Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-10 bureaucrat election

uhm..

.. yay? :/ poke | talk 15:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nay. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Whose term is ending? ~ Kurd 15:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Aber's, already added him to the list. poke | talk 15:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This'll be fun, sure. --Antioch 16:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I swear the other one just ended..... -- Wandering Traveler 16:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

...already? - Y0_ich_halt 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh c'mon, everyone else is doing it, we should jump on the bandwagon too : D Erasculio 16:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

rofl xD - Y0_ich_halt 16:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup every ones doing it. Dominator Matrix 20:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

even youtube - Y0_ich_halt 17:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(insert echoing death cry - Street Fighter style) Ooowahhh! Ooowahhh.. Ooowahhh.... --Antioch 17:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Y0, if you have a death wish, I'll gladly fufill it for you. xD -- Wandering Traveler 22:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

EPIC WIN *DOES VICTORY DANCE* (I just lost the game.) - Y0_ich_halt 10:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

damn i just lost the game too D: --Cancer Angel 11:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, October is gonna be the best month this year! --Burning Freebies 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Next

Stage? If I'm not mistaken or reading the 24 hour clock wrong? --Antioch 00:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks about right. Anyone want to do the change? -- Wandering Traveler 00:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Bloop. Changed. --Antioch 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

Ah, finally a decent campaign! We have a great election this October! 2 new people, 2 people who ive wanted to apply, and the same old people. Good luck you all!--Burning Freebies 08:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting

Remember the timestamps >< -- Brains12 \ talk 00:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know they were obligatory =o — Why 00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck everyone. --Antioch 00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

They're not, but we seem to do it every time and they're helpful too :P -- Brains12 \ talk 00:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely forgot all my timestamps. And best of luck to all. ^.^ -- Wandering Traveler 00:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really see a reason to stamp the time. Now it looks like I manually placed my sig at position 1, instead of really being first :( whatever. Good luck candidates :) — Why 00:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note

To all the candidates who I opposed, it's not really personal. I just feel if the same people who have done fine for the past however long and haven't refused to continue doing so, I don't feel that there should be a need for power to change hands. That's just me.-- anguard 00:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why vote for me and Anja then? We've not been bureaucrats. On the flipside, why oppose DE? He's a sysop too (if that's your line of reasoning to support). -- Brains12 \ talk 00:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't like how he answered my questions, that is, he really didn't. To be honest I can't keep track of who does what but the first couple of people on the list are reknown enough and do fine with... whatever they do. I see them mentioned more, I see more of their edits and didn't see as much of DE. That's my line of reasoning. Flawed as it is, but that's what it is.-- anguard 00:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I find your logic flawed Vanguard. This is a community run site, and imo we should allow more people in the community the chance to be involved in the 'power' as you call it if they show an interest and have been a positively contributing member. While I have no actual objections to the 'job' Ab.er.rant has done as a Bureaucrat, I would like to see some 'new blood'. One thing this might do is minimize the claims that there is an elite group that 'run' this site and make all the decisions (though I know that there will always be those that will not be convinced of that). It might also encourage more people to participate in the process of 'running' this site. Considering the number of qualified registered users we have, it's discouraging to me that less than 50 of them have participated in the current election cycle. I also think that Bcrat is actually a better place for some people to start in the admin role than Sysop. Sysops are encouraged to actively use the tools provided to them on a daily basis, where Bcrats, while they have the same tools, are limited in their use to an 'as needed' basis. This gives them the opportunity to see how the tools work, without feeling pressured to actually use them. -- Wyn 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I believe and kinda said myself on my election page . I'm all up for the community having their turn, and I do believe Ab.er.rant has done a great job. Fifty people running, Wyn, is a daunting number though. Imagine that, heh. :-) --Antioch 16:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think she meant 50 people voting, not running. --JonTheMon 16:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. :-/ Hmm. --Antioch 16:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I also have noticed the significant drop in the number of votes cast this election. In one sense it is concerning, but in another it is not too surprising. I've been monitoring (lightly) the edits over the past few months and have been finding fewer and fewer quality mainspace edits. In fact, the majority of edits seem to be to user talk pages, sysop cleanup work, and dev talk. While this may seem like the wiki is dying, it might indicate that it is becoming very stable. There is still plenty of work to be done, but the most significant work has for the most part been completed. It is rare that I look for something here and cannot find it. I think the wiki has served its purpose very well and can thank its many contributors for its success. Is it too optimistic to expect that within a few years it will have become as thoroughly comprehensive an encyclopedia of a last generation game as it could be, and the next move be to simply archive it? I could easily go on, but the point is that as time goes on, less community participation will be needed. The project is wrapping up. That's OK. A good job has been done. Mohnzh say what? 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Logic may not be as flawed as it's just an opinion. It's my line of thought: If a couple people do the job fine, why change hands? Especially if those couple people are willing to continue?-- anguard 15:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Anja and I haven't done the job at all. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just a variant of the same shit.-- anguard 13:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember

