Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-06 bureaucrat election/Warior kronos

From the first few pages of contributions, I see plenty of talk on ANet pages. Mind telling us specifically why he would make a good BCrat? --People of Antioch 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm honored to even be mentioned with such well-known guildwikians, but to be honest, I'm in the blue about the entire bureaucracy running this wiki. What would being a Bureaucrat involve? As you've pointed out Antioch, I mostly reside in regina/gaile talk page arguments and guild wars 1 and 2 suggestion pages. I do believe I've become somewhat of a noticeable figure there, but going along with that, my main strength on the wiki is putting my input in on debates and arguments, and not so much on policy. I of course could brush up on this, I'm on break, I have time to spare, but really, would I be qualified to run in this race? I never really make significant edits to pages, excluding a few instances of fixing notes and trivia sections, and the only "contributions" to the wiki have been that and the occasional typo fix. I feel that right now I'm not in a position to accept or decline the nomination, not knowing all the facts and qualifications behind being a bureaucrat.-Warior Kronos 02:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read through GWW:ADMIN, it lays out the responsibilities of a Bureaucrat.-- Wynthyst 03:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading all this, it makes the whole process not quite as tremendous as I had imagined. However, one problem does remain, I will be away from July 2nd to July 28th, but if this is not an issue, then I will run for the bureaucrat seat. If it is, its been an honor being here. -Warior Kronos 14:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to be away, as long as you make it a point to let people know about it. -- ab.er.rant 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Joke

Summary of his long paragraph-I don't have expirience, but it doesn't matter, see also, Hillary Clinton, err Barrack Obama. Wait which one has experience again?--Yankeefan984 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha that's a good summary, but mine sounds more official =D-Warior Kronos 04:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

they both have little, but Obama would be better...Hillary is F*ck'in crazy.--Raph Talky 23:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Deadly Serious

I am. Look, WK, do you really think you got a chance? DE has a huge following from PvX, and he is win, Anja is also pretty win and she'll probably get the seat, there is also Tanetris, Brains... I know you are a decent guy, but, and I hate to say this, you don't stand a chance. This is, put bluntly, not your turn yet. -- NUKLEAR IIV 16:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

you never know. A lot of people opposed Auron's Bcrat election, yet enough voted for him that he got the secondary seat--Raph Talky 21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do I have a huge chance of winning? No, you're right Nuke. I don't. I'm up against some of the most well-known names on the wiki. But think of it this way; Where do you think they started from? Did they all magically become incredibly well-known overnight? Did they gain their power and respect from the start? No, they had to start somewhere. They had to start, all of them unknowns at one point, just as you said, decent guys on the wiki. And over time they came to be known, came to be respected, and came to have power in the Guildwiki government. I have nothing to lose in this election, and everything to gain. So am I running this race to be elected? Somewhat, yes, but realistically no. I'm running this so I can say, for the next election I have experience. As I've said on my campaign page, I don't have the experience these other candidates have; thats a fact, and right now, there's nothing I can do about it. But if I run this election, and continue to contribute to the wiki, make my presence known in a good way, then eventually I will not only have the attributes I currently have, as a strong debater, a vocal contributer to Regina and Gaile, and as you said your self, "A decent guy," but I will also have experience. That's why I'm running this race.-Warior Kronos 23:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a reason auron won. He got opposition, but they opposed him because, frankly, they were afraid of him. He was made of win, and so he won. Furthermore, kronos, you are a decent guy but you are naive. In the next election, I will be the first one to say "What has really changed?". As stated in Sum Mesmer guy's discussion, seeming to just for the sake of it can hurt your chances in the future, never mind what your real intention may be. Wouldn't it be better to just refuse the nomination, claiming you need more policy related (and people will ask you of this) and inter-wiki related experience? Wouldn't, in doing so, you look more mature and humble than you are now?

