Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election/Tanaric

Both due to my personal respect for him, and the convincing evidence from the previous election results that the community in general seems to think Tanaric can serve in the role of bureaucrat well, I nominate Tanaric as a candidate for this election. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. For those looking for a candidate statement, please see a disproportionate number of pages in Category:Unsuccessful_bureaucrat_elections and the corresponding talk pages for everything you could possibly want to know about me. I'll take questions on this talk page or my personal one if you have any. —Tanaric 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rezyk's Questions

Per Rezyk's suggestion, I'm answering his questions here.

• In what ways should one expect that you might operate the role differently than previous practices? (Higher/lower barrier to case acceptance? More/less leniency? Use as a bully pulpit? Other?)

Biro and I see eye-to-eye on most things, so, in terms of shaking things up, replacing him would cause less of a stir than if I replaced, say, Xeeron. That said, I'll respond to your questions generally, not specifically referencing any individual bureaucrat but instead their mean behavior.

I will accept any case presented to me that cannot be straightforwardly handled by existing policy. I believe that, when a user makes a request to a bureaucrat or ArbComm, he's not just invoking a role, but also the user who happens to fill that role. If I can solve a problem just by hearing it out and expressing my opinion on it, who am I to refuse? This probably indicates a higher rate of acceptance than previous bureaucrats.

I tend to advocate measuring intent and attitude instead of the actual deed. I will block a vandal who tries to make a point for a shorter duration than I will a vandal who's sole intent is disruption of the community. That said, the extent of the deed is also relevant -- I believe the Raptors's case was handled appropriately, regardless of the message he may have been trying to send. I expect that, in general, I will be slightly less lenient than other have been.

I do not need the bureaucrat role to make a point and would not use the role in that way. I have enough wiki-celebrity to make myself heard without it.

The biggest "other" would be that I intend to advocate the use of bureaucrat intervention and the ArbComm as a solution. Previous bureaucrats have implied by their actions that they think ArbComm/bureaucracy should be a last resort in all cases. I disagree with the notion -- I think that bureaucrats should be consulted on as much as possible (content an exception).

• 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?

My decisions are always based on a user's behavior and motive, never their history. That said, it is often easier to gauge a user's intent if they have a significant contribution history. I don't think this would translate reliably into leniency, though -- if anything, I have higher expectations for established editors, while I expect new editors to make mistakes and to take time to integrate into our community.

• What stance would you represent regarding the appropriate administrative response to user trolling/disruption/incivility/harmfulness? How is that stance justified given the current status of those issues within our system and culture?

Disruption is never acceptable, even to make a point. Disruption to make a point is more forgivable than disruption merely to disrupt, but it is never acceptable. Our strongest asset is that we're a community -- sometimes it takes significant effort to maintain that community, but every ounce is worth it.

If this stance is unsupported by the current culture, don't vote for me -- it's not something I'm willing to bend on.

Supporting votes

1. - BeX 05:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
2. - Tanetris 05:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
3. -- ab.er.rant 06:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Backsword 06:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Hong 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
6. -- scourge 07:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
7. LordBiro 08:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
8. -- (gem / talk) 10:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
9. --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 13:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
10. --Snograt 14:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
11. --lussh 14:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
12. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
13. --Lemming 15:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
14. - HeWhoIsPale 15:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
15. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
16. — Galil 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
17. --Fighterdoken 18:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
18. -- Calor 19:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Kurd / ~ SCobra 20:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
20. -Auron 09:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
21. --Sum Mesmer Guy 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC) (ineligible to vote, below 100 edits outside user and guild space.)
22. — ク Eloc 貢 17:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
23. --trekie9001 • tlk • 06:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
24. - Y0_ich_halt 14:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
25. -- Wynthyst 14:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
26. poke | talk 06:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
27. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
28. --Amantis 04:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC) (ineligible to vote, fewer than 100 edits.)
29. -- The Great Tomato 09:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Dark Morphon(contribs) 11:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
31. --Antiarchangel 14:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
32. -- Ninja Dragon 08:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC) (ineligible to vote, fewer than 100 edits outside of guild and user namespaces.)
33. Kokuou 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Opposing votes

1. -- Salome 19:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
2. --Cursed Angel 10:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
3. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 13:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
4. ...