User:Entropy/bureaucrat

This page is for recommending users who would be good candidates for filling a Bureaucrat position. Please do the following:


 * 1) Create a new header with the user's name, talkpage, and contribs (like an RfA).
 * 2) Explain why you think the user would make a good Bureaucrat. More is better: I am looking for a detailed explanation, not just "he's a nice guy". Try to give some concrete examples.
 * 3) Notify the user on their talkpage that you recommended them. This isn't a formal process with acceptance, rejection, and voting, but it is just common courtesy to know people are talking about you.
 * 4) Solicit your friends, friends of the recommended person, and the community at large to comment on the recommendation: do they agree? disagree? have other comments or concerns? Place your thoughts under an appropriate subheading. As with the original poster, please try to be as descriptive and thorough as possible with your comments; this is NOT a vote of any sort, so simply signing does me very little good.
 * 5) Discussion should preferably take place on this page. "Comments on the comments", or stuff that is inconsequential to the Bureaucrat-capabilities of the recommended person, should be relegated to the talkpage. Please don't spam unnecessarily on this page.

PanSola (Talk/Contributions)
Do I need to say anything? &mdash; Warw/Wick
 * To be honest, in this case, no. I am very, very well aware of PanSola and I believe almost everyone is, to be honest. Especially since April Fool's. ;) I would still prefer some more explanation if you'd care to give it though. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 06:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. Pans been one of the best contrib'ers from the start, and has a total of more edits than Skuld (:O).. coding god.. Basically everything :P &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 06:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.
 * Although Pan has unquestionable contributions and is probably one of the best (if not the best) tech savvy person on the wiki; I would like to know what you think of him as a "people person". Do you believe PanSola has what it takes to promote/demote sysops, decide whether to give bot status, be impartial and objective when judging sysop actions, and overall "speak on behalf of the GuildWiki community"? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 07:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Approval for PanSola

 * 1) Yes. 150%. Ditto. Agreed. What /\ said. Concordantly. Abra Kadabra. Affirmative. This was the first person I was thinking of when I saw this page, I was just so damn lazy to actually make it. Here's my vote of approval, 100% of good rellik goodness with 20% extra blue.
 * 2) PanSola is objective, fair, reasonable and helpful. And is extremely able to benefit the wiki with his knowledge of coding. As well as any other positive brought up above or elsewhere. When LordBiro was going to promote another user to bureaucrat, the first person that came into my mind was PanSola. I also do not see any issues with his ties to Wikia. He has shown he is capable of making logical and reasonable administrative decisions (1) and is always courteous and helpful when dealing with the other users (2). Combine this with his experience, and I fully trust that PanSola will be able to make the right decisions on any bureaucrat action.   --Shadowcrest  19:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that I have to make a comment here...I initially refused the Bureaucrat position when Biro offered it to me, and recommended he consider PanSola instead. But Biro was...uneasy with that. I can not repeat the conversation as it's personal confidance, but I feel the need to dispel the notion that Pan was "already slated for the promotion" in Biro's eyes. Among users, yes, that was the feeling...with the management? Not so much. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, was that a public conversation on the wiki? -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 19:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, otherwise I would post a link to it. Private e-mail; unless Biro wishes it, I am sworn to secrecy. I was also advised at the time by...others that keeping quiet would be the prudent course of action. This is really all I can say (publicly), I'm sorry... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, no worries. (-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 05:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I am perhaps less convinced than when I originally posted, I am still of the opinion that out of the current userbase Pan remains the best choice. --Shadowcrest  22:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I've got to say yes on this as well. I could have sworn he was already a b.crat, at one point or another... I know I've treated him as such for a while. It just seems like a natural step-up for him, and I believe any change he might bring about as a b.crat would only be good, one way or another. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>  .cнаt^  19:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) When I first started up on this wiki, Pan was the first admin that I became aware of.  I more or less look up to him for advice, help, and just as a general figure of authority.  I think he is more than qualified for the position.  I don't think I have ever seen him involved in a dispute where his own personal bias got in the way.  I think that his promotion would only make this wiki a greater place to be. -- [[Image:Isk8.png]] User:Isk8  (T / C)  02:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, prog thought Pan was already an admin. :) &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 10:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bcrat*. And yes, until about a week ago I thought Pan had been a bureacrat at least since I came here :) --[[Image:Progr.jpg]] - talk 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes - absolutely 100% support. Random Time  05:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Go go go. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 07:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Same as Prog, thought u were one. You have my support =] Lยкץ๒๏ץ talk  12:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Bandwagon time! Seriously, I do think Pan would make a good bcrat - my reasons echo mostly what Shadowcrest said above, so I won't repeat them.  The only concern that comes to mind is that he might be too busy with everything else that he does for the wiki/Wikia that he wouldn't have time for the bcrat duties, but I'm sure he can handle it.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 14:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak approval. Pan has the qualities to be a good bcrat (I even mistook him as a bcrat once), but the times he is on is a little too erratic for me, sometimes he'll be on all day, sometimes he won't make an edit for a week. Just my 2 1/2 cents (with heads on both sides).--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 18:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak approval: basically, his erratic schedule is bad, but he has been active lately. He also has many of the qualities to become a bcrat. However, the fact that Biro chose Entropy and Pan's statement about not commenting on RFA's, I'm a little torn here. Cress Arvein [[Image:Cress sig.JPG]] 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) I would approve this user with fairly strong support. &mdash; Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] &mdash;  (contribs) 21:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Comments on talk page show an understanding of the bureaucrat role that surpasses the combined understanding of pretty much everyone else posting. That knowledge, and the instinct to act on it, are tools that separate decent bureaucrats from great ones. - Auron 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Granted, he's not much of a people person, but considering recent sysop mishaps, he's one of the few people who seems truly trustworthy in such a position of power.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]Entrea  [Talk]  22:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Despite my relative obscurity I've decided to vote anyway. I support pan largely for the reasons mentioned above and from my admittedly limited experience of his contributions to the wiki.--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (Talk /Contribs ) 13:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) The general observation I have made of Pansola brings me to think that he would make an excellent bcrat. In my short time here, I have seen much of him and how he contributes.  He is level headed most of the time which is an awsome quality for a bcrat imo.  -- Shadowphoenix  16:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) +1 --[[Image:Progr.jpg]] - talk 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Disapproval for PanSola

