Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2009-10 bureaucrat election

It's funfun time.-- anguard 00:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I just hope everyone and their mother get enough edits before Stage 3 so I know who to vote for. -- FreedomBound 00:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone won't be racking up any edits for elections. I like voting on this account. ~Shard 02:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thought about nominating myself. I want to be able to delete tagged stuff when I'm online, but can't. But I think I have too many semi-enemies. (People who don't necessarily dislike me, but just don't think "wanting to delete stuff" is reason enough to be a full-on Bcrat)-- anguard 02:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe "delete stuff" is what admins do. Bureaucrats get involved if the deleting stuff leads to a flamewar that can't be doused by normal means. -- Hong 04:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you forgot the word "don't" in that first sentence. Just look at Misery, he doesn't do anything. -- FreedomBound 11:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually that's not entirely true C4K3 Talk 17:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider myself to be an admin as I never passed an RfA, so I tend to mostly keep away from administrative tasks. If people feel this is inappropriate I'm willing to entertain discussion on my talk page, but at the moment I consider it inappropriate for me to act as a sysop regularly. Misery 17:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're operating exactly as the policy intends, Misery. Keep up the good work! -- FreedomBound 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I was just confirming. Wasn't sure exactly what you meant. Thanks. Misery 17:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion...

... good that we no longer resolve bcrat elections by discussion ... :S poke | talk 17:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, do you have any questions for the main candidates? Because I don't, we've all heard the views of Auron, DE, Salome and Xeeron before. Unless they want to tell us something, I'm not assuming anything major has changed in the way they would handle things. I haven't noticed any dramatic changes in personality. — Why 21:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is testament to the fact that we really need to lengthen the time between elections. 2 months isn't enough time for anything to change. The little changes are ignored when the big ritual of the elections come up. NuVII 22:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Terms are year long now, and elections will be every 4 months. ~Shard 22:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks who have only recently hit the 100-contribution mark will not be (very) familiar with any of the candidates, their styles, or philosophies. Heck, I've been around for 9 months and I'd prefer each candidate to present their own views on how they would approach B'crat responsibilities. In other words, candidates: please post a statement in support of your own candidacy.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I already have. There's a link to mine on my bcrat talk page. Karate Jesus 23:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron and mtew nomination

Since neither mtew and Xeeron have shown any sign of activity in the past month (i.e. accepting the nomination anywhere on the wiki), I'm going to move them to Removed Candidates. --RIDDLE 01:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Candidates are not required to explicitly accept nominations. — Defiant Elements +talk 01:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Showing signs of life is no requeriment really... And that should be left to Bcrat discretion really...--Fighterdoken 01:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you proposing being left to bureaucrat discretion? – Emmett 01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Decide wether they are apt for participating in the election or not?.--Fighterdoken 01:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm mistaken (wasn't around when the election system was set up), but wasn't it done this way to remove the selection of new bureaucrats from the direct control of the current bureaucrats? That's a pretty significant policy change :/ – Emmett 01:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably i am just talking nonsense again, so ignore me XD (i guess i was thinking on RfAs). The main point still stands, though.--Fighterdoken 01:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How about removing Mtew's because it was a joke nomination made by a sock puppet solely to mock him? elix Omni 01:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of deleting Mtew's nomination pending any objections that may be made to my having so done. — Defiant Elements +talk 02:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Okay, completely hypothetical: Some person has no intentions of becoming bcrat, has had no remote involvment with GWW in however long, and somehow gets elected bcrat. Would it then be the currently seated bcrats' decision to decide if he's fit or not? (not rhetorical). If yes, wouldn't it be much simpler to just have them show some sign of life before stage 2? And if they don't, Remove them? --RIDDLE 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, but since nothing in this wiki makes sense, someone decided that it was better to allow bureaucrats to be elected even if they didn't stated explicitly (like what happends for RfAs) that they wanted to run for the position...

And with my luck, chances are i was the one that proposed that idea...--Fighterdoken 02:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

re: removing Mtew's nomiation (Edit conflict) — Wouldn't it have been better to have gotten consensus from within the sysops membership before voting began? I trust that Felix et al have correctly identified the puppetry (if not the source) and have accurately pegged this as trolling rather than a serious nomination. Still, wouldn't it lend credibility to the action if there was some public consideration of other possible courses of action? I guess I don't understand the rush. (To be clear: I don't think that the nomination should remain. I would prefer that, in the future, non-urgent issues get dealt with less urgently.)   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Chances are, none cared before the voting started as to point it out clearly, so no admin saw the need to invoque discretion and remove it untill now.--Fighterdoken 02:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The longer you allow the farce to continue, the more damaging it is to the election process as a whole and to Mtew individually. Or at least, that was my thinking when I deleted it. That said, I added a note on the sysop discretion log specifically because I believed that, while expediency was important, it was equally important to highlight the fact that the decision was made by me without explicit consensus. EDIT: Oh, and as far as not having the conversation beforehand is concerned, I was acting under the presumption that there was a good change that Mtew would notice the nomination before voting started and would thus be able to address the issue himself. — Defiant Elements +talk 02:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Those are good answers, DE. Based on above, I've gone from 95% certain that there was no need for haste to 50% certain there was. (For what it's worth, I think giving Mtew the opportunity to chime in was a good thing.) Thanks for taking the time to explain.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If mtew was removed, then why are we keeping Xeeron as a candidate? I think it's highly improper to remove mtew from the ballot after voting started. It is also pretty underhanded for another candidate in the election to remove mtew. Loves to Sync 17:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

