User talk:Raine Valen/Archive Pre-RfA

RfA but Different

If you could do me a huge favor, fill in both the "Support" AND "Oppose" sections. Also, feel free to comment on others' reasoning (since this is a talk page). Thanks! — Raine Valen 3:08, 11 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Raine Valen

This hypothetical request is for the hypothetical sysophood of Raine Valen (talk • contribs • logs • block log).
Created by — Raine Valen 23:30, 10 Sep 2010 (UTC) 23:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC).

Status

Hypothetical.

Candidate statement

You already know who I am, so I'll spare us all an introduction. You know my attitude, my personality; I won't detail them here for you. What you may or may not be familiar with, though, are my views on a few relevant issues. These are important in your decision, so I will draw out for you.

Firstly, I believe that there are flaws with the way that the wiki is being run right now. Many of these flaws, as I see them, largely fall under two very separate umbrellas:

Firstly, bans are not being handed out as frequently as they should be. People get away with too much.
For a recent example, take the drama that's been stirred up over the course of recent weeks. No one has "stepped up" to deal with this problem as it mandates being dealt with (even based on precedent). Is this reservedness, this paralysis when faced with controversial issues, good for the wiki? The obvious answer is "no", and we've all arrived at that conclusion. Yet, still, we exhibit the same behaviors. We've said "no", but, in the long run, we've done little about it.
I'd say no and, given sysop tools, do my best to proactively deal with similar situations in both the present and the future. I believe that this is something that the wiki needs, and I would gladly provide it.

Secondly, the Spirit of the Policy, the idea around which a policy is molded, is not held in as high esteem as it should be.
This doesn't, I think, require as much explanation. However, for the sake of consistency, I'll provide a bit more background. In essence, I feel that there are too many cases where common sense takes a backseat to policy. Unlike the above, I do not need sysop tools to contest this where I can; I am merely stating my view on this for the purposes of character definition.

With these things in mind, let me be 100% clear on this, from the outset: I don't want to be a "glorified janitor". I don't want to coddle or carebear. I want to hand out those controversial bans that other sysops won't.
I do not mean to say that I will not perform my janitorial duties, or that I will perform them with contempt; they are part of a Sysop's responsibilities, and I understand that I would be taking them on. I do not mean to say that I will be a dick whenever possible; if you know me, you will know that I am very civil, for the most part.
What I do mean to say, though, is that neither of those two things would be my reason for taking on the task. I want to be an admin, to keep the wiki running smoothly, to get shit done.

The wiki needs something, whether it comes from me or elsewhere.
I feel that, as a sysop, I'd be better able to provide that "something" where it is required.

I don't want this to be a popularity contest. I don't want anyone to support me because they like me, nor do I want anyone to oppose me because they don't like me.
I want real reasons why I should or should not be a sysop. From both parties.
Similarly, I'd like the bureaucrats to base their decision on the content of the votes, rather than on the numbers. Thank you. — Raine Valen 2:59, 11 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. I would support this rfa even if was a real one for several reasons that I'd rather elaborate later or on a real rfa. <-ya totally ungrammatically correct! --Lania 03:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

   Please do elaborate! — Raine Valen 20:55, 11 Sep 2010 (UTC)

2. As per the neutral comments, I'd much rather we solve the issue of sysops having their hands tied. However, given the way things are at the moment, I would deffinately support this even as a temporary measure. Tidas 10:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

   I agree that that would also be a viable solution. — Raine Valen 20:55, 11 Sep 2010 (UTC)

3. I support you because that may convince you to start a real RfA, at which I could then oppose you and reverse engineer your masterplan into nonexistence! Koda Kumi 19:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

   But really. — Raine Valen 20:55, 11 Sep 2010 (UTC)

4. ...

Oppose

1. I cannot support a person who is always high on mind altering drugs.--The Emmisary 19:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

   Aren't love and care what people want in sysops? — Raine Valen 20:54, 11 Sep 2010 (UTC)

2. I would be uncomfortable asking you to waste more of your time here. You're a cool person and asking someone to be a sysop here at this point is essentially asking them to waste half a year of their life. GW is dead, and this wiki is apparently just for drama at this point (minus the few tasks that Silver Edge seems to do each day), so don't concern yourself with this. Now, if you decided to sysop GW2W, then I'd wholeheartedly support you. Karate Jesus 19:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

   Good point. — Raine Valen 20:53, 11 Sep 2010 (UTC)

3. ...

Neutral

1. This is a difficult one, for several reasons. I strongly agree with the spirit of the policy bit, but I don't believe we need another Auron. This will probably stay neutral simply because I was in your guild and had plenty of time to hang out with you, so the bias card will get played if I support, and I'm not even sure I would, for that matter. You seem to (at least sometimes) attract the kind of attention that would just create more drama. I don't think we need another Auron, I think we just need to untie Auron's hands. Also, two very dominant personalities on the sysop team may clash well and may not clash well, it's hard to say which. In the past you and Auron haven't gotten along, but lately it seems like you get along fine. I think the team is balanced enough as is, but then again I haven't paid nearly enough attention to make an informed decision on a serious rfa (Auron's rfr and scythe's rfa? lolwut?). I would have to go on irc and observe all the current sysops, but as is I think Auron just needs a bit more free reign to bring the sky down on trolls like scythe before they get to trolling. In retrospect, none of this really matters, as it's a dead wiki for a dead game, but you wanted an opinion. -- Tha Reckoning 03:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

   I don't believe we need another Auron, per se, either; it's just one solution among many.

   The "bias card" was the reason I asked everyone to provide their reasoning: emotion is biased, logic isn't.

   What kind of attention do I attract that would generate more drama? I'm not sure what you mean, there.

   Auron and I may disagree, but I respect his opinion and I don't believe either of the two of us would allow a disagreement to interfere with our sysop duties. In the cases where we've disagreed, there's either been a philosophical difference (in which case the issue becomes "I understand your stance but do not agree with it") or a misunderstanding (in which case it gets sorted). We get along pretty well, I think.

   I don't think the team is balanced properly as it is, as evidenced by situations like Scythe's troll RfA not being handled. I do also agree that sysops need more free reign to bring the sky down on trolls and the like. — Raine Valen 3:48, 11 Sep 2010 (UTC)

   The bit about attention may or may not be an issue here, as you have the power to deal with that, sysop powers or not. I mean you're the kind of mind that attracts other minds of all kinds, even strange ones, and it can lead to odd and maybe unhealthy relationships, but in hindsight that wouldn't have anything to do with your abilities as a sysop, so I'll just kill that one off right now. I would just be more satisfied with giving sysops a bit more discretion, seeing as if you do make it, you wouldn't be able to do anything more than Auron without the same retribution that he gets for every move he makes. I suppose you could be a "fresh" Auron. Something tells me he's burned out of taking control, and that's why he doesn't do it anymore. Maybe he just doesn't give a shit, who knows. I support him as sysop, but he needs to be able to freely put the smackdown more, like he used to when I started here. If you would do that and it wouldn't interfere with any of the other sysops, then I'm game. -- Tha Reckoning 05:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

2. I'm on the fence with this. I completely agree with your candidate statement but The Reckoning raised some good points above, namely the fact that the only reason the sysop team may be lacking in the ability to ban quickly is that Auron can't be given free reign to "bring the sky down on trolls like scythe before they get to trolling." I'll likely change my opinion based on other comments people write but for now I'm neutral. ShadowRunner 09:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
3. ...