Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-06 bureaucrat election/Anja Astor

<3 -- Brains12 \ talk 01:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Anja would be a good fit for the bureaucrat role due to her extensive experience with most (if not all) aspects of the wiki, the dedication she has shown to this community over the last year+, and her persistence in treating other editors with respect and fairness. --Dirigible 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You do understand that if Anja enters this A: She wont be a sysop anymore and B: No one else will stand a chance. Anyway, shes got my vote ~ Kurd 11:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A. See GWW:ADMIN. 85.71.168.42 14:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that Anja will be too busy at home during the beginning of this period, but it's her decision if she's got enough free time for this. I'm not the one to decide for her, even though this sounds like I'm trying :P - helena 07:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd honestly think being bcrat takes up less time than being a sysop, most of the time :) Since the term doesn't start until the first of July, most things will have calmed down until then. Or did I forget something, sis? :P - anja 08:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Being a bureaucrat requires a permanent presence on the wiki. Normally, you should log in at least once a day, without to many exceptions. However, the time taken up each day is quite minimal (mostly checking relevant talk pages for potential problems, seeing whether any sysop went nuts, etc). Sysops do not need to be permanently on but, without doubt, active sysops spend much more time on the wiki than a bureaucrat will ever need to. --Xeeron 08:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That was my point. I'm here every day without problems, just not 24/7. :) - anja 09:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So, you accept? This will be a very interesting election then.. poke | talk 13:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well this should be interesting. Well you have my vote! -- Salome 13:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Guess I'm being too active for a bureaucrat ;0 Was just about to ask Anja this same question, but it was answered satisfactorily. -- ab.er.rant 15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you will be running in this election, Anja. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A favor

[11:36] <Auron`> do me a favor
[11:36] <Auron`> if it looks like I won't be able to post on the wiki in time for discussion
[11:36] <Auron`> make sure people know that I don't think anja would be a good bcrat
[11:36] <Auron`> she's caring and kind and friendly, but she avoids edrama like the plague, and relies too heavily on others' opinions
[11:37] <Auron`> basically, the other two bcrats would say something and she'd agree
[11:37] <Auron`> I <3 her long time but I don't think she fits the role.
[11:37] <Auron`> night
71.187.40.145 00:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Auron can confirm he said that next time he pops in, by the way, if anyone has any doubts. 71.187.40.145 00:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I was there during the conversation. He said that. Whether or not I agree is another story. Calor 00:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

i dunno, in the time I've been looking at the talk pages (year or so now), I'd have to agree with Auron`. She just tends to shy away from the drama. Solid sysop, shitty bcrat, imo. 71.187.40.145 00:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Auron, I appreciate your comments. And that's the exact reason I have never nominated myself. Of course, would I be elected, I would _try_ to change both those things. I can endure edrama, I can form my own opinion, I just don't feel it necessary most of the time. :) - anja 07:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And that is exactly why I (and others) believe you would be a good bureaucrat. I think distaste for "e-drama" is a good quality for a bureaucrat, not a bad one. Drama is not something that should be enjoyed, either from the sidelines as a spectator sport or by wallowing in it first-hand. It is harmful to the community, it distracts from constructive discussion, it makes the atmosphere on the wiki hostile and it wastes the time and effort of our editors, time which can be better spent elsewhere on the wiki. As such, I have absolutely no problem if our bureaucrats don't enjoy it, but try to quell it as soon as possible instead.

Or is this drama that you (Auron and 71.187) are referring to the arbitration process itself? Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather we do not equal serious discussion and arguments over disagreements we may have with "drama". They are not the same. The first two are necessary and healthy, the second is neither. And since I have been reproved enough times by Anja, both on and off-wiki, for making trollish remarks or otherwise inciting unnecessary drama, I'm confident that she knows the difference between the two as well.

Regarding her not being able to form her own opinions and defaulting to what the other two bureaucrats say... that's nonsense and an unfair characterization to make. A few minutes browsing through her contributions on GWW talk pages will prove that statement to be simply wrong.

Or is this "relies too heavily on the opinion of others" supposed to be referring to her being more prone to reaching compromises with other editors? Again, the two are deeply different. Finding middle grounds that everyone can live with is a Good Thing, while a "my way or the highway" attitude isn't. --Dirigible 09:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Was their not alot of chat last time about people wanting the bureaucrats personalities to balance each other out? If anyone was going to balance out Auron's, it would be Anja. -- Salome 09:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

/agree with Dirigible. --People of Antioch 15:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

also /agree with Dirigible. -- Salome 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The drama is anything that puts editors at odds. Anja has a history of shying away from the wiki during the election process itself, and she's restrained from reading/commenting on some of the arbcomm cases simply because they're super drama filled.

