Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2009-12 bureaucrat election/Ariyen

Socking to nominate yourself is pretty awesome. Karate Jesus 16:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And where is Pika to comment on all of this?--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 16:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

KJ, stop throwing accusations of socking around. They have no grounds. -- Wyn talk 16:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on! That was obviously sarcasm....-_- Karate Jesus 16:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice joke. - Mini Me talk 17:01, 16 December 2009

Jeeze Drogo, give her time to accept before copy pasting the usual questions.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 17:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How about this just be auto removed. This is clearly a joke. Also a person does not have to accept for this to move forward. Drogo Boffin 17:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No reason to remove it at this point. Ariyen is an adult, and can remove it if she wishes. I believe the IP is one of her friends, anyway, so it's not likely a joke in the normal sense of the term. -- FreedomBound 17:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There's only a 50% chance it's Ariyen, so it isn't conclusive at this point. The fox will always reveal it's tail, so I will patiently wait for that moment. Either way, we all know that her bcracy is just going to fail.Pika Fan 03:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, It wouldn't bother me, if I lost or won. -- riyen ♥ 07:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Because what matters to you is the attention you get, not the win or loss. Pika Fan 21:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lmao, if I wanted attention. I'd been a musician or actress, no thanks. haha, I have attention here, with my baby girl and husband. I don't need this place, because I want to do on wiki is help and I'm sorry you can't see that. ALso, if I really wanted attention, I'd accepted. I'm leaving it alone. -- riyen ♥ 21:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Accepting it and leaving it alone results in the same course of action. Just saying. .. . de Kooning 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, leaving it alone means that I'm not going to bother with it. As said below on #1 in my answer. It does not mean I accept. Lol, I wouldn't 'read' into things, if I were you. -- riyen ♥ 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

i have grown to like you. but with that said i feel that if you won i would get perma banned right off the bat QQ...- Zesbeer 11:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, You're cool. :-) I'm still tempted to save that miniature photo. -- riyen ♥ 19:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions

PLease answer these to the best of your ability and honestly.

1. Why do you want to be a Bureaucrat and what qualities do you possess that you believe would make you a good Bureaucrat?
2. What is your opinion on strictly literal interpretations of policy vs. "spirit of the policy" interpretations?
3. How might your decisions in previous ArbComm decisions have differed from those given by the Bureaucrats?
4. How would you define the Bureaucrat's role on GWW?
5. 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?
6. What do you think the proper role of ArbComm is?
7. How might you use the Bureaucrat position differently than other Bureaucrats have?
8. 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?
9. On a scale of 1-10 (1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest), what would you say your actual understanding of our guidelines/policies? Drogo Boffin 17:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not accepting nor declining, just going to let things be. I do not know if that ip might be a friend or foe or a troll, but I'm not going to judge on that. I don't have to do anything, so I choose not to do anything. I'm being told to decline, but just not in the mood to answer one way or the other.

I will answer those questions, because Drogo, I choose to be nice and honest.
Here's my answers.
Answer these to the best of your ability and honestly.

