Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2010-10 bureaucrat election/JonTheMon

Intriguing choice. elix Omni 23:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's one way of putting it. Backsword 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As a sysop, what I am seeing from you is mostly janitorial stuff. Moving misnamed files, blocking vandals, undoing contribs consisting of blatantly false information... that is not even remotely comparable to a bureaucrat's duty. I know you are good at sticking to the rules by the byte, but give me some reasons why you are suitable for this position, which requires thinking outside of those rules sometimes. Koda Kumi 18:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And what's so bad about the box? In its current incarnation it practically only has 3 walls due to discretion. As per the first of the two responsibilities, promotion/demotion, I would probably be faster to shut down nominations that are in bad faith or would fail without any good purpose. As for the actual decision, it's more a matter of determining consensus, which isn't an extraordinary act. A recent RfA has brought up the issue of administrative intent and succeeded on less than a 3:1 ratio, but hey, that's breaking the 4th wall.

The other responsibility of arbitration is probably the trickier of the two. Unless some sort of action has already been taken, I'd likely be in favor of an injunction or a temporary ruling. I tend to think of it as suppressing the symptoms now to make getting to the source easier. Previous arb-coms provide some good examples of solutions outside the box, but as each case is different I'd be hard-pressed to come up with solutions in this text. I suppose one final thought on assigning blame/punishment is that quite often both parties have some fault, so rulings would affect both parties. --JonTheMon 19:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

My boxes have more than just 4 walls. Not bcrat quality analogies imo. --128.113.153.216 00:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Koda's comments about janitorial bent of Jon. Some of that seems to be pointless nitpicking for the sole sake of reverting, from my perspective, anyway.

Re: the nominations that are in "bad faith"? Who decides that? and what gives you the right to say they are or not? Certain things should not be done, I think that is one of them. 69.177.225.92 06:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Since my reason to oppose has nothing to do with Jon's qualities as "janitor", it is not an issue. Koda Kumi 11:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Reasoning behind my opposing vote

I feel I should expand on my vote a bit. I think Jon could be a capable bureaucrat, however I believe he would be sorely missed as a sysop who can quickly react to developments on this wiki instead of being forced to abstain in many cases to maintain impartiality as a bureaucrat. — Why 19:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)