Discussion is still encouraged during the voting stage! --Antioch 15:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a cat with a bucket on its head. Discuss. - Y0_ich_halt 15:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The kitty must be fluffy --Shadowphoenix 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Result / Deciding winners

Before you read: No, the voting phase has not ended yet, but I was just counting anyway, so these numbers are from now :P (You may correct them at the end of the voting phase :P)

• Ab.er.rant: 39/6 = +33
• Anja Astor: 33/6 = +27
• Defiant Elements: 27/11 = +16
• Brains12: 26/14 = +12
• People of Antioch: 12/10 = +2
• TheRave: 10/17 = -7
• Wandering Traveler: 7/14 = -7
• Sum Mesmer Guy: 3/20 = -17
• NoXiFy: 7/34 = -27

Ok, so by now it seems quite clear that no right changes have to be made after this election ;) poke | talk 22:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated numbers - does anyone disagree, that Ab.er.rant is the winner? poke | talk 07:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There really is no room for discussion here imo, Ab.er.rant won, easy. -- Mini Me 16:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad Idea

For future reference, I believe it is a bad idea to prepare a vote tally before the voting is completed. What is the useful purpose? To quickly tell people which candidate they may want to shift votes for to change a close outcome? Or maybe a day is just not enough after the voting has completed to get a tally and conclude the election? Fortunately, the margin on this election seems to make this a mute point. Or is that it, to let people know not to bother to vote anymore since it's not going to change the outcome? I would hope this would be remembered for the future and not happen again. -- Inspired to ____ 22:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, I think people are able to count on their own, so it doesn't really makes a difference.. And I did that because I won't be online when the phase ends but I was counting just now (because I'm interested in the results). poke | talk 22:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Also another positive effect is that some people remembered the election and voted now ;) poke | talk 22:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone can count, it's not like we're telling some secret. Don't make a big deal out of something minor. - anja 22:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Who's making the big deal? It's not like I asked for some sanction or to change the election policy to forbid it. Of course anyone can count and if they want to they should, but I don't think it takes much common sense to realize that is significantly different than posting "results" before the election is over. But, if you think it is good idea to point out where the results are heading during the election, then maybe we ought to start it earlier next election. Whatever. -- Inspired to ____ 22:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, Anja as a canditate whose numbers results were stated incorrectly I would think you would see this more to my point. Again, whatever. -- Inspired to ____ 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Try to realize that GWW's elections have never been, and probably never will be, very contentious. The well-respected editors that wind up as the frontrunners in the elections, rather unsurprisingly, also respect each other and in a lot of cases like each other. So no, it's not surprising that Anja is not clamoring not to be written out of the election just because Aberrant is winning. No one (no one sane, anyway) runs for bcrat for power and prestige, they run because it needs to be done and they believe they're fit for the job. Why get upset that someone else who's also fit for the job gets it instead? - Tanetris 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, as a general rule, when it comes to approval voting systems, a priori knowledge of the current vote count will not introduce bias (not to mention that we have no way to sequester the votes anyway, so it's a moot point). I gather, however, that that's not really what you're worried about. Even in a close election, though, it's unlikely that a "result" post would have a statistically significant impact because, while some users may decide not to vote as a result, others may be galvanized to do just the opposite. Semantics aside, everyone is/should be fully cognizant that the election is not in fact terminated at this time. That said, I'm not sure that it really matters one way or the other; we could keep a running tally throughout the election (updated daily, say) or we could not; it's really quite unlikely to have any long term effect, adverse or otherwise. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)