Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2011-06 bureaucrat election/Aiiane

From Guild Wars Wiki
< Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections‎ | 2011-06 bureaucrat election
Revision as of 18:08, 13 June 2011 by Aiiane (talk | contribs) (Will make this a sub-header for better grouping.)

Jump to: navigation, search

The Raine Incident

Before I would be comfortable with you continuing as a bureaucrat, I would like to hear your side of the story on what I will refer to as "The Raine Incident". I'm not purely talking about your decision to demote Raine without really going through the proper procedures, as a bureaucrat that was well within your discretion. What concerns me more is the way that this situation was brought to bear by you deciding to promote her on your own in the first place without any discussion with the other two bureaucrats of the day. I do not know if you had any off-wiki discussion or consultation before you decided to demote her, but I know she was only promoted in the first place on the basis of you acting alone making a decision that many considered ill-advised.

In my opinion the passing of that RfA was questionable at best. It would have likely failed if you did not move to pass it on your own. The feeling between Gares and myself was that the large number of neutral and oppose votes, with very solid reasoning, were not surpassed by the supporting votes. The issue was fairly controversial as evidenced by the effort voters went to explain themselves, the split nature of the vote and significant amount of discussion on the talk page. Gares and I were waiting to talk to you before finalising the decision, which we agreed was close, although Gares had a more negative lean. You acted on your own and basically left the two of us out in the lurch with very few courses of action outside supporting a decision neither of us really believed in. It wasn't worth causing problems over, I don't think either of us believed Raine would be necessarily harmful.

Fast forward several months and many people on the wiki are no longer happy with Raine being a sysop. Once again we see Aiiane stepping in to make a decision. I'm happy to believe you if you say that you did not act alone in this instance, but from my previous experience and how it looked, it all seemed rather sudden, I think it is otherwise. I for one am not really comfortable with a bureaucrat that makes acts alone to make questionable decisions. I am not comfortable with the way you wield your discretion. I chose to bring this up now, rather than at the time, as I believe all it would have caused at the time was needless drama. The end result probably would have been the same. I basically would like to know why you chose to act in such a manner and to bring this to the attention of the wiki voting public at large.