 * 1) When it became apparent a while ago that we needed a new bcrat, Pan's name was the first to come to mind. With an in-depth understanding of code and software, Pan's expertise is invaluable to the wiki. Pan is one of the oldest of the current sysops which means he has a good understanding of how we do things and what kinds of ideas we have discussed and tried. Pan is level-headed has never struck me as biased towards any other contributors. However, since I have become a sysop, I have slightly revised my opinions. I noticed that Biro chose Entropy over Pan which said alot. Additionally I noticed that Pan has a tendency to start projects without discussion. The only reason that this doesn't usually come up is that no one really has an issues with these projects. Additionally, Pan himself points out that he rarely comments on RfAs, his activity is sporadic (and I thought the idea was to have a more active bcrat), and most importantly, he doesn't see the bcrat job as all it encompasses. The role of bcrat is technically just the person who promotes and demotes sysops and manages other user rights. However, we need a bcrat who can act as a super-sysop, arbitrating disputes between them and taking action if a sysops's actions are questionable. Such a person would have to be very active and keep and idea on the actions of all the sysops. Additionally, we need someone who can represent us to Wikia. I feel that Pansola is best suited for his current role of sysop. Pan handles alot of back-end administrative tasks such as helping us manage the new skins and introduce us to new features of the wiki. Basically, I don't think that Pan would make a bad bcrat but I feel like he's not the best person for the job. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "However, we need a bcrat who can act as a super-sysop, arbitrating disputes between them and taking action if a sysops's actions are questionable." Indeed here my beliefs and JediRogue's differ.  My values would push me towards leading GuildWiki back to the place where any random anon would have a right to step in and arbitrate disputes between sysops or even among Bcrats.  They wouldn't exactly have the direct power to do anything to the sysops/bcrats if they choose to not value the anon's attempt to mediate, but the spirit associated with GW:YAV would itself demand any Bcrats/sysops to not treat an anon trying to mediate a conflict any different than a Bcrat stepping in.  I believe even if Entropy and a second Bcrat gets into a fight, and I step down from my sysop position, I would still have a right in trying to help and arbitrate.  Thus, being a Bcrat is only special due to the ability to promote/demote.  Everything else can be done by any other people on the wiki (minus the rollback/sysop stuff), and I will not hesitate to exercise my right if the need arises and it comes to my attention. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 05:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Pan here, bureaucrats shouldn't be the only ones allowed to arbitrate user disputes. This is a community wiki and the it's the community job to keep the wiki a safe place. If a dispute gets out of hands and no one can do anything about it with talk, then sysop tools are required for banning/protection and a bureaucrat doesn't have any more tools to help in these situations. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 06:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To be technical, Bcrats can get Sysops demoted (or they could, and we kind of expect to get that right back from Wikia eventually). So the Bcrat has the tools to protect the wiki from sysops (such as two sysops both refusing to backout from a revert war on an already protected page).  But yeah, that's just a technical detail. d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 08:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I imply that bcrats and sysops were the only ones who could arbitrate disputes? Sorry...Although that is what traditionally has happened, I have no problems with even a random anon mediating. GW:YAV and GW:AGF after all. In fact, a person who is free from the corruptions of power and responsibility is usually the best person to mediate, especially when they are not personally involved. The main difficulty is that most such anons or other users are either not active enough to have the knowledge to mediate the dispute; or other users would mock them for trying. Fact is, anons don't get enough respect around here unless they display really extraordinary wisdom. I wish I could change that, but the power of recognizance and visibility has grown much over the years... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not believe you were implying such. Most of my comments are a direct response towards JediRogue. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the main thing I was trying to say there was that the bcrat is the only one who canstand above the sysops and take action against them if they feel the sysop is say abusing their powers. Other sysops can ban things and discuss things and they can mostly manage each other but they cannot demote each other. It is a minor technical difficulty but I believe it represents a larger part of their authority. I didn't mean to say that only bcrats can arbitrate in disputes between sysops.&mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If a Bcrat as I defines it see a sysop abusing his/her power, then the Bcrat should not hesitate to either warn first then de-sysop if the warning is ignored, or de-sysop right away to stop the problem so that things can be discussed out. That would be part of the duties of the Bcrat (demoting sysops when situation warrants).  Whether arbitration/mediation is needed in the situation is a completely separate matter, and that is what I believe to not be in the responsibilities of the Bcrat, and where our believes (at least as how I understand your beliefs go, according to your original disapproval comment) differ in the most part.  If a sysop (or several) is involved in a conflict but is not abusing powers, then there's nothing specifically within the jurisdiction of the Bcrat to do (though people selected as Bcrats will likely step in and mediate/arbitrate as a member of the community).  If a sysop (or several) is abusing his powers, the Bcrat should step in and stop the abuse of power right away (via warning or de-sysoping) without waiting for any process of arbitration/mediation to start/conclude.  That is how I see the Bcrat position/role to be, and my refutation to the "most importantly" part of your disapproval.  The rest of your disapproval stands. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 00:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Pan for the most part here; if abuse of power and such aren't involved in a dispute, the bureaucrat has no reason to step in and throw his bureaucratic weight around. If he chooses to get involved it would be as a member of the community. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 00:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Other comments for PanSola

 * 1) Ties with Wikia make this a questionable promotion. - Auron 08:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you fear corruption, collusion, bias, etc. to taint PanSola's judgment? Or are there other implications behind your statement? I can understand somewhat how this could be a potential issue, but from what I have seen thus far I don't have much grounds for fearing PanSola would "go rogue" and act as Wikia's puppet or such. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I fear that he would be unable or unwilling to "speak on behalf of the GuildWiki community," particularly on issues such as a Guildwiki2. <font color="#DD2200">Lord Belar 19:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He is a contributor on GWW as well, and he's on GW2W too (albeit with no major contributions). I believe he won't let bias get in his way in that regard; it's not like Wikia pays him or anything. If the worry is that he might start promoting Wikia staff here, can't they already do that for themselves? Aside from that, I don't see how he could do any [more] harm [then Wikia already has]. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  19:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) PanSola here. Four separate comments I got:
 * 2) To date, I have not commented on a single RFA at GuildWiki, because I had felt I'm not really on top of what's going on in the community (95% of the ppl I am familiar with are over at GWW), and I had not felt the incentive to do the research to make comments on RfA's.  There are multiple ways to interpret/spin this behavioral fact and my (subjective) explanation, but in any case I think this should be taken into consideration.
 * Good point, but if you were a Bcrat, I'm pretty sure you would do the necessary research then.[[Image:Ereanorsign.jpg]]<strong style="color: black;">reanor 00:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pan, while I think it is important for bureaucrats themselves to be able to resolve RFA's knowledgeably, consider that most of the other sysops throughout history (and even Tanaric/Biro himself) rarely if ever commented on RFA's unless it was a personal friend or enemy. I don't take it as a particularly black mark or anything. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) BTW, is it the Bureaucrat's job to represent the GuildWiki community?  I don't believe we had ever expected it of Nunix or LordBiro, whereas Gravewit may had represented GuildWiki on legal/paperwork stuff because he was the one getting us servers/bandwidth, but Gravewit didn't really represent the community either. To me, an admin's job only involves Prot, Del, and Ban; a Bcrat's job only involves promotion of other people.  Sysops and Bcrats had, historically, not been empowered as arbitrators/moderators/representatives in the community.  Certain individuals tend to end up being arbitrators/moderators just because of who they are, and their Sysop/Bcrat positions are more a result of them being who they are, as opposed to being a rank that allowed them to arbitrate/moderate.  My expectations of Sysops is the ability to properly use discretion when utilizing the tools of Prot/Del/Ban.  My personal expectation of a Bcrat is simply a good judge of character as to whether someone else should be promoted to a certain position.
 * That's true, but since we are now a part of Wikia, we need a spokesman to deal with those in higher positions, and that spokesman should probably be the B-crats because they are already carefully elected. However, taking that in consideration makes Auron's point more important.[[Image:Ereanorsign.jpg]]<strong style="color: black;">reanor 00:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Astute observation, and I wish things were still that simple; I could thusly promote quite a number more sysops and even bureaucrats without thinking twice. By the strict letter of GW:ADMIN and related policies, you are exactly right: that is the precise role of sysops and bureaucrats. However, I have increasingly felt as GuildWiki has...aged that admins and the bureaucrat(s) need to take on more responsibilities and be more active. These are rather vague roles, and vary wildly: I would never ask for Dr Ishmael's technical knowledge or your Wikia knowledge as prerequisites to the job, obviously. But I think that each sysop brings something unique with them to the team. All have their own areas of expertise which they use to help benefit the Wiki, with the most basic duties/abilities still being the most important: discretion to use the powers granted. Ultimately, sysops/bcrat does end up being the final "arbitrators/moderators/representatives in the community". Not all of us, of course, but the chain of command ends there. If a regular user displays such qualities, chances are they are due for a promotion. :)
 * What I want in a second bureaucrat is, above all, a person who can fill in for me while I'm gone. Such times are only bound to increase when I head off to college later this year. I feel that a person with the power to discipline the sysops (desysoption), make promotions, authorize bots, etc. should always be available in case emergencies come up. I have come close to missing a lot of rather important issues because I am not so active anymore; in most of them, bureaucrat being around, "a good judge of character as to whether someone else should be promoted to a certain position", would have helped. It is retroactive and conversely applied also: to look at a sysop's actions and reconsider if promoting them was such a good idea. Also, bureaucrat is the nominal representative to Wikia nowadays, mostly because we don't formally have an "owner" such as Gravewit anymore. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Self-proclaimed Fact: I spend way more time on GuildWiki than I do playing GuildWars.  Self-proclaimed Fact: I sometimes take long breaks from GuildWars, months at a time.  Self-proclaimed Fact: I also sometimes takes long breaks from GuildWiki, months at a time (most recent being approximately April 07~Sept07, if I recall correctly).
 * Only the last one is a big deal, but then again, once you're a B-crat that should change. You should ask yourself if you'd be willing to be a B-crat, and then if you'd make those changes you need to be a decent one.[[Image:Ereanorsign.jpg]]<strong style="color: black;">reanor 00:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care about Guild Wars at all, since I haven't been active there for...ever. I only recently logged on twice because 1) I needed to retrieve overdue birthday gifts and 2) someone requested me to. I do not believe admins or bureaucrats have any responsibility whatsoever to be up to date with the game. Heck, look at Tanaric. :D I would be more worried about breaks from GuildWiki, but because the bureaucrat would be filling in when I am not around, then it otherwise would not matter so much. If they said they would be absent for X months, then I would make sure to be more active in that time, and vice versa. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do we actually need another Bcrat?
 * I agree with Entropy's reasoning on the issue, so yes. If you'd be the one, at least this far, is still up to you.[[Image:Ereanorsign.jpg]]<strong style="color: black;">reanor 00:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we do not need another Bcrat. But I would like one. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Auron (Talk/Contributions)
I would like to throw out Auron's name as a possible choice for additional bureaucrat. Auron is a longtime contributor here, and even though you'll rarely see him posting nowadays, every once in a while he will step in to ban a vandal or respond to some post on his talkpage. He is almost always watching and actually fairly up-to-date with what goes on here. Auron's discretion is second to none and although some may view him as overly blunt, harsh, uncompromising, elitist, et cetera, it is hard to deny that he does not get the job done one way or another. Despite not being actively active, I would place Auron's loyalty to GuildWiki right up there with the likes of Tanaric or Karlos; he distrusts GWW and Wikia, and not simply out of spite either. Being both an administrator here and on GWW/GW2W (as far as I remember), Auron has experience in the duties of a sysop. He has also been involved in many, many disputes between users, both directly and as a third party judge. I trust Auron's judgment to always be for the betterment of the Wiki. You may even say that I learned many of my own attitudes and administrative ways from Auron. If there is any user who I think would serve as Bureaucrat closest to the way I do, it would be him. The difference between Auron and I is only a question of degree...of laxness and detachment, mostly.

