Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-08 bureaucrat election/Wandering Traveler

I think its time to have a fresh face in the bureaucrat seat. Wandering Traveler would make a good bureaucrat. Calm, mature, knows the policy's very well, theirs no downside to him running. Dominator Matrix 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really glad that you decided to run. It's always good to see new, serious candidates emerge (though, if I recall correctly, you ran once before). Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be able to support your nomination on this go around. Maybe it's just me (and, I'll admit, due to real life, I wasn't around a whole heck of a lot for most of June and July), but I've still yet to see any hard evidence that convinces me that you're ready for the position, and your low contributions to the GWWT namespace (which is one of the few quantitative ways to assess involvement in policy) don't help matters either. Admittedly, I also haven't seen anything lately which demonstrates that you'd be ill-suited for the position, but, despite your history as an excellent contributor, I'm afraid that's not enough to support your nomination. On the other hand, perhaps I'm lending a bit too much credence to past recollections in which you allowed himself to get... carried away, so I'd like to ask a coupla questions:

1. What do you think has changed since say... your RfA?
2. What would you say is a Bureaucrat's role?
3. What would you describe as your core "wikiphilosophy?"
4. How might that philosophy be reflected in how you'd act as a Bureaucrat?

I'll probably think of some more questions later, but we'll see how things go. *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by DE. You are correct, I ran once before, but it was more of a joke run then anything, and I quickly withdrew. This is a different time, however.

To start, I'd like to answer a question with a question. Where do mainspace edits come in when it comes to the bureaucrat election? Yes, mainspace edits show you are devoted to the wiki as a whole. But does it show whether you are actually prepared for the specific task of a bureaucrat? I will say without hesitation that I am very cautious in my mainspace edits. I have very few edits there, simply because I do not know with absolute certianty that my information is correct. User:Zerpha The Improver has many mainspace edits, and has contributed to several mainspace projects, but not many have looked to put him inot a position of power. I feel I am the opposite in terms of my abilites. I feel that my mainspace edits, while somewhat constructive, are not where my strong points lie. My strong points lie in debate, compromise, and arbitration. That is mainly why I am making this run.

To answer your first question, I really do not know what has changed since my RFA. I have taken all of the advice there to heart, but you do bring up a fact that there has been very little time between each nomination. However (and this may run into question 2 and 3), I see the Sysop position and the Bcrat position as two completely different jobs. I see the sysop as the matience worker, the "cop" of the wiki. They enforce the policy, they clean up whats left behind, and they keep the peace. To me, its a very hands on job, more then that of a Bcrat. Now for me, the Bcrat is like a Judge. If a sysop cannot handle something, they bring it for the Bcrats to decide. The Bcrats are not directly involved in what is going on, rather they look at what happened and judge from there. I know for a fact that I am not very good at hands on work, especially in wiki-drama-moments. However, seeing what is going on without getting in the way of the actual discussion? My kind of job.

As for my role? Keeping the peace. If something cannot be accomplished by normal means, I will have the ability to step in, review what has happened, and with the help of the community, make a decision that is fair. It is a simple job, but one that I think I can handle.

As for my basic wiki philosiphy....in truth, thats tough to say. My hopes are to be a stout contributor and helper to this wiki. While its not a original wiki-philosiphy, I think it best describes what my goals are here.

I hope that answers your questions, DE. If I missed anything, plase let me know. -- Wandering Traveler 05:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that perhaps you misread my statement. I couldn't care less about mainspace edits, heck, I probably have fewer mainspace edits than you do (I'm much too lazy to actually check). On the other hand, I am concerned about edits to the Guild Wars Wiki talk: (GWWT) namespace. Though sheer edit count is obviously not an indicator, a high level of involvement on the GWWT namespace is one of the few ways to quantitatively gauge how much somebody knows about policy, by which I mean that, assuming you meet the basic criteria for being a Bureaucrat, i.e. level-headed, rational, etc., the more involved you are in the GWWT namespace, the more likely it is that you know enough about policy (in particular, the spirit of policy) to be a Bureaucrat.