1/10, try harder next time. -Auron 17:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Auron. The 1 was a little generous :p Karate Jesus 17:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, it could seem arbitrary (partly why I posted my questions above). However, (a) there's no requirement to accept the nomination and (b) Mtew's nomination appeared to be illegitimate (made by sock puppet, not by contributor) while Xeeron's was fine. I don't think that people should stop acting in the role of sysops because they are in the middle of B'crat election or RfA. And last, but not least, DE's actions were made in full view of the other sysops, none of whom chose to object.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron's nomination was challenged on the basis of the fact that he had not accepted it. This is not a valid basis. Mtew's nomination was challenged on the basis of the fact that it was a joke nomination created for the express purpose of trolling. That is (as far as I'm concerned anyway), a valid basis. Thus, there is an intrinsic difference between the two. By extension, the fact that one was removed does not necessitate that the other be removed in order to remain consistent. And, as TEF pointed out, it's hard to say that my actions were underhanded when I went out of my way to create a record of my action for the express purpose of allowing my action to be easily challenged (which it has yet to be). — Defiant Elements +talk 18:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that mtew's nomination was intended to "mock him" or "troll him"? Are you saying that the nominator nominated him just for him to get a bunch of oppose votes and not because the nominator actually wanted mtew to be a bureacrat? The nomination was up there for several days and no one challenged it until the voting process began which is why I say removing him now is pretty suspicious on your part. Also, I'm sure a few users wanted to give mtew some support votes and by removing him from the ballot, you robbed those users of their voting privileges. Loves to Sync 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely what I'm saying. The nominator was a fairly obvious sockpuppet (following an election trend that's been going on for some time now wherein socks are used to create joke nominations). When I deleted it, there were exactly zero support votes as compared to eleven oppose votes, so it's not exactly like I was deleting a nomination that challenged my own (i.e. you can't possibly argue that I had a personal motive to want Mtew's nomination removed). And, like I told TEF, I didn't challenge the nomination until now because I was hoping Mtew would notice it and address it himself. — Defiant Elements +talk 19:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on Mtew's reactions on previous topics, I think this was a very wise decision by DE, and I am happy to see that he tried to prevent unneeded conflicts on this matter - that actually makes him a even better candidate - because I am sure that an election with Mtew as a candidate without him being able to comment on anything there would definitely lead to conflicts. poke | talk 19:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As evidence that Mtew's nomination was only intended for trolling, I point to the phrase in the nomination "member of the syncopated in-crowd." This would only make sense if you knew it was making fun of Mtew because he once confused the words "sycophant" and "syncopate." elix Omni 19:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) >Xeeron's nomination was challenged on the basis of the fact that he had not accepted it. This is not a valid basis.

I was challenging these two on the fact that they had a very slim chance of knowing that they had even been nominated, not that they hadn't explicitly or even implicitly accepted it. Neither have appeared to be active since late August, and so it appears that neither have been on to at least read their talk pages. --RIDDLE 01:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, it appears that the community's doing a bang-up job taking that into consideration in their voting patterns. This is probably why there's no policy requiring acceptance of the nomination in the first place. Mtew's would likely have had a similar result, but I agree with the above statements that it was trolling, and that Mtew would likely have reacted badly to the nomination and voting, had it been allowed to continue. -- FreedomBound 15:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Deciding winners

Defiant Elements (+33), Auron (+15), Salome (-2). I think it is clear, not? poke | talk 00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I won the election. I would like to contest the results. Misery 00:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And the Sitenotice should be fixed? - J.P.Talk 00:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I have no objections passing the torch right away, so congratulations, DE... victory at last! :D -- pling 00:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

lol, edit conflit. was gonna post this -> Here's my math of over all: Auron (+15), Defiant Elements (+33), Karate Jesus (-27), Loves to Sync (-24), Salome (-2), Xeeron (-12). And now in order - Defiant Elements (+33), Auron (+15), Salome (-2), Xeeron (-12), Loves to Sync (-24), Karate Jesus (-27). Just showing what results are for all, which also matches Poke's results. (So congrats to the winner.) -- riyen ♥ 00:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean I have -34 not -24. It's a new record I think :). Loves to Sync 06:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the positive and negative. that's how I got -24. -- riyen ♥ 06:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But I had 35 negatives and 1 positive...^^ Loves to Sync 06:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)