Your thoughts, please, since I know this is bound to be controversial. Please note that this post does not count as an "endorsement" of any sort: Auron is still no more or less likely than PanSola or anyone else to be the preson I end up picking. (T/C) 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Approve for Auron

 * 1) I would trust Auron with the ability to judge who should or should not be promoted to sysops.  I am concerned about his people skills, but if any sysops decides to rage-quite GuildWIki forever due to a controversial demotion performed by Auron (as opposed to stick around and work the issue out), that sysop in question probably lacks the maturity we expect to be entrusted with the tools of Prot/Ban/Del anyways.  Hopefully, an additional sense of responsibility would have some mild degree of moderating effect upon the way he communicates his thoughts. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 05:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I know many users don't agree with me, but personally I am sure that Auron would fit in perfectly. Even if people have disagreements with him he has always handled his sysop/bcrat tasks on all wikis well. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 06:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) What they said. An allegedly "bad attitude" doesn't have anything to do with being a good Bcrat in GuildWiki.[[Image:Ereanorsign.jpg]]<strong style="color: black;">reanor  03:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Auron for bcrat. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 19:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) While Auron has frequently been a center of outraged attention, even during my short time on the wiki, this is not because he is foolish, inexperienced, or unhelpful; rather, it seems to stem from the fact that he is willing to act, and to make hard decisions where other administrators will not.  He acts on the behalf of the wiki as a whole, not on the behalf of individual users -- that is to say, we have a slew of administrators willing to look at the details, but he is one of the very few who examines the bigger picture.  Support. [[Image:Maui_sig.png]] 22:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) For anyone who doesn’t know, I’m one of two Bureaucrats on PvX (Auron being the other); I was also a contributor to GuildWiki and am currently a contributor to the GuildWars Wiki.  Auron, in his response to Ishmael said that if you talk to PvX’s Sysops and BMs, you “won’t be unimpressed,” and I guarantee you won’t be.  Auron is no more active on PvX than on GuildWiki, nor is his general demeanor substantially different.  That said, his presence is surely felt, and talk to whoever you may, the Sysops in particular, you’ll hear nothing but good things.  Whether you’re talking about a 6 hour chat regarding a possible Sysop demotion or a 3 hour conversation about Sysop promotion, Auron’s been there and done that (and done it all with commendable level-headedness).  But then again, everyone seems to agree that Auron is trustworthy, rational, etc., so I thought I’d take a second to talk about his “people skills.”  Unfortunately, people tend to view Auron in terms of extremes and not without reason either.  People seem to think that either you want a hard-line Admin or you don’t want Auron.  And yes, he’s elitist, brutally honest, etc., but in working with him for the past year (or thereabouts) on PvX, a project which has not been without its hazards (many of the core members, myself included, thought it was likely to fail in the early stages) I have never once seen him allow any of those possibly detrimental traits get in the way of his Administrative duties.  What’s more, he’s quite capable of being diplomatic, etc. when he needs to be.  That said though, his bluntness is invaluable more than not.  And yes, PvX isn’t GuildWiki, but I have no reason to believe he would be any less capable (either in terms of political adroitness, for lack of a better term, or in terms of managerial skills) than he is on PvX.  And as far as WikiPolitics (again for lack of a better term), I’m still a believer.  Simply put, it works.  Auron and I rarely need to intercede on a day-to-day basis, but we manage to keep things running pretty smoothly.  And to be perfectly honest, from my own observations of GuildWiki, limited though they may be, I think GuildWiki needs a strong Administrative hand guiding it to one degree or another for cohesion’ sake if nothing else.  Auron’s mini rant about himself (on his user page) may seem overly self-indulging, but as something of a third-party, I can say that it’s reasonably accurate.  And yes, I’m somewhat biased, but I’d like to think I’m a reasonable judge of character (especially after I’ve worked with the person for quite some time), but take it as you may.  If nothing else, based on Entropy's comments on the talk page, I think Auron is more than qualified.  Besides which, his attitude, bad or otherwise, should have very little to do with his performance as Bureaucrat.  Cheers.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Disapprove for Auron