Look, I am just trying to be helpful to you here. I think that, by refusing this nomination, you will save yourself a lot of wiki-drama, trolling, and gain much more chance in the elections to come. -- NUKLEAR IIV 11:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

@Nuclear: you are of course aware that I got absolutely thrashed in my first two elections and it's only in the most recent election that I've even started to emerge as a viable contender, right? And that still puts me well behind Aiiane, Tanetris, Anja, and Plingggggg. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

..I think you mean Nuclear? :P -- Brains12 \ talk 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Damnation... meh... whatever. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I congratulate Warior kronos for doing this. It takes new people willing to take a chance to keep this community from stagnating.-- Wynthyst 15:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here. It's refreshing to see new names being added to the candidates list that aren't created just for fun. @Nuclear: the trend is that wiki-drama and trolling seems to happen to candidates who are more well-known, not less. -- ab.er.rant 10:22, 18 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 02:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, not a problem, there's a reason most candidates are asked this, as it is a very important question. I think that the real advantage to being elected as a bureaucrat is the sense of being able to help the wiki decide upon issues as a higher voice. As a user of course, you do have a say, and that is a wonderful thing about this wiki. Anyone can make an account (for better or worse ;D) and as such you really do hear from all kinds of Guild Wars player, an important thing to have no? However, to ask this is like asking why one would be elected to any political post; because one believes he or she speaks for a particular view of people or players in this case. I stand for balanced PvE, against Ursan and other grind builds. I stand for Guild Wars's original core game, the motto of Skill over Time, as said and promised on the front of the Prophecies. And if elected, this will show who the Guild Wars society wants to represent them, and as a result, what they want for the future of Guild Wars. We are entering a critical stage in the life of Guild Wars. As Guild Wars 2 is being developed, we need to show Anet that the future of Guild Wars needs to exclude aspects like Ursan and Consumables, and promote proper skill balancing. To the original question, I think being a bureaucrat means representing the opinions of guild wars players as a population, and if elected I will represent those in favor of balance and against grind over skill, and will reflect this in my decisions as a bureaucrat. -Warior Kronos 03:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just one thing -- the bureaucrat role (or another administrative role, for that matter) has no tangible relation to Guild Wars, content or Ursan (rather unfortuately, in some cases; an arbitration case ruling against, say.. Ursan, would be fantastic :D). It's purely a role for matters concerning wiki users. -- Brains12 \ talk 03:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference is between this and other types of political elections is that you aren't really 'representing' anyone or any platform. The job of a bureaucrat is to interpret the policies, and base decisions on mostly user behavior during ArbCom, while also having the technical tools at your disposal to adjust user rights per RfA's, and do other sysop maintenance type things (as necessary). So your personal views on things like Ursan, and skill balancing don't really come into play, other than to demonstrate how you are able to handle yourself during a heated debate, or while dealing with at times unreasonable users. With this in mind, do you think you would be able to make a fair judgment in a case where the user held your types of views on issues, but behaved in a way that was not in keeping with policy? -- Wynthyst 03:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well to Brains way to ruin my awesome speech =P. No, I am aware, the bureaucrat position doesn't have that much to do with guild wars as a position in the policies of the wiki, but in regard to that, what would be a unique answer? I will enforce policy? Of course I will, and in regard to Wynthyst's answer, policy does come first. However, along with enforcing the rules, I feel that a close connection with the rest of the wiki, the players themselves, is never a bad thing, and similar opinions are one way to achieve that. And Wynthyst, you've answered your own question. My debates on ursan have proved my skill in arguments, and shown that when I know the facts, when I know the policy, the rules, and all the parts of the debate in question, I could contribute vastly in debates over anything from Ursan to Wiki policy. I apologize I was not clearer in my first answer, but I hope this helps a bit. If you have any other direct concerns by all means ask away. -Warior Kronos 04:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, in lieu to the question above, I'll shoot: What do you think of the policy itself? -- NUKLEAR IIV 11:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with policy with two minor gripes. First, on the subject of builds, I feel that some of them should be moved terms rather than builds. Very minor, but nonetheless an opinion. On a slightly larger note, I feel that the edit requirement of 100 edits should be lowered somewhat significantly to 50. Many users don't contribute as much to the wiki as a whole, not always because they don't feel like helping, but because there isn't a tremendous amount to be done. Projects themselves are very much nitpicking, filling in little items the wiki has missed, and while the most important thing on the agenda, they are only so because nothing has been added recently. On that note, when things are added to the game, the wiki is exceptionally good at getting the information fast and effectively, leaving those who edit slower out of the chance to add to edits towards their count, essentially stealing their chance at a vote. Even if one has under 100 edits, it doesn't mean they aren't a part of the wiki and don't deserve a vote. Nuke, If I may use you as an example, is a prominent figure on the wiki, and people do know and respect him. However, for the simple fact you don't have 100 edits, you get no say in the future of this wiki. I feel this needs to change, and that the voting requirement needs to be lowered a bit. I know removing the count entirely would be undoable, for I can think of three reasons right off the bat for not doing so, but lowering to 50 isn't too drastic a change. -Warior Kronos 14:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

