioned qualities, as I note in my answer to Erasculio above, obviously, I think so -- else I wouldn't be running -- but what I think is irrelevant in this case.

Please note that not all these things are "required" for a user to be a good bureaucrat, as I pointed out on Warior knonos' page (actually, you may want to read my response to his candidacy in addition to this for more information), all you really need is a modicum of intelligence, impartiality, etc. Instead, some of them are merely indicators, based on personal experience. *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Support

Omfg it's DE, DE=auto support from me and u no! Dark Morphon(contribs) 12:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Inlight of some recent actions in "other" places, I have lost a lot of respect for DE and think he lacks the qualities of a bcrat. His immature actions have proven to me that he lacks a lot of maturity and imho he no longer holds any qualities of a good bcrat. (I will not be stating what happened in the incident) --Shadowphoenix 03:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot or never happened. -- NUKLEAR IIV 08:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have lost a lot of respect for Shadowphoenix due to an incident in which I witnessed him doing greatly inappropriate things to young children and barnyard animals. I will not be posting proof or details of these allegations, but I will obliquely refer to them as often and in as ominous of terms as I can in order to interfere with the democratic process as much as humanly possible. --71.229.253.172 08:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Errr... isnt inferring someone is a pedophile/sheep-shagger, a breach of NPA? -(EDIT: I forgot the correct noun for being an animal...errr...admirer) - Salome 08:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as inferring someone is immature and doing dark perverse things away where nobody else can see them is. I just provided more detail than Shadowphoenix did in an attempt to highlight how ridiculous and potentially malicious it is to do what he did. --71.229.253.172 08:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that she should supply at least supply a link so as to: A) support her comments and B) so others could make an informed choice, but i don't think her actions mean that you can then violate NPA. Not being a moan here, just pointing out that walking the line between making a point and breaking NPA can be a very hard thing to do at times and I think you tipped over into NPA land. Also honestly the amount of places Defiant and Shadow would have contact with each other isn't expansive. It has to be GW related thus it is more than likely going to be over on the other wiki, which i think defiant is a bureaucrat on. -- Salome 09:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, with "other places" I think she implies PvX, and that's, you'know, completely irrelevant. -- NUKLEAR IIV 09:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I believe her "other places" is GuildWiki, and while true it should be irrelevant, it's hard to separate sometimes. With that in mind, I don't think links are required. I don't however believe she should be attacked with blatant NPA violations for speaking her mind. -- Wynthyst 09:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't NPA. 71.229 wasn't actually saying Shadowphoenix had committed those acts. 71 was parodying Shadowphoenix's contribution, and highlighting that it simply made ominous accusations whilst declining to provide evidence. In my view, 71 shouldn't have done it that way because it's bound to create drama (even tho' not NPA). But his point is a good one - Shadowphoenix is effectively smearing DE, being willing to cast aspersions, but not willing to provide the evidence. She should either have decided it wasn't worth raising (in which case she should have kept quiet), or she should have been willing to provide evidence.Cassie 10:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See here if you want to have some idea what SP is talking about (at least, I think that's what SP is talking about). There's quite a bit more discussion elsewhere, but it seemed easiest to simply link y'all to my talk page and let you find your way from there -- recent archives of Felix Omni's talk page may also be helpful. Personally, I agree with Wynthyst but... meh, whatever. *Defiant Elements* +talk 10:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So, any sockpuppetry you want to disclose on this wiki? Backsword 10:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I don't see why SP is opposing DE just for that. Not only did DE give his reasons for sockpuppetry (Which I personally find quite rational), he also openly admitted it when questioned about it. Now, this may be a shot in the dark, but why oppose DE, especially when you refer to an event in Gwiki that has, altogether, not effected you at all? -- NUKLEAR IIV 12:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading up on a ton of wiki drama happening on another wiki takes a good amount of time (I know because I did read a lot of it just now), but if you are not willing to spend that time, you should refrain from stating untrue facts about it here Nuclear. --Xeeron 14:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'm biased. -- NUKLEAR IIV 21:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If I know of something someone has done no matter if it is on GuildWiki or not and I think that shows the lack of skills needed to be a bcrat; I am not going to simply ignore it. DE trolled GuildWiki for a while and I do not want a bcrat that has the potential to do such things. I haven't lost all respect for DE, if he works on a few things then he might gain my respect back. Until then, he gains an oppose from me; I didn't link to it so it didn't pull in any "drama". I observed DE's sock for a while and honestly would not in a million years guessed it was DE (because of it's trolling, and creations of wiki drama), so when I found out about it I was quite shocked and me (and a few others) lost a good amount of respect for him. Maybe others think that if it doesn't happen here it shouldn't be mentioned, but if it is something like that it should imo. --Shadowphoenix 15:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

must be hard to be respected so u cant have fun and troll ppl. --Blood Anthem 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Also Backsword, I have no socks on this wiki. THe only account I have registered are this one, User:The Hamster, and User:SP (which I need to redirect to my userpage). The Hamster is for the spoof of the Frog and a bit of monobook testing. Those are the only "socks" I have (the better term is "shoepuppet" since they are for testing mostly) --Shadowphoenix 15:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, I believe Backsword was addressing me. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry :) --Shadowphoenix 15:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicts galore) Agreed with Xeeron. I will try to summarise for those who don't want to also lose an hour of their life:

1. DE created a sockpuppet, "Banjthulu" so that he could participate in Guild Wiki talk without the baggage of his "DE persona".
2. "Banjthulu" got in a fight with another GuildWiki user (Felix Omni), who accused him of being a sock.
3. Felix had recently been de-sysoped for bad behaviour, so is a far from blameless character.
4. Banjthulu did not confess to being a sock, and Felix was criticised by other senior wiki users for his accusation.
5. The Banjthulu-Felix conflict escalated.
6. Banjthulu jumped on a "ban Felix" bandwagon.
7. The ban Felix bandwagon ran into the sand.
8. DE accidentality revealed his sockpuppety through editing DE's users space with Banjthulu
9. DE 'fessed up.