 * 1) Auron is a capable administrator who's great at putting his foot down and stating things as they are. He doesn't bullshit anyone and he's good at distilling an issue down to the core. Auron is always watching and rarely contributing (currently). Auron is another old hand which means he knows about old conflicts and how we resolved past issues. I generally trust Auron's judgment and agree with him on discussions that he cares to contribute to. I like Auron. However, Auron is extremely abrasive and rubs alot of people the wrong way. I feel like he would end up pissing alot of people off in a position where someone more diplomatic would be better suited. I also don't really know how well Auron would deal with interacting with Wikia. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Auron simply isn't active enough here, and doesn't seem to care very much about this wiki. Like May said below, what's the point of replacing an inactive bcrat with another inactive bcrat?--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) From what I observed diplomacy is not his strong suit. With his attitude he may make a good sysop but wouldn't handle the additional duties of a bcrat well imo.--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 19:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Mild disapproval. I want to support Auron, but I really just can't bring myself to. It's not his judgment I don't trust nor the possible lack of time (being bureaucrat elsewhere); it's his lack of diplomacy. As a bureaucrat he would need to be able to deal with normal users, mediate sysop disputes, and be able to work with Wikia diplomatically; this doesn't seem to me like such behavior would come naturally. Sysop rights seem best suited for Auron. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest  22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Im not really in any position to comment as I don't know much of what he has contributed/what his previous actions are. I assume he wouldn't have his current position without doing something right, however he seems to have been involved in relativelty recent, i beleive it was called 'wiki-drama' at the time and people have raised issues about er 'diplomatic ability'. Regardless of whether this is appropriate to the duties of a Bcrat, surely in a choice between canidates with 'diplomatic' skills and those without, its better to go for the diplomatic ones, even if 'diplomacy' isn't a main issue for the position in question--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green">Contribs</B> ) 13:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Sorry Auron, but I disapprove again. As I have said before, Auron can be a meaningful contributer and an all around good guy.  However, his rude attitude towards everyone is still there, I have been observing him over at GWW and imo not much has changed.  Not to mention that he is highly inactive here (more inactive than I am).  When he became "semi inactive" here he made this comment on his userpage I no longer contribute here, as it has become a playground for little kids. A combination of the sysop base being childish and the general editors being assholes makes this a very unfriendly place to be, which is not an acceptable comment of an bcrat to make imo.  I would like to see him get more active here before he becomes a bureaucrat.  Just wanted to remind everyone (as I did on GWW), my personal opinion of Auron does not sway the way my comment is thought out.  I think if he shapes up a bit and gets more active here, that he will be a great bcrat.  (Prob. sounds like I am repeating myself for the GWW elections :P, oh well)  -- Shadowphoenix  16:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Auron is not "rude": he is blunt and truthful. There is a world of difference. GWW promotes the former. Auron is way more active than you ever were, and always has been. The comment on his userpage was very telling, and Auron resigning from being active here was a very big sign to me that there was a real problem. The fact of the matter is that he was right, and largely that comment still applies, although we work daily to try and improve things. And I have said worse things as a sysop/bcrat. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are defending the comment of "it has become a playground for little kids. A combination of the sysop base being childish and the general editors being assholes" is very telling. I think i can safely predict who the next Bcrat will be :P. If i was to consistently be so, er, "Blunt and truthful" I would get banned for breaking GW:NPA, GW:QDV and GW:AGF, quite possibly simultaneously, whereas in Auron this is revered as 'telling it like it is'. Surely if Bcrats can ignore policy outright then it won't set a wonderful example to other users, but i stand by the point that there are other candidates who are equally capable who haven't called the general community assholes and the sysop base childish - thats why i am opposing anyway--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green">Contribs</B> ) 11:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and i forgot GW:YAV in my list of policies up there, so sorry--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green">Contribs</B> ) 18:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Truth sucks, doesn't it? The sysop base was childish. Marcopolo and several others would attest to it; they were the culprits. However, I was also the one that fought to get him reinstated once he resigned; I saw promise, I saw him trying. So I contacted him privately and told him to keep at it. He thus got in touch with Biro and pleaded his case. I'm not going to hide from the truth and let the wiki rot; if you're acting childish, I'm going to call you on it. What's the best way to avoid being called childish? Not acting that way.
 * The general editor base were assholes, although they're all too arrogant to admit it. They were the ones spamming RC with bullshit best left to instant messaging programs. They were Warwick's clique; the cause of the vast majority of the semi- to very recent edrama. Again, the best way to avoid being labeled an asshole is to not be one.
 * If you said the things I said and got blocked, I would personally unblock you. You'd only be speaking the truth, pointing out what needs to be improved; I wouldn't let you turn into a martyr for it. Remember, the spirit of the wiki is much more important than the word of any specific policy. If you are helping build that spirit, little policy violations will be waived. That's just how it is. Of course, it depends on how much you're building the spirit and how little the violation is, but in general you'll be fine. (Before you bitch and moan about that being favoritism or some bullshit that's plain wrong, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiDragon. As much as I dislike the cheesy lore and fake backstory, the underlying points are still valid. This wiki has stagnated via the lack of wikidragons; it isn't wise to keep hunting them in that state.)
 * Entropy is defending the truth. You're perverting that to mean she's defending a perceived policy violation. Don't confuse the two. - Auron 22:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Entropy; Auron has a lack of the appropraite people skills imo. If this would be an RfA then yes I would most likely support since I think his personality is better suited for that role (that is my opinion btw).  A bcrat that has a lack of respect for the community and the policies shouldn't be a bcrat, imho.  By active, I mean in recent; not his entire time.  Entropy, your personal feelings towards Auron seem to be to baised for you to pass judgement on whether or not he should be promoted, imho.  As I have said, if he can gather a more professional outlook and be more professional, then he will gain my support.  Like Felix said, if he dislikes this place so much, why does he want to be a bcrat?  Tbh he needs to try this again when he is more professional and shapes up, then he will have support from me (not saying that my support is any better than anyone elses, just that a potential bcrat should try to gain as much support as possible).  -- Shadowphoenix  03:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So basically you prefer the kind of person that lies and cheats to get into office, then lets everyone down because of it? I think we call those politicians. They fucking suck at getting anything done; but that's obviously the kind of person you prefer. Your judgment is terrible. - Auron 11:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a breach of YAV, but that is the reason I oppose him he is rude and self serving. That comment just proved my point.  -- Shadowphoenix  21:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Why would an irritable and condescending individual such as Auron even wish to be appointed playground mom bureaucrat on a site that he finds unpleasant? I question his motives, his judgment, and his integrity. Auron is a very public person, and the more I see of him, the less I respect him. And no "personal feelings" crap, please- I have never interacted with Auron on a personal level, I am judging him solely by his public actions and statements. The only way I could disapprove more strongly is if I wrote in all caps. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I do not know whether Auron wishes to be in such a position or not, I do see a reason why a person of the mentality I perceive him to have would wish to be in this position. Specifically, being in the Bcrat position means he would have a hand in shaping the membership of the group of people with Sysop powers, which means he would have the ability to help GuildWiki move in the direction opposite to what he finds unpleasant. I care about the United States of America, even though I find the current administration extremely unpleasant.  If there's a way I can gain the ability to influence who are the members of the administration of the US, I'd try to gain such ability and use it, instead of migrate to Canada or Mexico.   -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 23:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong words for your second edit after your ban expiring. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.95.66.182 (contribs) 18:30, 23 May 2008.
