Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2009-06 bureaucrat election/Misery

I suspect this might be useful to people, so I am linking it here for convenience. Misery 08:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, dont listen to me on the last page, he isnt a vandal, i took some info about his main page the wrong way. And Misery, i wish you luck this election, as im sure you will do well. --Burning Freebies 17:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

^lolol --Cursed Angel 21:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

/facepalm -- Salome 02:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My /facepalm is bigger than your /facepalm. Mini Me 14:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I do enjoy it when my discussion page is filled with hard hitting questions and reasoned debate. Maybe we will see some of that next election. Misery 14:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hard hitting question

You asked for it. :) If, as of today, you were a bureaucrat, and the arbcom for Shard was tomorrow, what would you be doing today (to prepare)? What evidence would you be considering in your judgment, and what do you *think* your decision would be based on your understanding of the case as it stands today (excluding Shard's offer to skip the arbcom and voluntarily lose access to arenanet space and the relevant talk pages)? Freedom Bound 14:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Arbcoms don't really work that way... the community provides the evidence through links and examples, and then the 3 bureacrats discuss what has been presented. There is no way for them to prepare and the process doesn't happen on a specific day. -- Wyn 14:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Way to spoil my fun, Wyn. :) I guess the last question could still be answered. Freedom Bound 14:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

While I understand where you are coming from, it would be practically impossible to come to a decision alone that was reasonable, which is why there are three bureaucrats. I suspect exclusion of Shard from contacting ArenaNet staff members on the wiki would be an option discussed at length. A review of content inside his user space might be in order as well. Shard's actions aren't inherently "bad", but he has a habit of causing an undue level of disruption. Misery 14:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that actually tells me more than if you had answered the question (which was intended). Freedom Bound 14:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you actually want this position, Misery? Last time, you didn't seem to. 91.0.255.114 15:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

He was 3rd last time, so I would say he has a good chance. poke | talk 16:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that or where you got that impression from, but I actually don't want to be a bureaucrat that much, something which I think makes me especially qualified. It's not a fun job, you should really be questioning why someone who seems to really want it has such a desire. Fun fact, I declined my RfA on PvXwiki and Auron made me one anyway. I nominated myself last time because I felt that the range of choice was poor and I think I would do a good job, not because I wanted the position. Misery 16:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Misery, you should only do things for fun laughter drama peace and joy. Pika Fan 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why we have PvX accounts, Pika. Speaking of PvX, as an admin there (similar, possibly, to moderating a forum slightly less vulgar than 4chan for all intents and purposes), Misery has done an extremely impressive job, in my personal opinion. I figure this is particularly notable seeing as, as he said himself, he declined his RfA and was still given the position. ··· cedave 21:00:57 CSUTC 24/12/24

Pretty sure auron was drunk at that time. Or so I heard.Pika Fan 23:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions

I would just like to ask these questions, if you don't mind.

• Why do you want to be a Bureaucrat and what qualities do you possess that you believe would make you a good Bureaucrat?
• What is your opinion on strictly literal interpretations of policy vs. "spirit of the policy" interpretations?
• How might your decisions in previous ArbComm decisions have differed from those given by the Bureaucrats?
• How would you define the Bureaucrat's role on GWW?
• What is your stance on trolling/disruption/incivility/harmfulness? How is that stance justified given the current status of those issues within our system and culture?
• What do you think the proper role of ArbComm is?
• How might you use the Bureaucrat position differently than other Bureaucrats have?
• 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? -- §Lacky§ Talk 07:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Delicious copypasta requires a side dish of wall of text:

