Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election/Auron

As was discussed on the RFA a few months ago, i am not really a fan of Auron's "person skills", but i have to give him credit for his judgement being, more often than not, within what i would like to see on people runing things anywhere. Since we have to choose new bureaucrats (and since i know we usually don't want to lose Admins while on it) i would like to nomitate him for this run. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fighterdoken (talk • contribs) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC).

I accept.

Luckily for you guys, bureaucrats evidently have no more say in most matters than your average user, so there's pretty much no drawback in "electing" me. My decisions in terms of sysop promotion will most likely not deviate from the usual, but I'll be a little more outspoken in ArbComm cases than bureaucrats currently are.

As everyone already knows, I will not attempt to act unlike myself to win positive attitude votes. I will, however, remain as unbiased as always in my comments and decisions - not altered by popular opinion (aka "votes") or by fear of losing face.

Anything more you want to know, feel free to ask. I generally don't bite heads off unless you ignore my points and post the same question multiple times :)

-Auron 10:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rezyk's Questions

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

The bureaucrat role has been pretty well defined as a respected member of the wiki sitting more or less at the top - not "in command," per se, but very visible and easily heard. For most bureaucrats thus far, that visibility wasn't born when they took the position; they'd been posting and discussing for years. It will, most likely, stay that way; only already-visible members of the wiki will be considered for Bureaucratship. As Tanaric has stated (about himself), I don't need the Bureaucrat role to be seen or heard - I won't be using it for publicity.

I'm more radical than Dirigible or Biro, but the bureaucrat position doesn't really lend itself to abuse; I can't force change over the head of the community, I can't perform blocks without significant discussion beforehand (an entire ArbComm case), I can't delete pages, etc.

Most of the difference will be in ArbComm cases. Sysops can handle the vast majority of user disputes, but a few users are really good at dodging bullets; in those cases, I would probably agree to arbitration. Looking over some rejected cases, I would have accepted Erasculio's and Armond's; Erasculio had a handful of user "feuds," so it wasn't a first - and Armond was just there to troll. In both cases, the situation would have been better handled by the ArbComm (even if the outcome was just "leave each other alone," it would have been worth the effort).

Unlike Tanaric, however, I don't advocate the use of ArbComm for every dispute. Most things can be solved more quickly and every bit as accurately by sysops. ArbComm is a nice tool, and I wouldn't make it seem impossible to present a case, but it shouldn't be the first resort (or second).

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

I take history into account (as people usually don't change, and almost never change drastically), but put more stock in the current motive; the user's goal in stirring up trouble will be the main factor in determining the type and severity of punishment. A shiny contribution list would probably earn a bit of leniency, but it really depends on the severity of the "crime."

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

Sysops should deal with the majority of it. They can use discretion to block trolls and the like - if any sysops act out of place, I'd be quick to inquire about it (and, in most extreme cases, open reconfirmation requests). If sysops feel uncomfortable blocking for "general asshattery," they can always take it up to ArbComm or leave the matter for another sysop to deal with.

My personal stance isn't black or white. Some trolling is acceptable (it helps maintain a minimum level of competence in discussions, mostly ones that require knowledge of the subject to make an educated comment), but trolling done just for attention (disrupting for the sake of being disruptive) would get punished severely.

Again, I'm not 100% for or against banning users in personal feuds; I'd prefer handling them off-arbcomm, though. I worked for a few years as a Peer Mediator, and would encourage users to discuss their disagreements instead of goading each other on. A well-coordinated mediation is often better (and faster) than a full-blown Aribitration, and leaves users with an "arbitration" they both agree with, instead of one they're forced to agree with.

How is that stance justified based on how we run things now? It isn't; the vast majority of trolls on the wiki have gone unpunished, so my take on the current status of these issues is that they failed. Either way, I can't force sysops to ban for trolling, but I would most likely defend their actions if they did.

Supporting votes

1. —Tanaric 05:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
2. -- ab.er.rant 06:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
3. -- scourge 07:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
4. -- (gem / talk) 10:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
5. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
6. - HeWhoIsPale 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
7. --Fighterdoken 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
8. -- Salome 19:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
9. ~ SCobra 20:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
10. --Cursed Angel 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
11. - Vanguard 12:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
12. --Sum Mesmer Guy 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)(ineligible to vote, below 100 edits outside user and guild space.)
13. -- Brains12 \ Talk 16:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
14. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 17:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
15. --Aspectacle 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
16. -- Wynthyst 14:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Dark Morphon(contribs) 15:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
18. --Dirigible 22:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
19. --Indecision 08:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
20. --Doll 12:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
21. --Mango 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (ineligible to vote, below 100 edits outside user and guild space.)
22. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
23. --Antiarchangel 14:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
24. ...

Opposing votes

1. Backsword 06:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
2. — Galil 15:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Calor 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
4. --Lemming 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
5. — ク Eloc 貢 17:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)