 * Well, I have to admire Auron's initial refutation of my line or argument, however subsequent comments of "Your judgment is terrible" can hardly be considered anything but a breach of YAV. While bluntness and truthfulness are all well and good, some opinions are perhaps best kept private. I will continue to oppose, as i personally don't think that someone willing to openly ignore policy, effectively hiding behind experience and position, should be put in a position to decide on sysop/desysoping and definately not handle relations with wikia or make the final decision in admin disputes (however unlikely the need to perform that duty is). Still, i oppose slightly less strongly than before, meh, no further comment--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green">Contribs</B> ) 11:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a breach... how, exactly? She made her point. Her point sucks. I'm saying her point sucks. If she hadn't made the point to begin with, and my comment was out of the blue, it would be a case of AGF, but still not YAV.
 * And really... stop ignoring the most crucial argument; anyone working for the betterment of the wiki will get special treatment. You keep glossing over that fact and then fallaciously restating bullshit like "omg he ignores policies," while you ignore the "spirit of the wiki" bit. I know it's a hard concept to stomach, but ignorance is not a defense. - Auron 12:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, i withdraw my previous statement of "no further comment" It is a breach of YAV because "Your Judgement is Terrible" is hardly acknowledging a user as equally valuable to any other, i think it is generally understood that "Terrible" judgement would not be considered 'valuable'. And er, "anyone working for the betterment of the wiki will get special treatment" - where is this stated anywhere. Surely all of us who are not vandals are working for the 'betterment of the wiki', even if opinions as to what is best are divided. And "you ignore the "spirit of the wiki" bit.", I ignore the spirit of the wiki? Is the spirit of the wiki to tell people they are immature assholes? If so, then yes, i oppose said spirit wholeheartedly, sorry about that. Is the spirit of the wiki to Impose decisions of what is best while ignoring the wishes of the community? I oppose that part of the spirit too. And if the spirit of the wiki involves blatantly ignoring policies (sorry to restate that) then we may as well replace the policy category with GWSPIRIT:GONUTS or somesuch. Seriously, ignorance may not be a defence, but neither is "Its not an NPA violation - its blunt and truthful" or "I breach policies in the spirit of the wiki, so alls good". Also, i am glad to know i am merely "fallaciously restating bullshit", ahem, go me :)--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green">Contribs</B> ) 13:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If someones judgement is terrible, its not a breach of YAV to tell them so. Why the hell would it be? Sometimes the community really doesn't no what is best for it (read:builds wipe). Lord of all tyria 15:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Your Judgement is Terrible" is NOT a YAV breach, because Auron was not basing his comment on "I am an admin, you are a user, so your judgement is terrible" or "I am older than you, and I disagree, so your judgement is terrible". He explicitly stated the reasoning of his strong disagreement with the judgment made by the other person, and therefore he believed that person's judgment to be terrible.  -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 19:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "I am a user, you are an admin, as such i feel your opinion to be utterly invalid." Would that be a YAV breach then, considering the role reversal and corresponding inequality of position?--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green">Contribs</B> ) 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that would technically not be a YAV breach, and if we examine the spirit of things, that's just general bitching (unless there is actually a culture/habit/tendency of paying attention to opinions of users more than admins). Anyways, I feel that YAV has been overly-misused by too many people.  It's original purpose is really an anti-self-deprecation policy, which has the utilities of getting people to not use passive-aggressive martyring of themselves as a rhetoric leverage in a disagreement against people of more experience or higher position (and to reinforce the encouragement of newcomers to be bold).   -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pan is so right. That policy is designed to prevent self-deprecation. However a discussion of if it should be rewritten to work the other way around or if it should be rewritten to make it clearer how its meant to be used should go on the policy talk page. Lets try to be more productive here and stop throwing around YAV and NPA accusations. Such accusations should only be made by a non-biased party (someone who is not part of the discussion). &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 22:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I've tried to remain neutral about Auron, but I've finally decided that I cannot support him for bureaucrat. Yes, I believe he has good intentions.  Yes, I believe he would work for the betterment of the wiki.  Yes, I think he could make good decisions about promoting/demoting admins.  Yes, he is unfailingly honest, but that is also the reason I can't approve of him: he is too honest at times, and he is too brashly honest most of the time - as JediRogue said above, he "doesn't bullshit anyone ... is extremely abrasive and rubs alot of people the wrong way," and that is exactly the impression I have of him from his comments on this page.  Whether he intends it or not, the words he chooses and the attitude conveyed by those words are all-too-often inflammatory and serve only to anger the person he is trying to reason with.  As Auron has made clear (along with Entropy and PanSola), mediating disputes is not an implicit duty of a bureaucrat, and he cites this as the reason that his "attitude" would not be a factor in his duties as bureaucrat.  However, even though he could avoid actively involving himself in user disputes, he would still be asked at times to explain his bureaucratic actions.  When this happens, his attitude would indeed become a factor, and could lead to drawn-out arguments, such as the ones with Shadowphoenix and Cobalt above.  I agree with Shadowcrest that a bureaucrat (or an admin, or anyone in a position of power) needs to be diplomatic in dealing with the people they have power over, and this is a quality that Auron has not demonstrated.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I partly disagree. I can be incredibly diplomatic; when the situation calls for it. Look at a bunch of the stuff on PvX I've done (especially recently); definitely bureaucratic work worthy of being labeled diplomatic. I'll always be an asshole, but if someone is genuinely concerned about my actions as bureaucrat, I will write a walloftext explaining why I did what I did. I've been swayed in the past by well-written arguments, and no doubt I will be swayed in the future by the same.
 * Wikis are based on a trust system. If a single bureaucrat is corrupt, the entire wiki is ruined; he could promote his friends, demote his enemies, and apply blocks to anyone he feels like; Wikia could be contacted in the meantime, but it could take days (possibly weeks) to get the situation reverted. By then, people would have left the wiki, and the spirit would be destroyed.
 * Being a staunch supporter of total autonomy in sysop/bcrat actions, I realize the responsibility each person in the chain of "command" has. While each needs to be headstrong and independent, they can't be stubborn, ignorant or naive. This system of friends, as it usually ends up, keeps tabs on each other; a few times on PvX, some of the sysops asked for explanations of my actions, and I willfully gave them. I respected them and expected them to make sure I wasn't becoming corrupt.
 * It would be the same here. I can (and would) be amazingly diplomatic when it comes to bureaucrat actions, fair and strong with sysop actions, and probably still a jerk when it comes to me talking (as a user).
 * I encourage you to look at the PvX system, maybe even talk to a few of the sysops/BMs. You won't be unimpressed. (The userbase is, unfortunately, generally younger than I'd hoped; that lends itself to undue RC spam. But still, the builds go on). Your input means more to me (and most likely to Entropy as well) than most others'; cast your "vote" wisely. - Auron 13:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the diplomatic response - it's the first of its kind that I've noticed from you, although I may have taken all your other comments and generalized them in my mind based on the high frequency of "abrasiveness" in them. I'll have to take the time to look through them again.  Still, if you could try to be more diplomatic on this page in the future - act like you would in the position that you're "campaigning" for, maybe - that would obviously help to improve most people's opinions.  I'll definitely keep my mind open on this over the next couple days.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 16:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Other comments for Auron