• If you read above, I don't really want to be a bureaucrat, but I do think I would do a good job. I usually tackle problems in a logical manner, rarely lose my composure and although people I have disagreed with will likely contradict me, I am able to be impartial when it is required.
• Literal interpretations are always weak. It doesn't matter how ironclad you try to make something, there will be loopholes allowing people to abuse the spirit of a policy while staying perfectly within the letter of said policy. It is my opinion that the spirit of the policy should always be taken into account above the literal wording.
• I don't see any value in questioning the outcomes of previous ArbComms. I'm not privy to discussions that occurred at the time, reading through the evidence presented afterward does not really give an accurate representation of how events unfolded.
• Officially, bureaucrats are only there to deal with two major events, arbitration and promotion. While they do hold sysop powers, these should only really be used under extreme conditions when no sysops are present, especially if like in my case the user is also not a sysop. Unofficially bureaucrats end up having more weight during discussions than they should due to the nature of the position and how people perceive it. This is something a bureaucrat has to be aware of to ensure that they are not forcing their point of view unintentionally, while respecting the fact that many people are often interested in the opinions of bureaucrats and sysops during discussions. Above all a bureaucrat should try to keep in mind what is best for the wiki as a whole when acting.
• Disruption is probably the major thing to avoid. When the wiki gets hijacked and everyone's time gets diverted to dealing with drama instead of documenting the game, the purpose of this wiki, it doesn't serve anyone except the drama mongers. That being said, there can be what I call "a healthy level of trolling". This is the kind of thing that is mostly harmless and somewhat humourous. Documenting a game is hardly the most exciting thing in the world, so people are liable to get bored and act out occasionally. A banhammer isn't needed in these kinds of cases, an eye just needs to be kept out for when things are getting out of hand. Really though, that is the job of sysops and a bureaucrat should only be stepping in when things are already enormously out of hand. I don't believe it is worthwhile to try and enforce civility on the internet, but I like to think I conduct myself in a civil way most of the time, breaks from this are usually to prove a point. I think these approaches are justified at almost any time. Drama levels on the wiki at the moment are not significantly higher than at any other time. An example of all this would have been the so called joke nominations this election. One or two were harmless, when it got to the point that we had 13 nominees, most of whom were a joke, Auron acted correctly in clamping down on the situation. Things were getting out of hand.
• The Arbitration Committee's job is to deal with conflicts that cannot be resolved by the general administrative team. This could be for varying reasons such as constant disruption while acting within the letter of the policy, issues involving sysops or wheel warring or issues where simply banning the users involved will not solve the problem or be in the best interests of the wiki. It's not a tool that should be used very often, the administrative team are capable of dealing with most issues themselves.
• In no way. This role is not a platform from which I should push my own agenda. I think a bureaucrat needs to put their own interests to the side for the duration of their term.
• Leniency is the wrong word. It might affect my decision from the point of view that it doesn't make sense to ban a useful contributor because of issues between them and one other user, the goal would be to set things up so that both parties could continue to be useful while reducing or removing the drama and problems surrounding a situation. I'd like to think that in most cases the outcome of arbitration will not be a straight ban, that is the sort of thing sysops could do themselves, but rather a framework within which people can continue to usefully contribute without the problems that lead to arbitration occurring again. That being said, if such a framework cannot be adhered to or is not working, bans may have to be used. In the case of a user who seems to 'contribute' to the wiki only to cause distress, disruption and drama however, the effort to set up such a framework would not be worthwhile.

I hope you find those answers satisfactory, feel free to ask for clarification on any of these points. Misery 08:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. With your responses, you have now earned my respect, and my vote. -- §Lacky§ Talk 00:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I sure hope

You get elected this time, Misery for president! Dark Morphon 14:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC) (uh, bureaucrat)

You run again, this time you will succeed |Cyan LightLive!| 09:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he does... -Lena™ talk 16:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Madness no? There is still time to vote. Last time I did badly nearer the end of the election. Misery 16:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeh but last time you had a disadvantage...I wasn't able to vote. lol -- §Lacky§ Talk 00:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you, Wyn and Salome are the only ones in the positive numbers, and you have a lead of 19 on both of them, I do not think you have to worry much about nearer the end of the election. — Why 01:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Misery 89.172.41.175 17:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Who decides " not enough qualified edits to vote " ? For i voted for Misery and someone decided that my vote doesn't count ??!!Jaba Manaka 19:10, 23 June 2009(CAT)

The policy dictates that you have to have >100 edits in the main space. Freedom Bound 17:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Election policy decides that (enforced by whomever can be bothered to check). See the second item under Guild Wars Wiki:Elections#Stage 3: Voting. - Tanetris 17:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User Page?

