Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2011-02 bureaucrat election/Raine Valen

Bring forward your arguments and have them addressed. — Raine Valen 4:39, 15 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Since you've been a terrible sysop, why do you think you'll make a better bureaucrat? elix Omni 04:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your premise is incorrect, I think. If you'd be so kind as to validate it, though, I'd be able to give you a more comprehensive response. — Raine Valen 5:08, 15 Feb 2011 (UTC)

There have been numerous examples of your poor performance and repetitive mistakes using sysop tools listed in various places. A couple specific ones can be found here, here, here, here, and of course a long (but not all related to you) discussion here. And those are only from user talk archives. I daresay looking over logs and non-user talk pages would reveal a good deal of additional mistakes that a sysop just shouldn't be making this long after promotion. Now I know that you don't act purely to harm the wiki at any point, but your grasp of key concepts of administration is just so tedious that I can't imagine you being an effective bureaucrat, particularly since you intend to continue misusing sysop tools for the duration. elix Omni 05:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that you elaborated; I'll address your concerns as promised:

Accidental rollbacks caused by a lack of precision in the touchscreen of my iPod do not, to me, signify a "tedious grasp of key administrative concepts". Regardless, after carefully weighing the pros and cons of removing the rollback links from my WL and RC and gathering advice from multiple persons, it's been rectified entirely. I don't see what you're making a case of, here.

Your second link, I think, serves your case better. There was a tiny risk for collateral damage that I had not considered; thus, the section that you linked to was born. Has it been an issue since it was brought to my attention?

Your third link does arouse my curiousity. You link to a section in which I do not take an administrative action, but rather discuss a possible administrative action; this is not outside the realm of "contributor". Further, the issue ends with Aiiane taking the action that I'd advocated from the start, and deleting the RfA. How does this contribute to your case against me?

Your fourth link, like the second, actually does point to a mistake made by me, caused by a lack of response on the AN. Has that been an issue, since? Quite the contrary: in fact, I regularly add summaries of the resolutions to the AN so that it's not it's not only a non-issue for me, but a non-issue for everyone else, as well.

I think that you, yourself, did a good job of summing up your last link when you said, "Not related". Is there something that I've missed, there?

All-in-all, you've given a good account of past mistakes that have been adjusted; did you have any reasons why I currently shouldn't be a bcrat? — Raine Valen 5:51, 15 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the loaded question above, but interesting perspective on yourself as a bureaucrat. My interpretation of that role has been that where a sysop may tread the line and sometimes over it, the bureaucrats are to take more of a back-seat, and weigh in only when necessary (sometimes coming to a controversial decision, but only after discussion and much thought). Basically, they are the checks and balances for the sysops. With a bureaucrat playing avant-garde, who would be holding you accountable?

Essentially, I appreciate what you bring to the wiki as a sysop, and unless you're planning on taking a less prominent presence, would prefer you stay as one. G R E E N E R 04:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Who balances the bcrats in the current system? I would make no effort to be exempt from that balancing.

As Misery said, that precedent hasn't really served the community. The recent case of Gares banning Scythe, I think, works as a fine example: where was the detriment in that action? Where would the detriment have been had Gares taken that action outright? I think, as long as impartiality is preserved, there isn't a real drawback. — Raine Valen 5:08, 15 Feb 2011 (UTC)

I believe we've already discussed the impartiality aspect before. I also believe you'll take no offence from my future, and honestly selfish, neutral vote for you as a bureaucrat (I believe that means abstaining in this case). As for Misery's point, that's perhaps a larger wiki discussion. The Gares / Defiant steps concerning Scythe is an example of how the admin system should occur (per GWW:SYSOPLOG). G R E E N E R 09:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Raine has made her position clear, so if she is elected, the wiki will have spoken on the matter of bureaucrats taking a back seat. She clearly isn't trying to lie about how she is going to act in order to win this election, which makes this pretty straightforward. If you are not comfortable with the way she would carry out her duties and use her powers, don't vote for her. You have already indicated you don't intend to. Misery 09:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"so if she is elected, the wiki will have spoken on the matter of bureaucrats taking a back seat."

She's going to lose this election. Then the two of you can collaborate on a draft for some new policy. Sardaukar 09:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

If I choose to vote in favor of Raine, it might mean that I think that she makes a better choice than any other candidate. Please don't assume that it has anything to do with how I feel about whether b'crats take a back seat or not. Obviously, that stand will be a factor, but I try not to decide any election based on only a single issue.