As far as my question related to your RfA goes, while I agree that Sysops and Bureaucrats are distinct, many of the same character traits are important for both roles (i.e. the ability to remain impartial, knowledge of spirit of the policy, etc.). On your RfA, Brains said, "I cannot put my complete faith in him to use them appropriately and make the best (or closest to such) decisons. I think he sometimes misunderstands or overreacts in situations...it's his discretion that I do not feel comfortable with..." and Anja said, "I haven't seen enough to trust WR can now keep his temper and stay calm. Too many issues have been escalated because of WT's behaviour." That said, do you think that anything has changed such that Brains and Anja might be able to trust you now? (I'm not asking you to speak for them, I'm merely asking for a self-assessment.)

As far as your assessment of a Bureaucrat's role, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with it, and, while I'm perfectly happy to discuss it at greater length with you, I have to say that that "hands off" approach is probably enough of a reason, in of itself, for me to oppose your nomination. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I did misread those. Thats what I get for typing at 1 am >.>

I think I may have worded the bureaucrats role wrong. I see the bureaucrats main "Role" to be arbitration. There are other powers, yes, but I see this as the main "stereotype". Now, If the sysop cannot handle what is currently going on, the Bcrat can be called upon to step in. That is why I said it was more "Hands off" work, the Bcrat does not neccesarially have to be in the main fires of discussion. For example, if a random vandal started NPA'ing on a talk page, would it not be a users job to step in and try to stop it? If that does not work, would the sysop then not try to stop it? This is all happening right then, right now. But if that does not work, the Bcrat is called in, not to, in my opinion, actively continue the debate, rahter look at what already happened and make the decision from there.

I also appreciate you bringing up Brain's and Anja's statements on my RFA. These statements are actually what caused me to run for Bcrat. Provided my reasoning above makes sense, this position would allow analysis of whats already happened, avoiding for the most part the "escelated issues" and "keeping my temper in a discussion".

I'd also like to request a few recent times where my temper has been less then par. The last I recall was the Mgrinshpon incident, which was about 3-3 1/2 months ago. I don't think that people take into account recent contributions, rather they look at what has happened in the past, no matter how far back. Can people not learn from mistakes? Having still been a relatively new user, I was stupid. I admit it. But can one not learn? Please, show me recent evidence if I am wrong.

Again, I can't stress enough: If I missed something, let me know. Thanks. -- Wandering Traveler 05:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything to show proving any kind of improvement? Maybe a stressful discussion that you handled well, or at least avoided escalating? -Auron 12:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Auron, it was because of these incidents that I mainly stopped contributions to "high-drama" areas of the wiki. Avoiding the area altogether is a guarenteed way to not escelate anything. -- Wandering Traveler 14:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As bureaucrat, you're probably going to have to contribute to one of the more dramatic areas - ArbComms. Are you sure you can handle it if the going gets rough? Keep your temper in check and all that? -Auron 15:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The interesting thing about Arbcomms is that the debate is about what has happened with the issue at hand, not contributing (and perhaps only adding fuel to) the actual discussion taking place on said talk page/main page, etc.. While the actual drama-induced sections are not what I am up for, the actual debate, analysis, and final decision of what must be done about the actual statements at hand is where my talents lie.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Wandering Traveler (talk).

true, but your opinion will be taken with more weight if you have contributed to the discussion in question.--Sum Mesmer Guy contribs 18:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You present a valid point. Though truthfully, the only time I've seen a Bcrat get into a heated discussion was this case (there may be others, but this one was the most prominent), and said Bcrat wound up abstaining from the case altogether due to this. Thus being said, I'd like to reinstate my opinion in that I would be better of looking at whats happened and judge from there rather then join, judge, have the case brought to arb, judge again, and decide. -- Wandering Traveler 20:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

While WT doesn't have any new references to support that he is more mature, there really hasn't been an new opportunity for him to show his maturity. So unless that comes up it can't be a valid question of his maturity. As you can't defend want hasn't happened. Dominator Matrix 01:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Confrontations.

In making a proper decision about my favourite candidate I have been navigating around in recent history of the GWW. This has made me formulate the following question: What do you (candidate) think a bureaucrat should have as a main human attribute in means of solving/avoiding confrontations on a wiki? --Silverleaf 09:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To sum it up simply, patience and understanding. Proper judgement comes from knowng both sides. -- Wandering Traveler 18:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you fail in the past & regret? What would prevent that from happening in the future? --Silverleaf 08:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I've failed. Miserably. But its a whole learning experience, no? -- Wandering Traveler 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)