"I'd rather we do not equal serious discussion and arguments over disagreements we may have with "drama". They are not the same." I don't care either way, she's shied away from it no matter what name you ascribe to the process.

"Regarding her not being able to form her own opinions and defaulting to what the other two bureaucrats say... that's nonsense and an unfair characterization to make." That's nice, but it was completely unrelated to my point. She's perfectly able to form her own opinions, but she doesn't push them; if she gets pushed on, she relents quite easily. That's happened several times in sysop discussions and countless times elsewhere. Her being able to comment on something isn't the same as her sticking to her opinion no matter what anyone else thinks.

I'm not confident in someone who might have a change of heart and start following all the arbcomm cases - especially when history has shown exactly the opposite. That asks me to ignore far too much. -Auron 00:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Give me a good reason to read and comment on every drama case, and I will. In my experience, everything that needs to be said, and 10x more, is always said, there's no need for another comment. Give me a good reason to always have an opinion and stand by it, and I will. I simply haven't had a strong enough opinion to need to stand by it. Why should I argue and push something I don't fully believe in instead of trying to take in other views? I don't stick to my opinions no matter what everyone else thinks, because that would just be stupid when I don't fully support them myself. I would never go against my own beliefs though, there is a difference. Most things on wiki isn't a matter of life or death, so I don't see the harm in compromising small things, as long as the big things still are on the right track. - anja 07:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it's the job description. Bureaucrats aren't wallflowers. -Auron 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not a bcrat so I have had no reason to not be a wallflower, so far. That was my point. I do understand if you don't want to "take the chance" that I can change with a new task though. :) - anja 07:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Anja, I find myself agreeing with some of Auron's points, but more importantly, I don't want to force you into drama. Take the most recent arbitration case, for example. That in itself was "dramatic". I seem to remember that you either became less active or decided to take a wiki-break because of the drama - that's your way of calming yourself down, and by all means an appropriate one. I don't want you to be in a position where you'll be even more stressed than you already might be during an arbitration case, nor do I want your decisions to be affected by that. I know you say you can change so you will deal with that kind of situation, but I don't think you want to, nor do I want to put you in such a position to make you overstressed. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it'd be a good idea if I took a second to explain my vote. I think I fall somewhere between Auron and Brains as far as reasoning goes. On the one hand, I'm not sure I'm 100% comfortable with a Bureaucrat who strongly prefers not to get involved in dramatic, but undeniably important, discussions (ArbComm, for instance) unless they've got some personal stake in the matter (in this case, your "personal stake" would be the Bureaucratship). On the other hand, I have no doubt that you would be a good Bureaucrat and that you could change. However, like Brains, I don't ever want you to be a situation where you're forced, by virtue of the Bureaucratship, to participate in a discussion in a manner which is contrary to your nature. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

(I'm also jumping on the bandwagon of people who ask the same question to all candidates, so bear with me a bit) I would like to ask, in what ways do you think being a bureaucrat would allow you to help the wiki more than as a common user or a sysop? Erasculio 02:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would allow me to help more, but only in a different way. We all have different roles and tasks, and they need to be done. As a bureaucrat, I'm still a "common user", just as I am when I'm a sysop. - anja 07:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Who else?

I just had a quick question. If you were not able to vote for yourself, what other current candidate would you vote for and why?--Yankeefan984 22:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

anja ur bead et bein burocrat --Frozen Archer 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I can just choose one? Since we can vote on several candidates, I haven't really thought about it that way. Obvious choices would be Aiiane and Tanetris, since they have both shown the bcrat qualities and been bcrat, or been close to. - anja 08:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

I'd like to say that I voted oppose. Anja does extremely well at performing the duties of a sysop, and I believe that her continuing to contribute as a sysop would be the best for the wiki & community. -- Indochine talk 18:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read the current bcrat/admin policies. Bcrats can ban and (speedy) delete pages. People serving as bcrat no longer have neutered sysop tools. -Auron 20:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I know that Auron :P What I was trying to get accross is that i'd prefer Anja to continue as a Sysop, i.e. not a Bcrat :) See what I mean? :P -- Indochine talk 19:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No. — Skakid 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)