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

Well, for a number of reasons, I've decided to nominate myself again. Rather than re-iterate things that I've said in the past (which, if someone wishes to see them, can be viewed on my previous nomination), I'll say this: I'm a firm believer in the notion that, when it comes to Wikis, change must, to some degree, originate from the top and permeate throughout a Wiki. Yes, the momentum that allows for change (i.e. policy change) must exist of its own accord throughout the user base; however, if there is to be any hope of real change -- not just semantic change, but rather an actual change in the manner in which policy, etc., is applied -- then it is the Administrators who must be the standard bearers. Consider for a moment the current ADMIN proposals. In both, the clause related to Admin discretion has been edited; however, whether or not the semantic change will reflect/be the cause of an actual change is yet to be seen. And, if change does occur, it will be because of the manner in which the policy change is borne out, not because of the policy change itself.

As always, I find a certain amount of irony in the fact that, while I am... shall we say... not the most staunch supporter of wiki elections, I have chosen to nominate myself; however, I think there's something to be said for the views I've expressed in the paragraph above, and, as such, I think there's something to be said for this nomination.

That said, I'm sure the very first thing that a number of people will do will be to criticize this nomination on the grounds that I have so few contributions. Aside from the fact that I would propose that, if nothing else, those contributions are generally substantive, and that, particularly with a position such as Bureaucrat, it is not the number of edits, or even to be honest the sheer level of activity, that makes someone a good Bureaucrat, rather it is the character/personality and opinions of the Bureaucrat that are most important.

And for anyone who thinks that the sole reason that I'm running in this election is because I want to change ADMIN/think I will have a better chance to change ADMIN, all I can say is that regardless of whether or not I end up changing ADMIN, I do think I have some other good qualities to offer as a Bureaucrat.

Keeping that in mind, I'm happy to answer any questions or concerns that anyone may have on either this page's talk page or my own talk page. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Answers to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election#Questions for candidates

In what ways should one expect that you might operate the role differently than previous practices? (Higher/lower barrier to case acceptance? More/less leniency? Use as a bully pulpit? Other?)

Would I use the position as a bully pulpit? Probably. I doubt that the amount to which I (for lack of a better word) campaign will change... although, as I've said above, I think there's something to be said for how a Bureaucrat is perceived on a Wiki. As to whether or not I would be more or less lenient I doubt I can provide a sufficient response to that question without having had the experience of actually having occupied the position, although I can't imagine I would differ too much as far as leniency and case acceptance rates go.

In what way(s) would your decisions in arbitration be affected by the weight of a user's general history of valued contributions (or lack of such)? Would user valuable-ness reliably translate into some extra degree of leniency from you?

I'm not sure if "leniency" is the right word in this context; however, particularly with ArbComm, I think it's important to weight how a user's malicious (or otherwise harmful) edits compare to their positive edits, as well as whether or not they tend towards a pattern of harmful edits/positive edits. So it might translate into some degree of leniency... if in no other way then subconsciously, but, on the other hand, if a valuable or popular user starts acting maliciously, I have no qualms about issuing a ban or some other form of "punishment".

What stance would you represent regarding the appropriate administrative response to user trolling/disruption/incivility/harmfulness? How is that stance justified given the current status of those issues within our system and culture?

Ok, well, as I see it, any kind of misbehavior should generally be the purview of the Sysops. The role of the Bureaucrat in such instances is minimal unless the situation is rampantly out of control, and the role of the user base-at-large shouldn't extend beyond a simple warning (or possible some attempt at mediation). As to the appropriate response, I think that such offenses need to generally be dealt with on a case-by-case basis with semi-autonomous Sysops making the actual determination.

On a more general note, this may be a helpful link for anyone attempting to gauge my candidacy. *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Supporting votes

1. -- scourge 07:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
2. --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 13:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
3. -Auron 09:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Backsword 06:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
5. 71.229.204.25 08:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (IP account, unable to vote/candidacy withdrawn)
6. ----Soul of misery 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (ineligible to vote, below 100 edits outside user and guild space.)
7. --Readem 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC) (vote given after withdrawal)

Opposing votes

1. --Dirigible 12:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
2. - BeX 13:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
3. -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
4. -- Salome 19:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
5. --Lemming 19:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
6. --Cursed Angel 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
7. --Calor 02:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
8. — ク Eloc 貢 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
9. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
10. --trekie9001 • tlk • 06:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)...