Yours faithfully,

A piece of Misery 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The day Aiiane demoted Raine I asked poke if she had consulted with him at all. She had not. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 22:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the day of the promotion, this person didn't seem a need to consult other b-crats in which should have happened. Instead, it seemed like the user took it upon herself to approve the rfa. Where as Misery said here, the b-crats should have consulted each other and then made a decision. We promote the b-crats, in my opinon, to work together. Another thing on the demotion, it may be due to users complaints as to why she removed the tools. However, it should have been mutually discussed with other b-crats.... I just wonder why she's doing any of this in the first place, much less seemingly on her own. This way, in my opinon, would make one look bad in the long run and not trust-worthy in the end. So, Aiiane... Why? Why should we trust a solo decider? Why did you do these things without consulting other b-crats? Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 22:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, the only time bureaucrats are expected to work together is to resolve an Arbitration Committee case. The rest of the time they are free/encouraged to act on their own. There is really not a precedent for bureaucrats consulting with every other bureaucrat over every single promotion or demotion. -Auron 00:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
So, it was okay to promote a sysop, when it was a 50/50 results? It was okay to take away a sysop's rights via rfr comments and not through another rfa? So, that's the new precedents now? The consultaton didn't need to happen on such a close race nor with the demotion that wasn't based on a second rfa - "appointing or revoking sysops based on requests for adminship." ? Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 04:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Auron, you may not expect bureaucrats to work together, but I think a great many of us do. Perhaps there is no rule that says "Don't do stupid shit by yourself," but that doesn't make it a good idea. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 07:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You both misunderstand me - I'm not supporting Aiiane's actions, I'm simply pointing out that it's incorrect to assume that bcrats have always been expected to act as a team. The only time policy has ever said bcrats needed to all chime in was on ArbComms, and the rest of the time they could act as they saw fit - which has been done a great many times. I just can't stand sitting here and seeing people get all "omg why didnt she talk to us omg" when that really wasn't the norm anyway. Some bcrat teams were more vocal and communicative than others, but that doesn't necessitate all bureaucrats having a committee meeting before putting their shoes on in the morning.
Aiiane was within her rights to promote a sysop with 50/50 results, Ariyen - that's why we give bcrats discretion. It wasn't necessarily the best move, but it was hers to make. And yes, it was also alright for her to skip a rather pointless piece of bureaucracy and get rid of a bad sysop. In fact, of the two "rogue" actions (if we can call them that), the demotion doesn't bother me in the least. -Auron 08:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you cite some examples of bureaucrats doing whatever they felt like to positive results? User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 09:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
There have been plenty of cases of people getting promoted without discussion. I'm not suggesting for a moment that there would need to be in depth discussion to pass Poke's RfA. If Cursed Angel had an RfA I doubt there would need to be a discussion before failing it. If you wanted to pass CA's RfA on the other hand... Obviously nothing Aiiane has done is on that level, I just consider the first action questionable, which lead to another action, which may have been the right thing to do but looked weird as hell and probably need not have ever occurred in the first place. All I'm asking for is an explanation of these actions, why Aiiane decided to act in this way. I believe that is fairly normal request and is actually specifically provided for in the definition of a bureaucrat's role. She'll probably get around to it eventually. I kind of disagree with you Auron on how often bureaucrats should interact, but that isn't really here nor there. People can make up their own mind on that front and speak with their votes depending on their level of comfort. 10:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Auron, I'm sorry to say that this - "I'm simply pointing out that it's incorrect to assume that bcrats have always been expected to act as a team" is assumption in it's self. I don't expect b-crats to always work together, but I do expect them to work together in a case like a 50/50 race that's not easy to go either way, especially when it can have bad results. Now if it was 60/40 or vice versa, I can see differently. However, some of Aiiane's actions as a b-crat, don't seem like proper b-crat actions, like if one has an rfr - they should go through another rfa right? unless they give up the tools, because they don't feel up to the job. Do you expect b-crats to never work together, except in an arbcom only? Do you want to give a lot of leeway to those with power? Or would you want to know or feel more comfortable that they'd use their powers for good and not personal reasons? Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 16:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
If Gares and Misery were discussing together and wanted Aiiane's input before deciding, it seems reasonable to expect Aiiane to discuss it too, particularly given that Gares and Misery disagreed with passing the RfA and that the RfA was contentious and lacking an obvious result. pling User Pling sig.png 16:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on Misery's original post, and I am assuming account for what he said. He is correct. At the time of Raine's RfA, Misery and I were in the process of finalizing the decision and awaiting Aiiane to respond to an email I sent. Based on the content of the votes, I was against the promotion. Misery was fine either way. I was too busy to deal with a shitstorm should I overturn Aiiane's decision, so it stayed. Although this is just speculation (as I can't seem to find any discussion over it), but perhaps Aiiane demoted Raine after seeing that she may have acted in error with the promotion (currently, I am unaware of how Raine behaved as a sysop). In any case, only Aiiane can give us insight into why she chose her actions. I believe Misery's request is a fair one. — Gares 17:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but who of the Miseries are you? I do believe there are a few. - Reanimated X 17:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: The Raine Incident

Putting comments here, since they'd probably get lost in the discussion up above:

"At the time of Raine's RfA, Misery and I were in the process of finalizing the decision and awaiting Aiiane to respond to an email I sent."

Gares, I never recall receiving an email about Raine's RfA; if I had it is unlikely I would have taken action myself at the time. I just finished going through my GMail account trying to find such an email that I might have missed and was unsuccessful - there is not even a single email with 'raine' in it, and only a handful (4-5) with the word 'rfa'; none of those were referring to Raine's. Perhaps somehow the email got lost/marked as spam? That would be the most likely reason for you to have been waiting on a response; I'm typically fairly punctual with responding to emails (read: within an hour or two of receiving them if I'm awake).

Though I cannot say for sure at this point (the initial events are 9 months old, and my memory isn't perfect), I believe that this may have been a significant portion of the reason why I acted when I did - the RfA was a week and a half old, I had not seen any communication from either of the other bureaucrats asking about it (nothing on my talk page, and as far as I could see, no email), and someone had poked me about whether it was going to be dealt with any time soon.

With regards to which resolution I choose for the RfA (separate from why I choose to resolve it when I did), see here. That is probably the best insight that I could give into my thinking at the time, since it has now been about 9 months and so it would be hard for me to tell you precisely what was going through my head. In a more general sense, however, I think it would be safe to say that my thoughts were leaning towards "it is possible Raine could be a viable sysop, and if it turns out otherwise, mistakes can be corrected".

This leads fairly directly into the reason for my actions with regards to the removal of Raine as a sysop; over time it has become apparent that Raine was probably not an ideal sysop, and thus, that mistake was corrected. As it was my original judgment that had granted Raine the position in the first place, I took the responsibility of correcting the action; my granting sysop status had been tentative to start with, and given Raine's record over the past 9 months, it seemed clear that it was best for that status to be removed.

Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)