no offense but I don't agree with the lowering of the edit requirement. We all choose to add our times to the wiki community in different ways, but first and foremost this wiki is to document the game, the social aspect of the wiki is secondary to that. IMHO, Wiki's should be a meritocracy of a fashion and part of that meritocracy is that the ability to help decide the future of the wiki, is left to those who have contributed to the growth of the actual substantive wiki to at least some degree, and honestly a 100 main space edits aren't alot to ask of anyone. EDIT: ewww that post was exactly 666 charecters long, added this so it's no longer creepy! Oh also as a side note, you said that their isn't that much left to do on the wiki, but just off the top of my head I can think of a whole range of things that needs done. Pictures missing, formatting fixed, rewriting of articles that aren't clear and expanding stubs, etc.... -- Salome 15:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Salome has a point in this wiki's primary goal is to document the game. Secondary to that is feedback and social aspects. I also disagree with the lowering of the edit numbers, but that's just my opinion, and I respect your right to civilly say yours. Also, you used the term higher voice to describe BCrats. That's not quite right. Sure, they're the final say in many things, but I would rather call them a final voice than one that is higher. --People of Antioch 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's very hard to know who's "qualified" to be a Bureaucrat. As far as "objective" considerations go, level-headedness, impartiality, and an IQ over room temperature are the only real qualifications because, let's face it, as you point out above, the actual "duties" such as they are aren't terribly overwhelming -- aside from the Sysop duties (which, depending on how you use them, require essentially no "experience"), your only two other duties are to promote/demote Sysops and arbitrate. The only definitive "experience" one can have is to have actually been a Bureaucrat in the past. But does that mean that Anja, Plingggggg, and Tanetris aren't qualified? Of course not, they would all make excellent Bureaucrats (in my opinion at least). However, in my experience, one good "indicator" of a good Administrator (particularly a Bureaucrat) is contribution to the GWW/GWW talk namespace. Good Bureaucrats aren't necessarily the ones who write policies, or even the most involved policy debaters, but almost all have played some meaningful role in policy discussion. This is not to say that everyone who discusses policy is qualified and everyone who doesn't is not, but I think it is a valid indicator. I haven't seen many of your contributions (primarily, I think, because I spend little or no time on Gaile's talkpage or Regina's), and, indeed, when I first saw this nomination, I hadn't the slightest notion of who you were, but that, in of itself, is not necessarily a problem. What is a problem, however, is that, unlike in the case of Aiiane, Tanetris, Plingggggg, or Anja, I couldn't say with any certainty that you would make a good Bureaucrat. Yes, from what I've seen, you are intelligent and rational, but that alone isn't enough as far as I'm concerned. And what worries me more than anything is your lack of contributions (0 if you don't include this page) to the GWW talk namespace. I can't help but feeling as if "if you've got to ask what it means to be a Bureaucrat, you're probably not qualified -- at least not for the time being." That's not necessarily true, of course, for all I know, you'd make a better Bureaucrat than any of the other candidates, but without any solid evidence to demonstrate that -- I've never seen you display a particularly acute grasp of policy, etc. -- I can't in good conscience support your nomination. I am pleased to see, however, that although you, yourself, have admitted that you have almost no chance of winning, you've handled this nomination in a very mature, serious fashion, which is to your credit.

