Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2009-04 bureaucrat election/Brains12

Being British makes you a better bureaucrat? :P ~ Kurd 10:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Being British makes you better. Backsword 10:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

British doenst make you better. Look at my RFA last year. --Burning Freebies 12:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as they don't make those unnecessary corrections, like color -> colour, it should be fine. GWOWiki should be in American English like the game itself. MithTalk 14:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You have my vote!--Unendingfear 22:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Spoil sport Mith! English > American English! Silent letters FTW! -- Salome 13:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Indubitably. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats not the point, Doctor Who, Being Human and The IT Crowd fan here. You don't usually hear something like that cool "Brilliant!" in American series, but the in-game texts are in American English. If ingame it says 'color', you don't put 'colour' here. Anyways, I don't recall Brains12 doing something like that, I just pointed out the only downside I it could possibly have a British bureaucrat. MithTalk 17:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

One word. Teeth. (Terra Xin 07:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Opinion

I think Brains12 is a pretty cool guy, eh trolls wikis and doesn't afraid of anything. 208.44.247.101 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

He's a hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is, that's for sure. — THARKUN 15:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

wut? -- Wyn 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pass on trolls --98.21.186.189 17:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And, as we all know, towels are pretty much the most useful things that interstellar travelers can have. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

'tis a shame towels aren't included in GW, really. FoaT 01:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you answer me this from this page->http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_talk:Anet ? "...I also figure you have an alternate account that you use for constructive contribution, so...". How you figure and/or how can you be sure of these conclusions on your own? Are you 100% positive he/she has another account that that user? What made you reach that conclusion?--ShadowFog 23:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume he was assuming good faith. Misery 06:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I also looked over its contributions and he didn't seem like a new user. I don't have ultimate proof in the form of checkuser or a 'confession' so I couldn't be "100% positive", but it wouldn't have had a major effect to this situation either way. The account hasn't contributed since, so I'm assuming the message got through.

Can I ask how this is relevant to the election? A little curious. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You are going to be in contact with things like the Arbitration policy. I want to know how and what approach you use to determine such suspicions instead of assuming faith so I can determine if this might affect decisions made on the Arbitration committee. If a blocked user is being accused of an IP's edits by a sysop but no fact can link him/her, that user claims he/she did not commit such acts, do you assume doubt in favor of the user or accept the sysop's claim? Why?--ShadowFog 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an impossible question without the context of a real event. You would have to balance past histories, the nature of the contributions etc, etc. There are so many variables in a real situation that you can't possibly construct in a hypothetical situation. In the case you are citing above Brain's comments scared the bejesus out of someone, who likely was a sock, and if they weren't a sock they were just there to troll anyway judging from their contributions so it hurts nothing if Brains is wrong. If he's right, they drop balls, back down and no one has to get banned and the trolling stops, if he is wrong, they drama, continue to troll and get banned or create a new more constructive account and nothing is lost. Win-win, good sysopping in my opinion. Misery 16:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Misery's right - context and the specifics of each situation have to be determined before any conclusion is made. Contributions are obvious guiding points for that.

In the example you gave, I doubt the arbitration committee would be called upon - it seems like one of those situations where another sysop's (or multiple sysops') point of view would be asked for. Arbcomm is the final arbiter, implying the other resources have been exhausted - sysop input, community input, and discussion with the sysop and user involved. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)