In fact, one reason that I might prefer Raine over others is that she is clear about her intentions, as opposed to most RfAs and B'crat elections where we get little more from a candidate beyond, I accept.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be unreasonable for someone to have voted for Obama and assumed that he then would not have attempted to push through the health reform, whether or not it was their reason for supporting him. Misery 10:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but it would not be unreasonable for someone to have voted for Obama because they thought McCain was too old or too likely to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. One might decide that one set of risks overwhelmed another set of risks. (In fact, I know many people who used that type of calculus.)

Speaking for myself, however I vote on Raine's candidacy, please do not take it as my take on the appropriateness of b'crats taking an active role. I am willing and able to weigh in on that topic independently.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Comparing Guild Wars Wiki bureaucrat elections to anything in real life is beyond preposterous.

Voting for a candidate does not imply support or otherwise for a policy issue; discussion about a policy issue is what determines support or otherwise for a policy issue. If you want to make bureaucrats be sysops, start a discussion - it'll have my full support. I won't, however, vote for Raine based singly on her support for it. -- pling 16:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My point is simply that she will act in that manner, whether or not the community supports the concept. Thereby, electing her is tacit permission for her to act in that manner. It is not as if there are checks or controls in place on the behaviour of bureaucrats. The only way to remove a bureaucrat involves both other bureaucrats unanimously deciding to remove them from the role, or the messy path of a rogue bureaucrat removing the other two, followed by the inevitable intervention from ArenaNet. What you meant to support in such cases is irrelevant. The support is implicit, support in the literal sense, even if unintended. You don't have to be offended by my comments here, the disagreement is purely semantical. If you elect someone who says that they will kill puppies and end world hunger, you hold partial responsibility for killing puppies. Misery 16:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not offended, Misery; I simply disagree with your original point. (And also, it wouldn't surprise me if Raine might change her views, if she thought there was wide-spread lack of support on a particular topic.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That would surprise me greatly. Misery 18:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not much difference between the impartiality of sysops and b'crats

"there's not so much difference between sysops' impartiality as users and bcrats' impartiality as sysops. "

(a) What does this mean in practical terms, i.e. how would you as a b'crat behave differently from the way you see that past officeholders have done before you?

(b) Since you seem to agree that this is a longstanding practice (guideline? policy?), don't you think it's worth discussing in a forum outside of an election...and thereby ensuring that it's really want the community wants? Or more generally, do you agree that it's important to establish specific support for major changes before altering the status quo? (Or do you believe that this would not constitute a major change?)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How is it a major change? So you have a sysop, they become bcrat and essentially do nothing for however long the carefully determined term length is now, or you say ok keep doing what you're doing and if we need bcrat action then that's your priority. Seems like less of a change the second way than the first way, unless the position is being used as a way to give a sysop a time out which would be dumb. Nevermind that though, there clearly needs to be some serious discussion about this enormous change in how the wiki will operate and how the community could possibly handle it. --129.161.204.121 17:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea is that there is supposed to be a separation between duties as a sysop and duties as a bcrat to ensure that bcrats do not let sysop interests conflict with their bcrat responsibilities (no biased bcrat action!); this has been guaranteed by the bcrats' utter separation from their sysop duties for their term. Ostensibly. Similarly, sysops are expected to keep their sysop business seaprate from their user affairs (for largely the same reason), but, in this case, we do not expect sysops not to behave as users, but rather not to take sysop action to sway conflicts of user interests. Simply put, we expect sysops to exercise impartiality; why could bcrats not be held to the same standard?

As of late, there's been much more sysop action from bcrats, and it has, I think, not been a problem. I don't see any reason why this recent trend should not continue. — Raine Valen 18:11, 15 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

New Section

Of all candidates, you are my least favorite. --Readem 21:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Of everything on this page, your post made me laugh hardest. — Raine Valen 21:44, 15 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way I can make Readem's vote count double for some arbitrary reason? Koda 21:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

More like triple :) --Kronix xxx 18:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Less than 6 months ago...

You received your sysophood in a rather unorthodox manner. You're still learning how to handle your tools correctly. Be happy where you’re at for now. Sardaukar 03:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that sysophood was a prerequisite for bcracy. — Raine Valen 5:18, 28 Feb 2011 (UTC)

It's not. Nor is there an orthodox manner for becoming a sysop. You're the right person for the right job, and that's why the wiki community brought you in. G R E E N E R 05:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Implying community support. elix Omni 05:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Community support didn't matter. Sysops here are at best appointed by a few people who have that power and at worst it's just plain old nepotism. Whether the votes are there or not never mattered for the bcrats to make a decision. + I think Raine is doing just fine as a sysop :-). --Lania 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That's kind of correct, but also irrelevant. elix Omni 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a very appropriate reply to an earlier equally-irrelevant post by yourself, then, I think. — Raine Valen 0:44, 1 Mar 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that word means what you think it means. elix Omni 03:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)