← moved to User talk:Misery

I oppose you

For having such a miserable Username! Loves to Sync 02:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats the second time you've trolled an election and gave stupid reasons for your votes. You are more than welcome to vote the way you wish, however you do not have a right to try and make a mockery of every election you partake in. You can either choose to stop being an arse or others can stop you being an arse, your choice. -- Salome 02:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be quite bitter over my opposition to your RFA. Sorry, this election's not about you this time. It's about Misery and the other four candidates. This user's name reeks of negative energy. Some definitions of misery are 1. wretchedness of condition or circumstances. 2. distress or suffering caused by need, privation, or poverty. 3. great mental or emotional distress; extreme unhappiness. 4. a cause or source of distress. You should remember these things before you select a bureaucrat that would bring you a constant reminder of distress and unhappiness. Loves to Sync 03:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, do you think that bullshit answer convinces anyone? Once again, either stop being an arse, or I can stop you being an arse, its really your choice. -- Salome 03:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As serious as this conversation is: I don't think you could really stop him from being an arse... for some people that just comes naturally. This user would like to point out that he does not have an opinion on whether Loves to Sync is an arse or not, also this whole conversation makes me LOL ~~000.00.00.00~~ 03:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say the most appropirate definitions in my case would be #3 or #4. It is ok Loves to Sync, I appreciate and respect your decision as I too love to sync. Misery 06:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat elections are srs business... Mediggo 11:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

FOR REALZ! Dark Morphon 13:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Balls

Misery has 'em Frosty 14:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And Frosty licks them :D Karate Jesus 17:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

MISERY

WHAT THE HELL HAS HAPPENED TO THE INTERNET. BUREAUCRAT? 88.105.153.79 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr. IP, how are you today? Misery 16:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In Misery we trust. Jeez, that sounds sick. :P — Why 19:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Early victory much?

Everyone else has equal opposing and support votes. You have about +40 (i havent counted the cancelled votes).--Burning Freebies 09:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

He has +38 |Cyan LightLive!| 09:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Misery: +36

Wynn (closest competition): +10

gg -- Mafaraxas 17:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So unless wyn can muster up 2 support votes and misery doesnt gain anymore, he has won. --Burning Freebies 21:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction-27 votes needed by wyn.--Burning Freebies 16:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Damn misery

you raped this election <3--99.153.226.11 00:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed he has. --Burning Freebies 16:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

RAPIST! -- §Lacky§ Talk 02:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Careful Lacky, while I am not offended, recently people have been banned for personally attacking people in jest. Misery 06:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, I was considering not posting it, but I thought that you would know that I was joking and that no one would be harmed by it. I know that matters like these are very...delicate. -- §Lacky§ Talk 06:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

While it's good for people on the other end of your words to know your joking, you should also make sure the people around you know and can tell as well. Speech deals splash damage. — Jon Lupen 15:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

speech* -Auron 15:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Auron, still waking up. :P Mixed Speak and Speech in my head. — Jon Lupen 15:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Auron Mc Grammarwizard --Cursed Angel 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mizzles is most certainly not a rapist! Every sexual act her performs with someone is purely consensual. I'm deeply offended that anyone would attempt to incriminate my dear friend Misery. ··· cedave 17:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol, Mizzles. -- §Lacky§ Talk 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I go by many affectionate pet names, all which make a long more sense than Plingggggg. Misery 06:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Such as? -- Lacky 06:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Miz, Mizzles, Mis, Misrey, Professor R Misery and of course Professor Horse. Misery 06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

ROFL Professor Horse. -- Lacky 06:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a horse. Misery 06:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No you're not. You're a BCrat now. ^_^ -- Lacky 06:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"all which make a long more sense"? gj -- Brains12 \ talk 15:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

PROVE ME WRONG! Misery 15:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The logic is infallible. ··· cedave 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)