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

Getting the ball rolling

Two questions, for now:

• Why do you want to be a Bureaucrat?
• How would you define the role of a Bureaucrat on GWW?

*Defiant Elements* +talk 22:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to be a Bureaucrat?

Since I have joined GWW my sole aim has to be to help and contribute in anyway possible. Unfortunately lately I have not been able to be present in game much so my actual content contributions have been less (on the other hand when I am in game I am attempting to slowly update explorable area pages). I have been trying to contribute in other ways. For example helping sort/tidy Guild Pages, reuploading correctly named images, partaking in discussions and (imho) aiding them to a consensus.

How would you define the role of a Bureaucrat on GWW?

Obviously taking the information from Guild_Wars_Wiki:Adminship#Bureaucrats, I see Bureaucrats mainly here to aid discussions and to compile a consensus, particularly in regards to user conduct (in the form of the arbcom). I see the role attempting to help resolve conflicts, both between users and between content edit conflicts.

I do not see Bureaucrats as sysops/admins and agree that they should not be performing administrative actions, except in extreme circumstances (for example severe vandalism). Although AFAIK Bureaucrats have more powers than sysops (e.g. "Altering the assigned groups and administrator status of user accounts"), I personally do not see them as any higher "up the ladder". If anything, I see every user on the wiki as equal. Being a Bureaucrat would, I feel, merely mean I have a responsibility to help resolve the problems/conflicts arising.

• I feel I have demonstrated a mature way of handling myself in discussions, including knowing when to back down and to come to some kind of agreement (as shown in the discussion about Vow of Strength).
• I have also been a helper for a while now. I have been focussing on helping newer users follow the policies and guidelines, particularly on image naming and user pages.
• I always respond quickly and curtiously on my talk page to enquiries about my actions and always concede if I have done something wrong (none of us are perfect). I am also willing to respond just as quickly via email, as required by taking on the role.
• I am also relatively active on the GWW unofficial IRC channel and can also be contacted there.

- TheRave (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

How would being a Bureaucrat help you in your efforts to "[help] sort/tidy Guild Pages, [reupload] correctly named images, [partake] in discussions and (imho) [aid] them to a consensus," particularly given that, aside from ArbComm cases, Bureaucrats have no additional authority on either user conflicts or content conflicts (over which they never have additional authority)? Do you believe that, as you seem to suggest in your response, Bureaucrats (should) have additional authority in non-ArbComm cases, or am I merely reading into your response too much (and what you actually believe is something more along the lines of "Bureaucrats should be facilitators")? *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You are reading a bit too much into it. But it is relevant. Being a Bureaucrat would allow me to help/assist the community by performing the role and responsibility described as a Bureaucrat. Obviously it would not give any difference to the stated examples, but would only give another way to contribute/help. I am not saying Bureaucrats (should) have additional authority in non-ArbComm cases, as everyone and anyone has the role in these cases, I just think that if I was a b-crat I should contribute to help the discussion avoid the full-arbcom process. But participate on an equal level (identical fashion) as any user. Does that make sense?- TheRave (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Trolling

How well do you think you will deal with the actions of (to steal a phrase, lol) "Veteran Trolls"? Misery 11:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It would of course depend on their actions (including their past actions).

• If they were trolling across main space pages I would (if no sysop was online) revert their vandalism and report the problem to the admin noticeboard and allow the sysop team to ban/deal with them as appropriate.
• If they were trolling across talk pages I would first attempt to resolve any problems by discussing on their talk page while attempting to keep the discussion there (allowing the discussion to replicate in many parts of the wiki is never good).
• If the user still continues trolling I would my self suggest the ArbCom step in (or alternatively someone else would ask). Then we would perform an Arbitration (as per the [[GWW:ARB|policy) where all the Bureaucrats would, after a discussion, decide on a course of action to help the user use the wiki correctly.
• If during the arbitration the "Veteran Troll" still continues trolling and causing conflicts, then (and only then), would I or one of the other Bureaucrats step in with an injunction to quell the trolling. I would only ever do this after discussion and agreement with another Bureaucrat and/or long-standing/respected members of the wiki.

I hope that answers your question adequately, if you need more information please ask.- TheRave (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahuh.. So you are suggesting an injunction would be effective against users who are dedicated to trolling this wiki, often using proxies and socks? Misery 13:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I am saying if during the arbitration period, if a troll requires some kind of immediate action to quell the trolling then I would use an injunction, but as I said, ONLY as a last resort and I would expect the result of the arbitration to override the injunction and provide a longer-term solution. I would not ever use an injunction unless the circumstances were extreme enough to warrant it and the other process had already been attempted. Also, to re-iterate, I would not use one unless I had discussed and agreed with another Bureaucrat and/or long-standing/respected members of the wiki. Personally, I see the ability to give an injunction, purely, as a short-term last resort.- TheRave (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You do know that b-crats have sysop powers to ban people and such. — Seru Talk 21:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I do, but I think b-crats should only be using those powers when no sysops are online. I don't see b-crats there as sysops+more. I see them there just as mediators for problems (and also stand-in sysops if none are online).- TheRave (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So your view of the bureaucrat role differs from the general consensus, and you are unwilling to perform as people expect you to? -Auron 00:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

His stance actually agree with the policy. — Seru Talk 01:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The policy is a compromise between people who saw it silly to restrict bcrats at all and people who thought bcrats should do nothing as sysops. It's a pretty terrible representation of what they're actually expected to do. -Auron 03:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes they should use their sysops power if they feel its necessary, but that doesn't mean they were elected as a temporary sysop. They should mainly be elected as peace keepers or argument settlers. — Seru Talk 03:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you elect a bureaucrat, you're electing a (somwhat restricted) sysop as well. That's part of the role, and that's part of what you should think of when you vote. It's all a package deal; you're not just an argument-settler (and I would argue the arbitration committee does a little more than just settle arguments), you're also a user-rights adjuster (the actual technical role of a bureaucrat) and a semi-sysop. That's pretty much what the admin policy says, and that's pretty much what the community expects a bureaucrat to do (just as one would expect a sysop to use their sysop tools when they're promoted). Brains12 --195.195.129.3 09:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck

Ive seen this guy around before, he looks like a good candidate. I say, good luck to you sir, you have my vote! --Burning Freebies 08:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I support The Rave too. He is a good canidate for this position... ^^ |Cyan LightBoooh!!!| 17:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Support

• ...

Oppose

• Honesty, I have no idea who you are... I don't see you around that much and haven't noticed you really commenting (and I see everything on wiki O.O, lol) ... --Shadowphoenix 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)