 * 1) I will not vote in this, because I am slightly bias. I also have to say that Auron isnt really an active contributor here, and what would the good be in promoting another inactive bcrat? :p. MAY 4 BCRATZ &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It really depends on what you mean by "active". I said, he does not post. But he watches constantly. That is much more than I can usually say for myself these days - I used to promise I'd at least check my talkpage and such once a day but I don't even do that necessarily anymore. So it's just what I'm looking for, someone who I can rely on to check in frequently and take action if they need to. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) As I've only really come into the community here in the past month or so, and Auron hasn't been very active during that time, I don't feel I know him well enough to make an informed comment here. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 14:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I do not know him enough to make a good decision, but seeing as he is a bcrat already on GWW must cut into his time already, and I feel he will not be active here enough. Cress Arvein [[Image:Cress sig.JPG]] 19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I would disagree with any disapproval based on Auron's "lack of edits" on this wiki. Unfortunately similar criticism has been pointed as me too ("erratic") so my comment here can be viewed as pitching in my own favor as well, instead of being objective about the matter itself.  But really, what is the difference between a user who keeps an eye on the wiki everyday, versus a user who doesn't contribute to the article namespace and just do lots of spamming on other people's talkpages all day?  One is more visible than the other, but every minute somebody is spamming on talk pages, that is one minute that I know the person is not paying attention to important matters on the wiki.  Lack of edits by itself should be considered "neutral", since you can't really tell where on the wiki the person is (or isn't) keeping a watchful eye over. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 05:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

JediRogue (Talk/Contributions)
I would like to throw Jedi into this whole conglomerate. I for one, think she is an excellent sysop, as well as fairly active on this wiki. Longtime member, since Dec. of 2006, as far back as I can see, and has a strong understanding of policies and enforcement. She is also, more or less, fairly involved with the community here, and is familiar with alot of the contributors more-so than our other candidates. Her contributions speak for themselves, with a large majority of main space edits. She is extremely friendly and helpful to both new and old members, and I can't recall an instance where she has ever abused her powers, or gotten into confrontations. I think that if she were given the chance at being a Bureaucrat here, this wiki will only continue to prosper and grow. -- User:Isk8  (T / C)  14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Approval for JediRogue

 * 1) I believe that her stronger connection to the userbase of this wiki, is a definite strength of hers. -- [[Image:Isk8.png]] User:Isk8 (T / C) 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Apparently my views on what a bcrat should be is not shared with everyone, but this user has shown more in that department than the other nominees. Relations with the public and a seemingly even head are among the top.--[[Image:AlariSig.png]]
 * 3) Am i allowed to support two candidates? If so then i support Jedi as a second choice--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green">Contribs</B> ) 13:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Disapproval for JediRogue

