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

Should a vandal be allowed to run? --Burning Freebies 12:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Misery is not a vandal.... learn to think before you speak. -- Wyn 12:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to think before I post, because my voice-recognition software is terrible.

Question for Mis - would you make a userpage if elected? If so, you have my vote. Vili >8< 12:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wyn is tough guy girl now? Mini Me 13:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to link anywhere I have ever vandalised. I believe most of my actions have been for the betterment of the wiki in general. If you check my block log you will notice I have only ever been banned to demonstrate to poke how autoblock works. Misery 13:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gah, do I have to? I would consider it, it would probably be appropriate. Misery 13:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But a userpage still wouldn't be a requirement imo..

Btw. I blocked only that sock of you, you created for showing me, so your account is clean :P poke | talk 14:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

@Wyn-How come on his userpage it says "Purely Vandalism) for the reason his userpage has been deleted? Ab.er.rant, Brains12, Indochine and Kakarot have all deleted his page for this reason. --Burning Freebies 16:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That is the simple fact that Misery don't want an userpage... Others made these as a joke |Cyan LightLive!| 16:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, that was other people vandalising my user page, not me vandalising. Misery 16:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What Misery said. He has chosen not to have a userpage. The fact that other people don't like that and have tried to create one for him is vandalism. -- Wyn 16:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In which case, I Retract my previous statement at the top of the page. --Burning Freebies 15:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. Misery 16:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Misery's talk page reveals no bad actions he may have done (from what i have seen) so he might get my vote. --Burning Freebies 14:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll explain my reasons for running later today when I get some free time. Misery 15:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is Misery running for Bcrat?

Being a first time candidate, I thought I should wall of text you all. I would say there are two major points that made me decide to run. Firstly, the outcome of the last bureaucratic election. A lot of people seemed disastisfied with the lack of options, nearing the end it looked like a close race between two candidates, but Wynthyst pulled out at the last moment. This only really left a couple of viable candidates, one with a massive majority. I'm another choice, a different option and I am not going to pull out of the race at the last moment, no disrespect meant to Wynthyst.

The second point would be Auron. I thought he was a rather good bureaucrat and gave representation to the PvP community, which is rather under-represented on this wiki, but he has expressed that he has no further interest in acting as a bureaucrat due to personal issues with Arenanet. Other PvPers have put themselves forwards or have been put forwards by others such as Shard and Loves to Sync. For various reasons I wouldn't actually want to see either of these people holding a bureaucratic seat.

I consider myself a viable option to represent a different point of view on the wiki in matters of mediation and arbitration, which are really the primary goals of a bureaucrat. I think discussions I have entered in the past adequately demonstrate my ability to discuss things in a logical manner. As for experience in disciplinary matters I'll refer to my sysophood on PvXwiki. I will stress that PvX is a very different place to here and I do realise that actions that are appropriate/neccessary there are often not appropriate at all here. In any case as a bureaucrat I wouldn't be involved in day to day disciplinary action in quite the same manner as I am there.

If people are curious about my contributions to this wiki, I will summarise them briefly. Probably the section I am proudest of can be seen here. It's taken a long time, a project is exhausting when you are the only person working on it, but I have written/updated all but two of the Guild Hall pages on this wiki. You will also find I have a lot of contributions on skill pages trimming and updating notes. I have also been involved in formatting and policy discussions here and there, I have a propensity to wall of text people.

I will admit I am not as active as I used to be, but I don't see this as a bad point for a bureaucrat at all. It doesn't really affect my ability to arbitrate and someone's character can actually be better determined by browsing their contributions after the fact than interacting with them every day when it comes to determining viability for sysophood.

I will also admit that I troll on occasion, but I think if you look through my actions I actually often have the benefit of the wiki involved. Sometimes less than polite/civil actions can be far more expedient and achieve a better result on a wiki. Being polite to trolls often amuses them, as does raging at them. I've found my approach to work quite well.

Summary, I come from a different perspective to a majority of the bcrats/sysops being from an almost pure PvP background (I am terrible at PvE) and believe I am stable and level-headed. If that's what you want, vote for me. If it's not, vote for someone else. I'm another option, that I consider viable. I'm happy to clarify anything or answer any questions anyone might have, so ask away. Misery 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this wall of text did it for me.... Really impressed. I vote for you ^^ |Cyan LightLive!| 14:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you had a page, I'd be able to figure out your personality a bit easier :/ -- anguard 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I consider that a misconception. My page tells you what I want to tell you, look at my contributions. Misery 17:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Contributions don't give hints of personality.-- anguard 18:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk page contributions do and I assure you I have many of them. In short, I'm a bit of an asshole, but a useful asshole. Misery 18:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