1. If the community wants me as a Bureaucrat, I'll serve. I'm not accepting or declining, I will not promote drama on this either way.
2. I think the spirit of it is to help keep the wiki from being a chaos and to keep it in a balance. The literal is to decide if the 'user in question' is a real problem that the Administrators cannot handle and if the Bureaucrat thinks this is a 'serious' case or not. I have looked at previous cases, even my own, and I believe those that were elected did what was needed. They hardly interfer with what's given, unless it is truly necessary and required.
3. As above, I would agree and I don't believe my decisions would have been different.
4. They are not sysops and should not think of themselves as that. They should only understand that their powers are not to be abused or used, unless called upon. To me, they are like people at a job, temporary workers, basically they are nomminated for this position and for it to be used only when needed, when the others cannot do their jobs and I see this as a rare, but needed position on the wiki. I do not think they should get involved in discussions, but only offer advice. If asked. I think in this position, one can only mess with their own pages or what's asked of them in the arbitration community or on their own board. They can answer questions in the areas of ask a wiki question, ask an account question, and ask a game question. Other than that, little to no activity.
5. Honestly, I disapprove of trolling/disruption/incivility/harmfulness, but I think the current status is being handle fairly well with some of our sysops, but I would like to see the sysops improve on this problem a bit more.
6. I think the role is that the Bureaucrat works together, like a Justice system. they judge on what is given to them. Each one, tells if they support or oppose and their reason, as seen in previous cases, but only if they feel they need to accept the case that a sysop could not handle. The third one, if the other two have ... Let's say if one Opposes and the other supports, the third one would place in their decision and I would say one of them then, tallies all of that and closes the case with the answer of the majority, whether it be support or oppose.
7. The only differences I see is that you guys would be relieved of me not participating in things and I'd 'shush' my mouth more. There wouldn't be 'drama' that seems to surround me, and a lot more quietness. If a problem, the seat would be vacated.
8. If a user contributed more than the 'drama' that surrounds them, I would look into the contributes as well as the problem, but moreso feel how it should be handled with the problem. So I don't think that the user would get any unneeded leniency from me.
9. Either a 6 or an 8. And the more I think on that, I'd say 7, maybe closer to 6.

Now what you all say about me is your opinions, not mine.
Hope this helps answer your questions Drogo.

I'll be around, but not participating much, real life calls. Merry Christmas to all and have a Happy New Year. -- riyen ♥ 22:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why should we vote for somebody that was recently banned for disruption? Forgot this one. Mah bad. These are not just my questions. These are concerns that all users should have about a candidate that they do not know and all but a few of these are copied and pasted every election. Thank you for your effort in answering these. Drogo Boffin 02:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question. "Why should we vote for somebody that was recently banned for disruption? " Wyn should have warned on the site, before the ban, instead of assuming I saw her msg in irc., and that I would have 'stopped'. Some warnings aren't seen until after things happen, how are some to know? No one is a brilliant mind. My thing is, warn via the site, not on irc. Because the message is likely to be seen. You can't see both places at once and Irc is not really supposed to be used as a warning place for 'here'. This is. That's my thoughts.

I answer honestly and truthfully, I wouldn't vote for me based on the disruption. More so this isn't a sysop position, one would have to set personal feelings aside to judge on things in this type position. I would vote in the way, could this person be trusted in this position, not using personal feelings, but based on contributions, ideas, and suggestions, etc. -- riyen ♥ 02:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

^jo dudes

← moved to User_talk:Ariyen

I'm confused

Does this just mean you were trolling? Why did you just not accept if you were trolling? I'm surprised that we had two troll nominations this time :/ Karate Jesus 04:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone also nominated Gaile, but they missed the deadline by like a minute.

Also, it has been considered tacky to vote for yourself since like forever, so I personally find it amusing to have a candidate opposing themselves. Vili 点 04:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant two troll nominations that actually got through to voting. I seem to remember joke nominees being removed in the past. Karate Jesus 04:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thought I was on one of the others. Made a mistake. Fixed btw, so meh. -- riyen ♥ 04:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Declining

I thank all for their votes, the many opposes and little support, but even if it was the other way around. Real life doesn't really give me opportunites that I'd like and it's more important than any game or site, despite how much I truly do like to only help, but hey I am happy I can do the projects, etc. and not worry. :-) -- riyen ♥ 12:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect both the support's were troll votes, but ohey, so was your nomination. If I'd nominate, I could maybe get some troll votes! :> ---Chaos- (moo) -- 15:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Shush. Can you not see she is grieving? :P Koda Kumi 15:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Her self-esteem might be a little struck, but she'll be fine. Not accepting in the first place would've been better. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 16:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

True it would have, but hadn't really been on that much, had more real life businesses to do. Only gave opinons or did a few things to 'help out' here and there, but not on enough to do my current project. Gonna go, got real life to tend to and a baby to chase after... 72.148.31.114 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Take the chatter elsewhere please guys. — Why 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)