Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2009-06 bureaucrat election/Yasmin Parvaneh

Section 1

I'm all for this level-headed gal. Yasmin is very effective at communicating and can take an unbias view point when it is badly needed.~>Sins WDB 21:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A strong second to that. — Jon Lupen 22:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Yasmin probably could do well as a bcrat, but nonetheless:

1. How do you perceive the role of bureaucrat?
2. What makes you think you are capable of being a bureaucrat?

--Riddle 06:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In the various things she has done around the wiki, to me she shows a level headed approach to many things. She has my vote.--Burning Freebies 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Good morning Riddle, to reply in response to your questions:

1. I perceive the role of a bureacrat as an objective voice who ensures and maintains a proper community enviornment for everyone. I feel this role is designed to ensure that the community as a whole is treated fairly, and that everyone can feel as if they are apart of a larger universe. I feel this role is important to make certain the information listed is also accurate and done within the appropriate and consistant format, that admin members are chosen appropriately and fairly. I must also make myself readily available to explain any actions or decisions I make on the wiki. I have proven time and again that I do have an objective voice, and all choices I make will be based on verifiable facts, evidence, community input and the input of my potential collegues Brains and Tanetris...never emotion or bias. I will never act out of bounds unless it is 100% needed to absolve a do-or-die situation, nor will I abuse any powers I am given.
2. To provide a resume showing the level of competency for such a position, in my day to day life I am a community manager for a multi-family Property Management company. My job requires annual certifications for Fair Housing and Ethics Codes, I am required to view everyone in a consistant and fair fashion and assume unless qualifying factors prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. These factors are based on objective, verifiable and through a thrid-party factors such as renter's history, credit history and income history, not by color, race, origin or even personality. In a profession where I deal not only with people, but their homes, the ability to diffuse conflict and compromise so that the law is upheld, the customer is happy, the owner is happy and a fair policy has been utilied to create this compromise.

Often my work sends me to properties that have occupancy and staffing issues. My outgoing demenor and leadership skills allow me to go to these sites and correct issues between staff and tennants or do internal audits of paperwork to show correct policy enforcement and that Fair Housing is being upheld. In 6 years I have never failed a Fair Housing shop and my sites are well known for being organized and consistant. I am very familiar with the law and how to be an objective and active listener. It is a community, and as such, my personal feelings and opinion in no way override the needs, feelings or wishes of the community as a whole.

As a bureacrat, I would do just that...actively listen to the needs and wishes of the community and ensure each of them are treated fairly, respected, and protected. That the integrity of the wiki itself is protected, and that the information listed is accurate and beneficial for all players.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

4 answers to two questions. I fear for the next section. Hope I don't EC you. Misery 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, after reading it I realised it wasn't 4 unique answers ;o Misery 17:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions

I would just like to ask these questions, if you don't mind.

• Why do you want to be a Bureaucrat and what qualities do you possess that you believe would make you a good Bureaucrat?
• What is your opinion on strictly literal interpretations of policy vs. "spirit of the policy" interpretations?
• How might your decisions in previous ArbComm decisions have differed from those given by the Bureaucrats?
• How would you define the Bureaucrat's role on GWW?
• What is your stance on trolling/disruption/incivility/harmfulness? How is that stance justified given the current status of those issues within our system and culture?
• What do you think the proper role of ArbComm is?
• How might you use the Bureaucrat position differently than other Bureaucrats have?
• 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? -- §Lacky§ Talk 07:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

delicious copypasta is delicious -Auron 07:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is, in response to your questions:

1. The idea of becoming a Bureaucrat is one I fell into. As the wiki has been around for quite sometime, I felt there was very little for me to contribute, as so much has already been documented. It was not until several community members (Jon, Sins, Raine) suggested that I could and should run. I realized there are more ways I can contribute than just documenting missions and quests. The qualities I possess to make me an excellent Bureaucrat are those of a natural leader. The role of a leader is to set an example as an objective and active listener, a person who takes all factors as a whole, all voices, ideas and potential into account and bases their actions on these factors. I am very passionate about fairness, law vs chaos, and ensuring all people are treated as they should be, with equal opportunities to do any and all things.
2. Policy is usually very clear. I term myself at work and in most things as "by the book"... Now this does not mean I am a policy spewing robot--but in most cases the law is very clear, however, in those instances where there are shades of gray, I will have to be as objective as possible in any choices made...these choices will usually result in a new policy being born or an existing one being changed, and this is never to be taken lightly. I will review the current policy...and by that I mean I do serious research, any evidence or previous cases will be reviewed, then I must consult the community for their opinions, believes and ideas. After that, my colleagues and I must make the best ruling that will benefit the community, but will also meet their expectations. In the end, my view of all things will be based on objective evidence and all possible sources available.
3. This is a question I do not feel right in answering, as I would feel I would be undermining another Bureaucrat's ability to judge. What I can say is, if there are any policies or actions taken previously that the community disagrees with, I will always be open and available for a review of any past cases.
4. I see the Bureaucrat's role as one of an objective source. A person who ensures the community is being respected and heard, that wiki policy is being upheld in a fair and accurate manner. But more so, making certain the best people are appointed as admins to carry out policy. In a way, we would be "policing the police" in making certain Sysops are handling themselves appropriately. But we are also here to support the Sysops if they encounter policy issues or user/community issues they feel is too big for them to handle alone.
5. Trolling is a part of "internet" culture, which I compare to the "disgruntled customer". They will always exist, and it is important to understand each type of troll--disgruntled types, upset players who feel wronged, or the type who just like chaos. Handling them with the same level of tact and fairness is of the utmost importance, as they are people too, and until their actions prove too much or too many policies are violated, I will treat them as justly as I can...I will never brush them off immediately nor will I not listen to their views or opinions just because they have trolled in the past, or have been deemed a troll. Depending on the severity of the trolling and they type of troll doing the offenses will be dealt with as it occurs and by that I mean in terms of NPA and overall presentation of what is said or done, I would allow most Sysops to use their best judgement, and I would back any choices they made so long as there is evidence of correct policy being followed. NPA violations need to be addressed right away with appropriate written warnings. I maybe unique in this, but I will look at mainly the current activities and violations most of the time. If the case is very severe, a history research on that individuals past incidents will occur--and based on my colleagues and community input, the best decision will be made. I will not be blocking or banning myself unless the situation was very extreme or no Sysops were available at the time, per the wiki guidelines for Bureaucrats.
6. The Arbcomm I compare to the US Supreme court. When the states and counties need a general rule to be followed all over the land, or the particular items is just too large for them to handle appropriately, a larger court body of people will come into play with an objective view (hopefully). That is where we, as Bureaucrats come into play. I see it as similar to a conflict resolution type of team, where an objective source hears all the details, researches the current rules and policy, listens to the community, and conviens to make the best choice for everyone. The Arbcomm should be used on important matters, severe conflict resolution and should, in most cases, be a last resort if a Sysop or all Sysops feel a situation is beyond their ability to handle.
7. I don't know how different I will be, but what I can promise I will do is be true to the various values I have stated. I do not wish to compare myself to other past Bureaucrats, but rather I would desire to uphold the current rules and policy. My wish is to be a person the community feels a.) will always be available to them, b.) will always let their voices be heard, and will allow them to feel their opinions and ideas are valued c.) that I will strive to make the best, informed, unbiased and fair choices I can in every and all situations.
8. My views for Arbcomms will never be "lenient" ever. I do not give free-passes, everyone is treated the same way...ask my husband, Adrin, to whom I have served 2 eviction warnings in the past for policy and lease violations while we were dating. Any choices I make will be based in each individual case's evidence showing a particular policy or rule has been broken. Yes, the user's history will be taken into account to a degree, but there will always be more factors to review than just that depending on what they did, as well as the community view on the particular issue. I must stress I will be fair, objective and unbiased. I will never say, "well, Billy was very violent and threatening to Joe, but Billy has done so much work on documenting character animations, that we just can't lose him!" If Billy is being violent, abusive or severely violating policy, he is breaking a law, and as such, must be dealt with appropriately, regardless of what good work he has produced.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 16:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You had me until "we just can't loose him". I could bear the odd spelling error here and there, but that was the final straw. Now I have to vote for someone else. :P Seriously though, very well-thought out answers, thanks for treating this so seriously. Freedom Bound 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed for ya. :) Typing at work makes me lose track as I proof read...and no firefox is also a pain so I don't have to proof read. QQ--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 23:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I found a misplaced word. "I will not be blocking or banning myself unless the situation was very extreme or no Sysops were available at the time, per the wiki guidelines for Bureaucrats." I think it should be "I myself". Lol just messing with you. Good luck. ~>Sins WDB 00:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If that's the only issue with my words then I'm not getting off to harsh :) --*Yasmin Parvaneh* 01:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To me, thats a top quality response. Now im even more inclined to vote for Yasmin. --Burning Freebies 12:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hurry up...

...and win this thing!! You have my vote. -Lena™ talk 17:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)