An absent, hurting asshole. Yet wise, understanding, helpful and beloved :D. If one dares to declare this as a breach of some policy ... <.< Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 18:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Vanguard, lolwut. Having a userpage has absolutely nothing to do with being able to gauge mis' personality. What if she had a page and it told really nothing about her, like yours, pling's, wyn's, etc etc. Sure, it might say they like to edit <x> types of pages... but I missed how that would possibly pertain to an election page. So basically that argument is terrible, especially if you're saying that because you're too lazy to read misery's wot. Also, "Contributions don't give hints of personality." <-- lol? l2search tbh, contributions can tell you way more than a userpage could.

tl;dr version: get a better argument. --71.246.218.44 19:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck. It wasn't an arguement. I was just making a statement.-- anguard 14:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Point is, your statement made no sense and should not be considered by other people in considering to vote for/against misery. Someone had to do it. --71.246.218.44 19:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I just think pages help a little. Doesn't make me wrong, just makes it different. Doesn't effect how I vote (and I just don't bother voting for people who I don't know, rather than just opposing them. And it's hard to know Misery since I don't see most of his contributions myself. And no the list doesn't help.-- anguard 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I missed how having a full list doesn't help. Is it somehow different if you read them in RC than finding them via contribs, or something? --71.246.218.44 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

He's just like Auron. -- Halogod35 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, he's not just like Auron. He's like an auron who is willing to be diplomatic, and for that reason, I promoted him on PvX. I needed a good conscience there, y'know? -Auron >8< 00:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No he's not like Auron, b/c Auron cleary considers more positions than just his own agenda even if he doesn't include it in some long-winded Paragraph. Misery ignores all but those sides of issues that only he wishes to consider and would be a much maligned Authority figure b/c of it. Dancing Dagger's trivia Debate being a perfect example of him and backsword "strong arming" the entire discussion and relying on a Sysop Buddy to prop up their flawed impulses instead of relying on Rational Discussion and real-world precedent --ilr 22:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, you don't know Auron very well. Misery 06:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the administration exists primarily to administrate users, not content, how would being a "PvP admin" be relevant in any way? This isn't PvX. Vili >8< 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Different backgrounds, different perspective. For example, I understand where Shard is coming from, but feel some of his past actions have been totally inappropriate. It's not about content at all but rather attitudes. I'm sure you are aware of the general differences in attitudes on many fronts between PvE and PvP players as you interact with both. It's an oversimplifaction to give an idea of where I stand on certain issues. Misery 22:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask the same question as Vili (Entropy? o_O Iono what to call you): Bureaucrats are for the sole purpose of dealing with users and/or situations that have failed to be resolved by conventional means. Your experience in PvP or your being a terrible PvE player (which, I have a hard time believing, because having a thorough knowledge of skills should give you an advantage over PvE players who only use FOTM builds, so don't sell yourself short) should/will have no bearing on whether you are elected for the position or not. In this instance, I'd have to agree that having a different set of personalities as bureaucrats is more important than having a mix of PvE, PvP, and PvX players. Not that I'm saying I don't think you're right for the role--on the contrary, I've seen you act fairly level-headed and logical for the most part--but I just don't think some of what you said in your WoT is being successful at achieving the support you want. Just my $0.02. --★KOKUOU★ 22:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I should have realised people would focus on whatever I put in the summary and been more careful with it. Resummary: I believe my background makes me a significantly different option in comparison to existing options with quite a different perspective. That was all I was trying to say with the PvP/PvE thing. It's not hugely relevant, it's akin to suggesting that there should be a mix of female/male/black/hispanic/white members on a jury or arbitration group. I'd prefer that people voted for me on the basis that I make sense, which I am currently failing to do. I should probably just go to sleep tonight. Misery 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"I'd prefer that people voted for me on the basis that I make sense, which I am currently failing to do." gg with the votes <3 --Cursed Angel 01:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice wall of text to bore me, but still, it seals my vote on your page at voting time .--Burning Freebies 21:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to claim cosmological representation, shouldn't you be a bit more ... representative? Backsword 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to confess, I have no idea what you are even asking/accusing me of doing/not doing. Would you care to rephrase or clarify? Misery 23:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Analogy: You're like someone claiming that you should be elected to represent the black community. Sure, you're white, but hey, you hang out with a lot of black guys. Right? Backsword 23:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Analogy: Misery is like someone who is pretty awesome. 67.240.83.137 02:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying that I don't PvP? I GvGed last night to be honest. I'm a tad busy irl to be reliable enough to join a core at the moment, but I guest frequently so I don't really know what your point is. I don't just "hang out with black guys", I am one. I don't really understand what you are trying to say at all. I admit I don't play much HA, but I have my bambi and I've held halls. Misery 06:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you PvP. SO do I. Yet I am not part of that group. I know it likes to claim that they never PvE or that everyone who PvP is part of it, but we all know that is untrue. I wouldn't think you made that distiction.