While I'm at it, I'd also like to ask you a couple of questions (some are stolen from Rezyk's candidate questions from the previous election):

• What is your opinion on strictly literal interpretations of policy vs. "spirit of the policy" interpretations?
• How might your decisions in previous ArbComm decisions have differed from those given by the Bureaucrats?
• How would you define the Bureaucrat's role on GWW?
• What is your stance on trolling/disruption/incivility/harmfulness? How is that stance justified given the current status of those issues within our system and culture?
• What do you think the proper role of ArbComm is?
• How might you use the Bureaucrat position differently than other Bureaucrats have?
• 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?

Thanks for your time. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Whew, heavy reading DE :P. To answer your questions...

• Spirit of the policy. Policies applied literally beg for loopholes for the sneaky and limitations for the well-minded. Policies should be applied as concepts and ideas, not always as literally printed.
• I agree with past Arbcomm decisions except the ban of Raptors. While I agree he was completely out of line, obscene, and generally bad, I feel Arbcomm should have given him his one more chance after his speech. If he had even made one more even borderline unacceptable comment, ban him.
• A bureaucrat's role is simply to discuss and enforce policies while acting as a final judge in arguments.
• There's not too many stances on Trolling. I'm against it of course. I don't really feel there's much justification for my stance against vandalism and trolling. It takes away from the wiki, and noone wants that. That's my justification.
• I would use it not truly differently from any past bureaucrat, but during debates, I've already gone over how I can be cool-headed and logical. Along with that, read my stances above, as handling one's self in debate and opinions on policies are the only real differences between potential bureaucrats.
• A user's history of contributions would weigh into my decisions as a bureaucrat. Everyone has slipups. However, as said above on the issue of Raptors, a user's reputation only goes so far.

Any more? =D-Warior Kronos 03:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm... sure... why not.

• Could you elaborate a bit on the role of a Bureaucrat? Is policy discussion inexorably bound up in Bureaucratship or do Bureaucrats simply tend to be users who discuss policy of their own accord? Furthermore, I'd like to know what you mean by "final judge in arguments?" Is this merely a nod to ArbComm or do you believe that the Bureaucrat is intrinsically (if not explicitly) vested with additional authority in matters of policy disputes, content disputes, and general user mediation? If so, should Bureaucrats be the sole judges (for instance, should they be the only ones allowed to mediate, etc.)?
• As a corollary to the above question, aside from the explicitly defined functions of a Bureaucrat what would you define as (as Dirigible put it) their function here, their raison d'etre? Why do we go through the bother of electing bureaucrats so often? Why don't we, as Erasculio suggests on his user page, phase them out altogether?
• And one final corollary. Bureaucrats, whether we like it or not, have a greater (perceived) authority/influence, what would you say that proper use of this authority? Should it be used at all? How does your answer differ (if at all) from the answer produced by the current WikiCulture.
• I'd also like you to expound a bit on the trolling issue. Obviously, no one's for trolling. However, there's a vast difference between believing that a bit of non-malicious trolling now and again isn't such a bad thing and users who believe that a PvX style ban on trolling should be adopted (note that this latter view is rather extreme and was only -- as far as I'm aware -- suggested by a small group of users in the recent past). Where would you say you fall on that scale? Where would you say the current WikiCulture view falls?
• What's your view on punitive punishment? Should administrative action only be preventative or is more punitive punishment a valid deterrent?
• Setting aside the question of literalism vs. spirit of the policy-ism, what's your view on general admin discretion?
• How would you define "consensus" as it applies to policy discussion, etc. How is "consensus" currently defined on this Wiki?