 * 1) Meh. I'll write my reasons up later. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I love her as a user and a sysop, but she doesn't fit the bureaucrat role. I'm unsure of how much she understands the role, but I'm convinced she wouldn't act against the wishes of the community even if it were in the best interest of the community. - Auron 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Other comments for JediRogue

 * 1) I share Auron's sentiments, but at the same time I believe she is more suited than PanSola for what I am looking for...even if she has the least overall experience. So I'm torn equally. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Hmmm, I really do not know on Jedi; she seems like she would do a good job, but at the same time I feel that she may not be able to maintain a neutral stance on things. -- Shadowphoenix  16:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) "I'm convinced she wouldn't act against the wishes of the community even if it were in the best interest of the community." OK, thats very disturbing. Surely aquiring the position of Bcrat does not automatically bestow upon the person ultimate knowledge of what is in the "best interests" of the community. The fact that, that she would not act against the wishes of the community, is being posed as a criticism is quite worrying--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green">Contribs</B> ) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're ignoring the second part of that sentence, then? The part where it benefits the community? - Auron 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not ignoring it, just who decides the definition of "best interests" and "benefits" that worries me, why would the community genuinly oppose something that was actually beneficial, were not idiots--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<B><font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green"><B>Contribs</B> ) 19:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the community sometimes is. If a bureaucrat is not able to recognize that situation and act on it, said bureaucrat is unfit for duty. That kind of insight and determination is much more important for a bureaucrat than kindness is. - Auron 19:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments like that are why I question you as a bcrat Auron, if you plan to basically "run" the community; you do not call the community idiots. -- Shadowphoenix  19:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest,I don't know how I would react where in a situation where my own feelings about what's best for the wiki run contrary to the community opinion. I can say two things about that however: first, I have always felt that the promotion to sysop meant that it was my responsibility to protect the wiki and that the community was putting its trust in my actions; that I was given this responsibility because I was trusted to make the right decision for the wiki's benefit even if it violates policy and personal opinions. The other thing is that, I'd probably talk to Auron and Entropy if I felt conflicted so there's always that. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 19:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cobalt, smart people can act stupid, especially when things are mis-perceived. I can see a situation that Auron was fearing occuring if there is information available to Jedi that isn't to the community at large. JonTheMon 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * GuildWiki is not a democracy. But it's not a dictatorship either. Cobalt/Shadowphoenix: the bureaucrat's job is not to "run" the community. What Auron says are the same thoughts that I have, even if I usually choose to couch them in nicer terms. The wishes of the community should always be respected; but that does not mean they should always be followed. Builds wipe was a great example of this. For months afterwards, people made comments like "GuildWiki is stupid, they deleted their best part", "I'm quitting, I was just here for votes", "Admins control everything here", "Where is builds section?", "There was no discussion about this, why wasn't my voice counted?" ETC. There was a clear divide between what the "elites" (bcrat/sysops/really active users) and the "laity" (anons, most community members) wanted. But now almost everyone agrees that it was the only thing that could be done: Builds was the cancer of GuildWiki. Also, those people who cared about the issue but did not bother to contribute to the discussion, and especially those who rationalized that "admins don't listen to anyone, they have all the power, why say anything", are the ones who contribute most to those misconceptions. The active members of the community are only a small portion. Most of the others are ignorant and uninformed. That is just how it is. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, Entropy I am going to explain this from a real life perspective. I run the entire community relations branch of my company nationwide (U.S.A. btw), and I basically have to do the same thing you do (or similar, may not be exact).  I have to manage the enitre community team promoting and demoting (sometimes firing, which I hate to do) as I need to (similar to how you have to run the admins).  My "sysops" are my Managers for each state and there are sometimes fueds between them in which I have to step in and help resolve the issue.  Then as I am the head of one of the company's branches I have to go to meetings in which we make major descions, similar to ArbComm meetings.  At the sametime I have to maintain the community (which includes those meetings, as we do have our general customers, etc. speak their voice in those). I would not go up infront of our entire customer base and tell them they are idiots and ignorant.  Do you know why?  Because, that in not acceptable, appropraite, professional, or relevant and to top it off I would get fired.  Now I understand that things work differently on wikis; but the fact remains bcrats repersent the entire GuildWiki community and when a bcrat tells the community that they are idiots or something to the like, that makes all of us look very bad.  The same would happen if I was to do that to our customers; the entire comapny would look bad, not just me.  If you are elected and/or nominated bcrat you should be professional, friendly, and welcoming to the community.  You should know what comments would be considered unacceptable and unprofessional.  Maybe I am seeing this the wrong way, but that is how I view it.  -- Shadowphoenix  02:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The main problem with your argument is that the wiki runs very, very differently than ReaLife - the way we do things here is not feasible in reality, it really only works on wikis. I don't know if it is a good idea to wish for more mixing between them.
 * Bureaucrats do not "run the admins" - in fact they are really under no responsibility to monitor them whatsoever, if they so choose. They are solely concerned with the hiring and firing and, uh, "quarterly review" or whatever (by which I mean, they only need to check up on sysops every once in a while). If they want to be more active in running the admin team, then they can take on that responsibility...but that is not one of their assigned duties. In the case of a sysop-sysop feud, it is true that they make the final decision. But, even then they can leave the debating to the other admins (by asking for neutral third party) and act based on their judgment. They do not have to use their own judgment if they feel it inadequate. In this way a bureaucrat can be totally removed from the wiki and still be doing their job. Many past bureaucrats did just that.
 * GuildWiki doens't have any big meetings which require a bureaucrat to be present. Although they sort of have to deal with Wikia as the "leader" and the person who can authorize bots etc., that's about it; they do not need to preside over pressing issues (case in point: I am not involved in the debate about setup of PvE vs PvP skills), or even people issues if they don't want to. Again, they really only have to pay attention when there is possible sysop poewr abuse going on - and that makes for not too many meetings.
 * The sysops play a much bigger role than the bureaucrat in "maintaining the community". They are the active ones. Unlike the bureaucrats, they are expected to patrol RC and use their powers of prot-del-ban on a constant basis (as RL time allows). They are also usually the first people who mediate disputes, if only because they tend to be the most active users who pay attention. A sysop's work is never finished; a bureaucrat may not even have any work for months at a time.
 * I could say a whole bunch more crap about the community in general and it would make no difference...why? Because the vast majority of them don't even know this page exists, or if they do, they do not care enough to respond. That's the truth, plain and simple. It takes a really extraordinary crisis like the builds wipe to draw out the anons and casual visitors en masse. While this page is of great interest to most of the active users, ultimately the promotion of a new bureaucrat has little to no effect over the community in general. So they have no reason to care. This is why I can say they are ignorant, apathetic, and uninformed. I would not blanket them as "stupid" - rather I believe they can be perceived as such due to the aforementioned qualities. Usually once they have the situation explained to them (if they are willing to listen) then they are OK. Nevertheless Auron is right that the "wishes of the community" can be outrageously stupid sometimes. Not so much here, but think of GWW messes...
 * You also have to consider that the community has almost no control over the bureaucrat's "job". They can not fire him. Unless there was a massive outflow of dissatisfaction to Wikia or such, the only person who can remove the bureaucrat is themselves or another bureaucrat. The chances of this happening are so small...I mean, I consider myself a pretty visible editor, yet even when I fuck up majorly there are few people who notice. Granted, I have never done anything quite so bad that my job would be in danger, but still. I can be as unacceptable, inappropriate, unprofessional, and irrelevant as I choose to be, because the only standards I must meet are my own (and Wikia's, though those are unclear). The community is not the boss of my job. Plain and ugly truth. Insomuch as you expect a bureaucrat to know what is toeing the line, you have to trust someone (GW:AGF basically) to not abuse their powers, even though the opportunty is there.
 * Finally...bureaucrats do not represent the entire GuildWiki. That is a misconception that people like Tanaric and myself have not helped. A bureaucrat, sysop, or normal user all have equal authority over who "represents the entire community" (except dealing to Wikia, because of the chain of command). It is not the explicit job of a sysop or a bureaucrat to represent GuildWiki. It is true that their actions reflect more heavily on the entire GuildWiki compared to some anon or normal user. It is true that bureaucrats and sysops tend to be among the most loyal, dedicated, and active users, and thus the most able to be representatives - they are the most knowledgeable. But it is also true that if a bureaucrat has no interest in representing the community, that's fine. LordBiro never did that, and no one ever claimed that it was his job either - he was not qualified for such a responsibility anyway. Users may look to a bureaucrat for leadership, if they think that person can be a leader...I chose to try and be such a person but I never had to. I am afraid that it leads to a false sense of expectation. Sysops are much more intimately involved with the wiki on an everyday basis and thus they are far more qualified to represent the community. The basic point is that even though I was promoted to bureaucrat, I still try to perform sysop duties at the same time. So the roles are not clearly distinguished. I would say that even though bureaucracy tends to come last in line, it is actually less of a job than a sysop - less work and less responsibility. It is telling that in many wikis, Bureaucrats don't get prot-del-ban powers: they just promote and demote. And as a result they can be totally detached from the community, highly inactive, only stepping in to render judgments on sysop actions - and they would be doing their job perfectly. The job duties of a bureaucrat make them less suitable for representatives except towards Wikia, but that is really just a technical formality.
 * Basic summary - a bureaucrat is not a leader unless they choose to be. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 05:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, you make a good point that, technically speaking, 90% or more of the 'community' possibly is formed by those without even accounts, and the vast majority of user accounts are red links with <100 contribs, so you could argue that 'the community' is not in a position to make informed decisions regarding what is best for the wiki as the 'community' is mostly never on the wiki. And yes, anyone opposing the builds wipe was clearly misguided, back in those days my guild used to make many jokes about so called 'wiki-builds' and their, erm, 'dubious' usefulness. However, by 'the community' i was reffering to the active contributors here, as IPs who've never done anything but correct a spelling mistake can hardly be considered to er, participate in 'communal activities'. OK, i am seriously stretching the definition of community here, but still, the implication of Auron's comment seemed to be that 'Bcrat knows what is best for you. Do not question the will of almighty Bcrat' and is somewhat reminiscent of communist party propaganda - surely the active contributors to the wiki are in a decent position to judge what is in their best interests and therefore should not simply be ignored by the Bcrat on the basis that they lack an official title - mindless proles that they are :P--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<B><font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green"><B>Contribs</B> ) 11:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The "active" user are kinda what I was refering to as well; if Auron was pointing that at the anons or inactive users then that is less unacceptable (it still should not been said; imo) then it would be toward the active community.  I am just saying I will not "approve" of a bcrat that makes comments such as that.  -- Shadowphoenix  13:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If bureaucrats always followed the "better judgment" of the active contributors, Entropy would've made Pansola the second bcrat by now, which would be a horrible idea. Yes, sometimes one person knows better than the masses. - 71.224.123.149 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And making Auron bcrat isnt a horrible idea? You also fail to justify whats wrong with pansola, or indeed any of the other candidates--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<B><font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green"><B>Contribs</B> ) 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By that comment you've basically shown you haven't read a word she's wrote. Bias is fine, but as soon as you're blinded by it (as you obviously are), you are unfit to make decisions of any capacity. - Auron 18:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I was interested in telling you what's wrong with PanSola as bureaucrat, or what's right with Auron as bureaucrat, or what's right or wrong with anyone else, I would be posting to the relevant sections. I don't feel it's my place to say either. This section is about JediRogue, and, specifically, this discussion is about Auron's vote against JediRogue, which you refute, and I refute your refutation by pointing to a specific, current example of a good bureaucrat not automatically bending to the desires of the active contributors. - 71.224.123.149 19:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well i refute your refutation of my refutation (*sigh*) as i think that Jedi is perfectly willing to go against the wishes of the community. And "By that comment you've basically shown you haven't read a word she's wrote. Bias is fine, but as soon as you're blinded by it (as you obviously are), you are unfit to make decisions of any capacity." I won't dignify that with a response, yet, too tired, wait till tomorrow, but i apologise for posting "And making Auron bcrat isnt a horrible idea?" i realise that the implications behind that could be misinterpreted, i was merely pointing out that its unfair to say "appoint A because appointing B is a horrible idea" without justifying why B is a horrible idea and A is not.--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<B><font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green"><B>Contribs</B> ) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How is Jedi going against the wishes of the community because she created a section under her userspace for a proposal of a new policy? -- [[Image:Isk8.png]] User:Isk8  (T / C)  20:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly because elements of that policy (which I intend to draft up as a full policy proposal now that I've graduated) aren't popular because they seem to suggest a censorship of user talk pages? I'm kind of amused by the way this discussion is going atm. lol damn auron stealing my thunder. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 20:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * @Isk8 - what Jedi said, and read the talkpage for that thing :P, @Jedi, why not call us all immature assholes, that would stir up some controversy and you'd soon steal your thunder back. Remember, its not being 'rude' its being 'truthful' --[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<B><font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green"><B>Contribs</B> ) 11:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't disapprove of Jedi because of this, but her tendency to log onto GuildWiki while drunk could have some interesting results if she were a bureaucrat. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 18:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, I'm drunk right now and I assure that I'm never that drunk and I've never even felt the desire to abuse the admin powers I currently have under the influence. I wouldn't worry about that one. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 02:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hell I'm drunk 25% of the time I am logged on lol, trust me not that big of an effect :P -- Shadowphoenix  03:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Shadowcrest (Talk/Contributions)
I would like to nominate Shadowcrest mainly because he seems to be involved in all of the community events, and he is a very nice person. I have played with Shadowcrest in GW many a time, and I know that he is both respectful, active, and will make the correct choices. Need I say more? 牛 <font face="vivaldi" size="3">Correct 仔 <font face="vivaldi" size="3">Jeans 裤 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Approval for Shadowcrest