I'm pointing out that you don't fullfill said groups cultural expectations. Your behaviour is not that which identifies the group. Backsword 11:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I've said somewhere on this page (or maybe it was on IRC) that I am using PvP/PvE split as an over-generalisation because it is something people understand. I'm still not certain what point you are trying to make at all. What characteristics of this group am I not displaying? Is Auron a member of this group you think I'm not a part of? If you scroll up he states that I am like him, except willing to be diplomatic. If you are excluding me from being a "PvPer" on the basis of my willingness to be diplomatic then firstly you are arguing semantics, which is a waste of time and secondly I consider your definition to be incorrect. My definition comes more from what issues people care about, what information they consider important and unimportant and opinions on things like balance. I can't say I'm intimately familiar with your philosophies Backsword and I feel like I am confusing you with Shadowfog for some reason, but I wouldn't place you within the group of people I am claiming to represent at all. If you prefer I could use the term "metagamers", but that captures what I intend to say equally as poorly as the term "PvPer". Misery 11:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll also point out that so far I have only been opposed by one person I would consider a PvPer and I cant' be sure without asking, but I suspect that has a lot to do with the fact that we spend a considerable amount of time arguing with each other and tend to disagree on almost every point. Misery 11:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you that it's a misnomer. WHich is why I am surprised that you think I'm saying you don't play PvP. Backsword 11:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am more surprised to see you baiting misery to talk about a totally unrelated matter. If misery answers, he replies to an unrelated matter, and seem not serious about the bureaucrat position; and if he doesn't, he might seem arrogant and unwilling to actually discuss with people. Please bring all these off-topic crap about "oh just because you pvp doesn't mean you are a pvper" to your talkpage, where rubbish rightfully belongs.Pika Fan 11:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't ever respond there, so he wouldn't be able to post. -Auron >8< 02:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Misery is popular. Good luck man. --Burning Freebies 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

userbox

I think discussions I have entered in the past adequately my ability.

99.144.162.16 22:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Typo fixed, thanks for pointing it out. Misery 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Np, good luck in the election 99.144.162.16 22:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Misery, I thought you might be interested in some questions.

1)What would stating that you are a PvPer affect when you reach bcrat,nothing? In what part of the field of Guild Wars Wiki do you think is important to have such trait?

2)Can you link us to some evidence of sysophood in PvX that reached an action of you taking disciplinary matters against vandals? What was the highest and lowest bans you have given?

3)You admit you troll on occasion, what was the worst trolled you have given? Do you think is justifiable to troll banned user's pages? Why?

4)You claim to have some position in PvX(stated in a question), will it some how interfere with you being a bcrat here? Will people think it might affect how you approach things in this wiki?

5)What policies in Guild Wars Wiki do you think may need some kind of amendment?

6)Do you think trolling should be an bannable offense? If so, how do you think it should be approach to determine it is trolling?

7)Knowing a banned user's IP, he/she post in PvX wiki and you extend his/her ban, if that IP would have posted here, will you have ban it's user in this wiki too?--ShadowFog 22:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

1) It's not important in any field of GWW except in writing articles about PvP aspects of the game. As stated multiple times on this page, it's supposed to give some insight into personality and offer a wider range of people on the arbitration committee. I consider it a benefit for the same reason that you want a balance of people on a jury or mediation committee so that all sides of a case can be considered from a wider base of experience. The bureaucrat role isn't really a wiki-skill role per se, it's not about how you edit the wiki, it's about how you mediate, discuss and arbitrate.