Please note that part of what I'm trying to do with these questions is gauge (and give other users a chance to gauge for themselves) the extent to which you understand the WikiCulture (an admittedly subjective task, but still one which is useful). That's all I can think of for now. Have fun. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pheeew ok round two-

• I believe policy discussion is bound to bureaucracy simply because one of a bureaucrat's jobs is to maintain policy to the upmost fairness and reasonability, and as a result, policies must be adjusted over time. You get adjustments through discussion. By final judge I refer to Arbcomm, however on an unofficial level, bureaucrats will be higher regarded in policy discussions, as it is their job to maintain policies as opposed to members who must merely abide by them. And no, bureaucrats should not be the sole mediators. Interventions by users solving their own problems is preferable to bureaucratic intervention and worst-case scenario Arbcomm.
• The function of the bureaucrat is to maintain policy, be a final judge in arguments, and to generally maintain the wiki. We go through the process of electing new bureaucrats so often because change is good. If there was just a constant set of bureaucrats, change would be minimal, for better or worse.
• The proper use of the authority is use in situations where authority is needed or useful, such as in policy discussions, where an authority would guide the discussion, or to bring it up again, in an Arbcomm situation.
• As I stated before, everyone makes mistakes, but blatant trolling, even if minor and unusual has to have consequences. Of course a ban won't be necessary every time, but warnings followed by bans after repeated offenses would be acceptable. And as well, you have to take into account the idea of user usefulness. If some random anon comes in and just trolls, of course a ban would be in order. However, if a valued and previously contributing user committed some minor trolling in an isolated occasion, then I believe consequences should be less severe.
• Depends on the situation. There isn't one clear answer to punishments, it depends entirely on the situation.
• Admins should enforce policy when necessary, and try not to exert tremendous authority unless required to. Generally let users deal with things themselves, unless personal attacks start getting thrown around, which is when intervention may be necessary.
• Consensus is as it's name suggests, the majority group of people with a certain opinion on something. On the wiki, this means the userbase, with admins having slightly more of a say in policy then ordinary users.

I apologize if I've missed anything / severely misinterpreted any questions, as I am a bit sick right now, but I hope this primarily answers any questions you have for me. -Warior Kronos 23:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting answers, slightly disagreed with some of them, the most important one being the last point. Consensus is not majority, it's general agreement or acceptance (to put it simply). And admins don't have more say in policy (that's the part where it's perceived, similar to the perception that long-time contributors have more say). -- ab.er.rant 10:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. And on your comment on admins, I'm not sure which answer your aiming that at, but I agree with and understand what you're saying. -Warior Kronos 16:02, 18 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 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As of right now, I feel I would vote for Brains. I feel his answers both on his election page and in general in the wiki are level-headed and logical. As he said, Ideas are a major part of what separates one candidate from another. As a result, I feel that Brains would be a good candidate. -Warior Kronos 03:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My vote

Sorry buddy, get more well known around here first. — ク Eloc 貢 03:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that's a bad reason to oppose Eloc. Being a good Bureaucrat has nothing to do with how 'well known' someone is, but rather by how well they understand the wiki policies, and community, and whether or not they can make fair and impartial decisions in Arbcom. -- Wynthyst 13:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As with all candidates, there are justified reasons for opposition to Warrior Kronos, but "not being well-known" is not one of those reasons. Calor 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If what Eloc meant to say is "Because I don't know you well, I don't feel that I can trust you and I suspect that this is the case for many users" that's one thing, but being "well-known" is not a prerequisite for Bureaucratship." *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

By more well known, yes, I do mean that I wouldn't trust him with the wiki's powers. If you don't know a person, why trust them? — ク Eloc 貢 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I ask it the other way around... if you don't know someone why not trust them?-- Wynthyst 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

my theory is, if you don't know the candidate well, don't vote. this time i have abstained from voting but last time i only voted for/against those who i thought would/wouldn't have done the job well.--Sum Mesmer Guy contribs 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck

I would like to wish good luck to all people who are candidates for this election. I have looked at every candidates wiki pages, an liked most of them (escpecially Aiiane and Brains 12). Hope someone wins it, and I hope it is a good person who will serve us well (which they all will, probably). --Burning Freebies 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support. -Warior Kronos 15:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)