 * 1) I believe that he has a strong tie to the community at this wiki, and is active and knowledgable enough to be a great candidate for this role. 牛 <font face="vivaldi" size="3">Correct 仔 <font face="vivaldi" size="3">Jeans 裤  19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure, why not. Second choice after Pan imo. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 19:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, why not, 3rd choice--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<B><font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green"><B>Contribs</B> ) 11:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Entropy's not stepping down, so having Shadowcrest would mean having an active Bcrat - the element Entropy says she lacks - that would presumably profit from consulting Entropy for the more difficult decisions that require the really long experience. Shadowcrest's self-proclamation speaks for the fact that he is aware of these issues and can deal with them. When the wiki was new, it was no problem to recruit someone with that amount of experience, so I think that is enough by far. I also think that Shadowcrest is one of the least controversial candidates nominated, and that is the deciding factor for me. mendel 09:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Other comments for Shadowcrest

 * 1) I don't feel that he has the experience yet for such a position. -- [[Image:Isk8.png]] User:Isk8  (T / C)  19:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I do not know yet, I would like to see what ShadowCrest says to this first -- Shadowphoenix  19:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Self proclaimed facts:
 * I've been here since July of '07. Nearing a year, but then consider: Jedi- August '06, Auron- February '06, and Pan- October '05. I've been here almost a full year less than Jedi, and a few months short of two than Pan. I basically haven't been here long enough that anyone who left during the Wikia-Gravewit issue would know who I am. I'm maybe more familiar with the current userbase, but probably lacking the experience that Auron, Jedi, or Pan might have.
 * I'm 15. I make mistakes. (We all do, but mine are generally more profound and probably more frequent.) My age isn't necessarily the problem itself, but perhaps the cause of certain problems.
 * I'm not sure what Entropy is looking for in a bureaucrat. If she wanted a mediator, then I might be able to handle it. But she doesn't. Promoting/demoting sysops I might be able to handle. Making decisions like the builds wipe?... maybe.
 * I think I'd be able to handle dealing with Wikia. This is probably the only thing going for me for the time being.
 * --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest 19:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say handling things like the builds wipe isn't part of the Bcrat job description. It was the collective conclusion arrived by the informed portion of the active community members at that time (I could be wrong, I didn't take part in that discussion). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 10:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Huh...an unusual choice. I believe that Shadowcrest fits the activity requirement; less erratic than Pan's schedule, does more active activity than Auron (although the worth of this is questionable). However, I am on the fence about the other important aspect, having discretion for bcrat powers. To put it another way I have never been particularly aware of Shadowcrest's actions as sysop. Like most of the others, he has no strikes against him, but Auron/Pan/Jedi/Ishmael have quite a bit extra going in their favor. Meh. Experience too: Auron and Pan know the old history, they were there firsthand. Counter that though: Shadowcrest has been here for the more recent dramas, and knows the current userbase better. :\ It's a toss up. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) My thoughts on Shadowcrest pretty much mirror Entropy's. He seems like a "good guy", but I can't say much more than that based on what I've seen (but maybe I just haven't been watching closely enough).  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't claim to know nearly enough about Shadowcrest (indeed, he joined right around the time I left) to actually vote, but from the digging I've begun to do, I can't shake the feeling that, while a good editor, he lacks the requisite experience. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr Ishmael (Talk/Contributions)
I would like to nominate Dr Ishmael for the position of bureaucrat, because I am convinced he is a good contributor who knows how to solve problems and handle user disputes. He is sensible and active, and I'm quite surprised that he hasn't been nominated yet.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Approve for Dr Ishmael

 * 1) Considered adding Dr Ishmael to this list myself, actually. I know that Felix wanted to nominate him, but he had to leave for a convention just a few minutes after I created this page. Dr Ishmael has put in an incredible amount of work behind the scenes - similar to what PanSola does. Since being promoted he has really blossomed as a user in general, and has shown that he can be a good judge of character too. Active and able to use discretion: that is good, just what I am looking for. The main con I have is that Ishmael still is not the most knowledgeable of the current userbase, so he may be in the dark sometimes about what is going on, and that could affect his capabilities. I also think he may be slightly unclear on the role of sysops/bcrats also, but cannot say for sure since I have not seen any posts from him yet on that subject. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "I have not seen any posts from him yet on that subject." Well, let's change that then. :)
 * I think I understand the role of an admin pretty well: prot-del-ban. Prot only in extreme cases, del if it's not needed/doesn't add value to the wiki, ban for breaking policies, and use all three to combat vandalism (I know there are more nuances than that, I'm just trying to be brief here).  Because of these powers, admins are expected to be the primary mediators of user disputes.
 * I was a little unclear on the exact role of a bureaucrat, but I think I can attribute that to the overall misunderstanding that the community has held. Pan, Auron, and you have all attempted to make that role more clear on this page, and I think I "get" what you're trying to say: the bcrat's main duty is to make decisions regarding user role changes (admin and bot statuses), and, because of our current situation, represent the wiki community to Wikia staff.  Mediation/Arbitration is not a specific duty of bcrats, but has come to be expected of them, especially when one or more admins are involved in the dispute.
 * Did I miss anything? >.> &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 04:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me; I feel my doubts dispelling already. You're a quick learner. ;) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 05:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm 'just' a simple user, but out of that perspective, I would say Dr Ishmael is the best candidate mentioned here. For what I've seen, he is calm, thinks logically and makes sure he doesn't get personally involved in all the ...hmm, how do I word this properly..'overheated discussions'... But thats not all what makes a good bureaucrat. The reason I approve him above the others is that I think he is still able to step in to a discussion and takes quick and hard action when needed (in that case, I disagree with the statements of made by others, sometimes you have to show them your stripes to prevent a flame becoming a fire) -- [[Image:merty_sign.gif]]-- ( talk ) 11:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been times where I did find it necessary to pull my rank and make "administrative decisions". However, whenever that happened, it meant we as a community had failed to keep things under control, which is a very sad thing.  Everytime I get forced to make an administrative decision, an innocent rabbit dies. )-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 17:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Well, this is a very tough one for me. Ishmael has been a member of the wiki a long time, lots of contribs, coding genius along with Pan, and is always active every day.  Now, I know he hasn't been a member of the admin team long, but I don't feel that counts against him, because Entropy said herself, that nominees don't need to come from the current admin pool.  I would only question if he has been active long enough, as compared to Pan and Auron, to be able to look at past events and use those to better his judgment on any current situation.  And I for one, think the situation involving Warwick is a "special" case and should not count for or against anyone. -- [[Image:Isk8.png]] User:Isk8  (T / C)  16:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Hmmm, I have a more neutral stance, but from the RC flooding I have seen him do (lol) I know that he is very active; and in most discussions he seems pretty level headed. I will give him my approval, but I think that he may need to work a bit more on his meditation skills.  -- Shadowphoenix  17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Meditation skills? :p  &mdash; Light Kitty  17:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I absolutely approve of Ishmael; I have little to add at this point, though. D: [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) In a similar way to Jedi's tack of writing a disaprove "vote" by first listing every conceivable positive, I will now take an opposite approach to writing an approve ¬_¬. Personally i disagree with Ishmael's approach to some issues which have come up on the wiki, and attempts to police even innocous talkpage discussion that does not violate policy in the slightest cause me to be hesitant in voting approve here. Also, the majority of Ish's contribs are maintenane type activities rather than arbitration/dispute resolving/rfa involvement. That said, while Ishmaels comments occasionaly have seemed to me to be unwarranted, his actual actions always appear to be well thought though and constructive, and he atleast makes attempts to resolve disputes in a more conventional way before using his powers as admin to directly intervene. It has also been pointed out many times that the duties of Bcrats are primarily involved with sysop/desysop (unlikely) actions and "negotiation" with wikia. I see no reason why Ishmael should not be able to make constructive sysoping decisions and his diplomatic skills should be more than sufficient to deal with wikia, or hopefully anyone else, without causing offence. As such, support--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<B><font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green"><B>Contribs</B> ) 14:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Other comments for Dr Ishmael

 * I don't think this is the proper way to solve user disputes.--[[Image:AlariSig.png]] 21:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did overreact on that, I admit. I didn't seriously plan on banning anyone, which is why I was vague about the number of "strikes".    &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 21:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Time for my self-proclaimed facts, I guess:
 * My first contribution to the wiki was in June '06. However, I was never very involved with the community here until just over a month ago, when I was promoted to an admin position.  I've become much more involved since then, and I think I have a good feeling for the current state of the community.  Still, the length of my overall experience is probably the best argument against my promotion to bureaucrat at this time.
 * I am a very logical person (truly a scientist at heart) and feel that I would be able to make decisions based on sound reasoning, without letting my personal preferences or feelings overrule said reasoning. On the other hand, patience is one of my less developed virtues, and I will sometimes makes quick decisions without waiting for others' opinions or fully thinking through the consequences.  Luckily, the consequences of bad decisions can usually be corrected much more easily on a wiki than in other situations.
 * &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 21:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I have absolutely no opinion (or knowledgeable for that matter) about Ishmael, but I would like to comment on his second self-proclaimed fact. On the one hand, while mistakes are often easily correctable on Wikis, decisions made by Bureaucrats can often have far reaching consequences (by virtue of the Bureaucrat's status).  While most mistakes can be remedied, it's not always such a simple process, especially when mediation, etc. i.e. decisions that directly affect real people, is involved, and especially when you're a Bureaucrat.  On the other hand, the flip-side of that is I'd also like to see a Bureaucrat who, while not sure of himself or herself to a fault (i.e. so much so that they refuse to listen to reason) I think it's important that Bureaucrats are generally capable of trusting themselves and their actions, particularly when push comes to shove.  Bureaucratship is all (or at least mostly) about proper utilization of discretion.  And while everyone's gonna be wrong occasionally, Bureaucrats included, they should still be able to trust their instincts.   [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Affect, D.E., AFFECT!! Ugh, grammar kills me.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'm actually something of a grammarian myself, but it's kinda hard for me to have 100% correct grammar that late at night. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  23:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)