2) I don't really understand the purpose of this question or how I am supposed to answer it. I have banned people on PvXwiki for an infinite amount of time, we do that there, different site, different policies. I have also banned for time periods of a few seconds for testing periods and 5 minutes or so to stop immediate disruption due to misunderstanding, such as someone not reading their talk page and recreating a deleted page over and over again. I don't know how you can link someone to vandalism and how I dealt with it, do you want me to link to the contribution lists of vandals I've blocked? That's not even within the scope of the bureaucratic role. Examples I can give you of disruptive users I have dealt with on PvXWiki would include Super Igor, I determined many of his socks before I became an admin and had access to check user, which were then confirmed by checkuser, due to behaviour patterns. I believe this is part of the reason I was promoted. Bluerask was a similar case. These users both socked excessively (Far more than Raptors or whathisname ever did and over a period of many months) and in the end I implemented a policy of not just banning socks, but also reverting every contribution they made whether it was vandalous or not, which eventually caused them to give up and stop trolling the site. That would be an example of the kind of outcome you might expect from arbitration to deal with a banned user who refused to abide by the ban. I should note here that reverting every contribution didn't really remove anything of value from the site due to the different nature of PvXwiki and the fact that mostly they were using it to chat to friends on talk pages. I've also dealt with users such as Zeecron and Napalm Flame, both chronic sockers. I have discussed with permanently banned users in the past agreements under which their permanent ban could end. It often goes poorly, but I think the option needs to exist otherwise there is no reason for them to stop socking ever.

3) My trolling is usually on the level of forcing an opinion through. An example can be seen here, please note I did not sock during that discussion. It's usually either to move drama/discussion off of a high traffic page such as an Arenanet staff member's, or to end a discussion that I believe will be harmful to the site, such as adding ridiculous skill notes or many of the suggestions here. It's more or less the fastest, most effective way to get things done on the wiki and force concensus. Another behaviour I have engaged in the past is baiting someone who is being disruptive without breaking policies into breaking a policy so that they get banned and the disruptive behaviour ceases.

4) No, I am fairly inactive on PvXwiki at the moment so it won't take away from my time here and I don't see how it has any effect on the bureaucratic tasks in any case. RfAs and Arbitration are not highly common events. People may or may not think it will affect that, I can't control what people will think, but I understand that the two wikis are operated in an entirely different manner and that behaviour appropriate there is not appropriate here. If I behaved in the same manner here as I do on PvX I would have multiple bans for breaching NPA, but I will point out my ban log on both sites is clean apart from a few blocks for testing purposes on PvXwiki. I know how to abide by and enforce policies.

5) I don't have a specific problem with any GWW policies, if I did I would already be suggesting changes and ammendments, you don't have to be a bureaucrat to do so. I think sysops could exercise discretion slightly more often, I feel the spirit of a policy is far more important than the actual wording. The wording of a policy will always have loopholes no matter how tightly you try to craft it.

6) You are going to have to define a what you mean here. Trolling is a pretty loosely defined term. I think intentional disruption can be ban worthy. It depends on the scale. In any case, this is not within the scope of the bureaucratic role when speaking in general terms. Most cases of trolling would be dealt with by sysops. If you want examples of what I am talking about, a certain user uploaded real life pictures of White Wasabi to his talk page, that is high level trolling and harrassment and is in my opinion bannable. Low level trolling like suggesting Ursan Blessing was never overpowered is not really bannable and anyone who gets worked up over the resulting discussion needs to learn to not fall for such a basic troll. Bureaucratic intervention would only be required in a case where sysops and the tools they are provided with are unable to deal with the problem, such as massive ban avoidance, then the problem being dealt with is actually the ban avoidance, not the trolling itself.

7) No, that's ridiculous. They are too completely different sites with different policies. That would be akin to banning someone in Guild Wars because they used racial slurrs in another NCSoft game. My and everyone elses activities on PvXwiki are completely irrelevant to this wiki.

You may want to review what a bureaucrat's role actually is, you seem to be under the impression that I will be active in the day-to-day administration and the banning of users. This is outside the scope of the bureaucratic role and bureaucrats are discouraged from banning users except in obvious cases of vandalism when no sysops are present, this includes sysops who are currently bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are required to be impartial to make decisions on RfAs and during Arbitration, this is something I believe I am capable of. I hope that answers your questions, I don't really expect you to change your vote, nor am I asking for it, I'm answering because I was asked. Misery 23:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Misery, the role is displayed here->http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Wiki:Adminship#Bureaucrats. You will still have sysop privileges even if those privileges must be enforced as a last resort. I can conclude it shows you are willing to answer and not sidestep the questions. "Did I like the answers?", well I will leave that for later.--ShadowFog 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats may only use sysop powers to deal with an ongoing situation and if no normal sysop is available. Additionally, they may delete pages at any time in accordance with the deletion policy. Bureaucrats are only allowed to block in emergencies, specifically for edits that impair the ability of users to access wiki content, such as vandalism.

That's pretty much exactly what I said, in emergencies when no other sysops are available and only for ongoing problems. I suspect I will be using my sysop power very seldom. Misery 06:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Derp. -Auron 06:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dee derp. Xhata 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Derp dee derp.--ShadowFog 18:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

misery is a good wiki'er. im from pvx and misery gets the job done with authority and well. go gounreal 14:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)