For myself, I think DE lost his sense of perspective and ended up going after Felix too aggressively. Particularly when Felix was partly mad because he (rightly) suspected a sock and others were telling him off for making the accusation. DE's perspective failure does cause me to doubt his judgment. Perhaps in ArbComm he'd be able to take a step back, but... well, I'm not sure.Cassie 15:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as I dislike getting involved in this discussion, I feel impelled to point something out regarding what you term a '"ban Felix" bandwagon.' A number of GuildWikians expressed the opinion that this was the point at which Banjthulu become a malicious sockpuppet. I wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment. Regardless of which account I used to express my opinion, I stand by my conviction that, at that particular point in time, Felix needed some time to cool down. I've thought quite a bit, actually, about the nature of my editing during that period, and my own self-reflection has led me to believe that I did not allow any emotion or bias to get the better of me until I (as Defiant Elements) violated NPA when, as mendel put it quite well, my "need to vent weighed heavier for them than the impetus to follow rules," a remarkably apt characterization. That was a perspective failure, which is precisely why, after I made the comment, I acknowledged that it was a NPA violation and firmly avowed of myself that I wouldn't have any further interaction with Felix. However, I stand by any other edits I made during that period (as Banjthulu or otherwise) on the basis of the reasoning I provided on my talk page. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Totally off-topic, but... i just realized "Banjthulu" -> "forgotten god of puppets" -> "sockpuppet" XD.--Fighterdoken 23:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty cute, DE. :P --76.25.197.215 23:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

All hail Banjo! Cast down Banjthulu!

Ahem... I can understand the need to let loose once in a while, and I've had a few incidents of being looked at (metaphorically) strangely for "acting out of character". I didn't expect this from DE but I'm not too concerned (probably because I wasn't directly involved). As mentioned somewhere on those long pages, intent was important. From what I've seen of DE, I do not believe that he would have created a sock for the purpose of being malicious with it. I wouldn't have done it (I'd hate to split my contributions list :P), but I can understand it and I wouldn't hold this one incident against all of his past.

Everyone has off-times and periods where we'd make a string of mistakes (recall other "old hands" like Stabber, Skuld, Karlos, even Tanaric etc.). I do find SP's opening comment (2nd sentence specifically) to be overly harsh and emotionally-motivated. By hinting of a horrible issue in such a manner (rather than just linking it, leaving it to the reader to interpret, and simply stating the loss of respect), it is effectively threatening to bring the drama over here. Please do not bring the drama here. Please don't be-devil someone for making a mistake and see things with tunnel vision at only the most recent issue and ignore the past. Have your suspicions and reservations, but don't cry murder outright. -- ab.er.rant 11:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that Aberrant, I couldn't have said it better myself (although my version would probably have been more protracted :P). *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Please read my other posts in which I partially explained why I lost respect for him, I wasn't bringing drama over here (infact I was trying to avoid any of that). In my opinion (this is my opinion, I want to make that clear) DE showed a lack of better judgement when Banj did turn into a malicious sockpuppet. Some people (mostly GWW people for some reason...) think that it is not a big deal, but at this point in time I feel that it was and that he lacks the maturity that bcrats should have. I love DE as a user still, but I don't think he is right for bcrat at this time. Like I said, if I know of something that I think is means for him to not get the bcrat position (whether it is on this wiki or not) I am going to give an opposing vote. I am not disappointed with DE for creating a sockpuppet, I am disappointed with DE for allowing teh sockpuppet to get out of hand. --Shadowphoenix 16:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You love DE as a user still? When have you ever? I think I've only seen you disparage him. If you're going to try to put a nail in the coffin, don't pull out halfway and act like a concerned best friend, it kind of kills your momentum (since momentum is your friend when going with the feeling over thinking tactic). -Auron 11:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

When have I ever "disparage" him? I don't have much extended interaction with DE on GWW and GuildWiki. This is the first situation that I have ever said anything "bad" about DE (even so, it is the truth so it is not "bad" imho). No I am not DE's "best friend" but I do love DE as a user. --Shadowphoenix 17:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

SP, I was saying that your statement might draw drama, with the way you phrased your concerns. I know you explained, which I why I was referring specifically to your opening comment's second sentence. It felt like it was baiting people to respond, despite it being exactly how you felt at that time. I am against the sort of harsh and impulsive statement you made in your opening comment, rather than the sentiment that you were trying to express. Phrases like "immature actions", "lacks a lot of maturity", and "no longer holds any qualities" is not exactly showing your love. -- ab.er.rant 05:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)