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

Does he kill spiders too?

If so, then he might be a shoo-in. 42 - talk 05:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, including the giant-ass spiders. -- Lacky 05:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean the giant ass-spiders?! Good grief! In any case, I looked over your contribution history and your answers to Drogo's questions, and you appear to be a fine bureaucrat candidate. --Threid 05:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for the compliment, and secondly, that XKCD comic made me Lol! =P -- Lacky 06:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I challenge you!

Please flabbergasts me with a marvelous, delicious candidate statement so you can have my vote. — Why 22:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Lacky 04:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Urdoinitwrong

You're supposed to nominate yourself in the third person with a sock, not your main. ~Shard 02:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

=P -- Lacky 02:31, 17 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 02:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Please read my candidate statement for an answer to this question.
2. It is of my opinion that the policies are there to keep the wiki organised and harmonised. Policies are implemented to insure people don't go around vandalising things and also keeping things under control that don't need to be and/or shouldn't be over exaggerated. There are etiquette's to be maintained.
3. After reading over previous ArbComm decisions, I feel that most of them are well thought out and just and m decisions would probably not be deviated much.
4. Well, apart from GWW:BCRAT, I would define the role of Bureaucrat as one that when the time comes to be needed, they need to take their time, sort out and organise things, plan what needs and has to be done, and then once that is all set out, said and done, they take action. I have heard people often comment saying that Bureaucrat is a lazy job and that you hardly do anything, however I think that when you do have to do things that are required of you, you need to take your time to do them well.
5. Trolling/disruption/incivility/harmfulness is not appropriate, however I believe vandalism is being dealt with quite well. There are systems set up to stop it from happening (such as the admin noticeboard), which seem to be working quite effectively.
6. It is my belief that the role of ArbComm is to take on cases that need to be taken aboard, and deal with them with the evidence that they have supporting one way or another. ArbComm is not to be taken lightly upon and should be used as a last resort.
7. As there have been a number of different Bureaucrats, I would say that there wouldn't be much that I could do differently to what other Bureaucrats have already done, other than doing what is required of me, however there are possibly some situations that I would do some things differently.
8. Depending on what the matter of the situation is, I would deal with things based on a case by case basis, with supporting/opposing (or lack-there-of) evidence. A user's general history can sometimes determine what type of person they are, however no-one should receive more/less leniency just based on their general history. People can change overnight, however they usually don't.
9. I would probably say about an 8. I understand most of/a high percentage of the guidelines/policies, however there are a few points which may not always make sense to me.

I hope these questions help you better facilitate what I am all about, and to understand a bit more about me. If you have any further questions, or any follow-up questions, then please do not hesitate to ask them. -- Lacky 03:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

ooo, classy! (Xu Davella 14:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

Erm...Thanks? However these questions seem to always be posted every election. -- Lacky 14:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Many do the guild tagging, besides you and several other things you've mentioned. Nothing special and I don't think helps people really see why 'you' are deserving. Just being honest. I'd focus more on the 'difference' and 'uniqueness'. ;-) That might help you out. 72.148.31.114 20:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice insight. Thanks for that. I'll bear/keep that in mind. ^_^ EDIT: Oh, and hi Ariyen. You should sign in. =P -- Lacky 03:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)