Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2011-06 bureaucrat election/Aiiane

The Raine Incident

Before I would be comfortable with you continuing as a bureaucrat, I would like to hear your side of the story on what I will refer to as "The Raine Incident". I'm not purely talking about your decision to demote Raine without really going through the proper procedures, as a bureaucrat that was well within your discretion. What concerns me more is the way that this situation was brought to bear by you deciding to promote her on your own in the first place without any discussion with the other two bureaucrats of the day. I do not know if you had any off-wiki discussion or consultation before you decided to demote her, but I know she was only promoted in the first place on the basis of you acting alone making a decision that many considered ill-advised.

In my opinion the passing of that RfA was questionable at best. It would have likely failed if you did not move to pass it on your own. The feeling between Gares and myself was that the large number of neutral and oppose votes, with very solid reasoning, were not surpassed by the supporting votes. The issue was fairly controversial as evidenced by the effort voters went to explain themselves, the split nature of the vote and significant amount of discussion on the talk page. Gares and I were waiting to talk to you before finalising the decision, which we agreed was close, although Gares had a more negative lean. You acted on your own and basically left the two of us out in the lurch with very few courses of action outside supporting a decision neither of us really believed in. It wasn't worth causing problems over, I don't think either of us believed Raine would be necessarily harmful.

Fast forward several months and many people on the wiki are no longer happy with Raine being a sysop. Once again we see Aiiane stepping in to make a decision. I'm happy to believe you if you say that you did not act alone in this instance, but from my previous experience and how it looked, it all seemed rather sudden, I think it is otherwise. I for one am not really comfortable with a bureaucrat that makes acts alone to make questionable decisions. I am not comfortable with the way you wield your discretion. I chose to bring this up now, rather than at the time, as I believe all it would have caused at the time was needless drama. The end result probably would have been the same. I basically would like to know why you chose to act in such a manner and to bring this to the attention of the wiki voting public at large.

Yours faithfully,

A piece of Misery 79.226.38.226 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The day Aiiane demoted Raine I asked poke if she had consulted with him at all. She had not. elix Omni 22:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the day of the promotion, this person didn't seem a need to consult other b-crats in which should have happened. Instead, it seemed like the user took it upon herself to approve the rfa. Where as Misery said here, the b-crats should have consulted each other and then made a decision. We promote the b-crats, in my opinon, to work together. Another thing on the demotion, it may be due to users complaints as to why she removed the tools. However, it should have been mutually discussed with other b-crats.... I just wonder why she's doing any of this in the first place, much less seemingly on her own. This way, in my opinon, would make one look bad in the long run and not trust-worthy in the end. So, Aiiane... Why? Why should we trust a solo decider? Why did you do these things without consulting other b-crats? Kaisha 22:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the only time bureaucrats are expected to work together is to resolve an Arbitration Committee case. The rest of the time they are free/encouraged to act on their own. There is really not a precedent for bureaucrats consulting with every other bureaucrat over every single promotion or demotion. -Auron 00:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So, it was okay to promote a sysop, when it was a 50/50 results? It was okay to take away a sysop's rights via rfr comments and not through another rfa? So, that's the new precedents now? The consultaton didn't need to happen on such a close race nor with the demotion that wasn't based on a second rfa - "appointing or revoking sysops based on requests for adminship." ? Kaisha 04:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Auron, you may not expect bureaucrats to work together, but I think a great many of us do. Perhaps there is no rule that says "Don't do stupid shit by yourself," but that doesn't make it a good idea. elix Omni 07:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You both misunderstand me - I'm not supporting Aiiane's actions, I'm simply pointing out that it's incorrect to assume that bcrats have always been expected to act as a team. The only time policy has ever said bcrats needed to all chime in was on ArbComms, and the rest of the time they could act as they saw fit - which has been done a great many times. I just can't stand sitting here and seeing people get all "omg why didnt she talk to us omg" when that really wasn't the norm anyway. Some bcrat teams were more vocal and communicative than others, but that doesn't necessitate all bureaucrats having a committee meeting before putting their shoes on in the morning.

Aiiane was within her rights to promote a sysop with 50/50 results, Ariyen - that's why we give bcrats discretion. It wasn't necessarily the best move, but it was hers to make. And yes, it was also alright for her to skip a rather pointless piece of bureaucracy and get rid of a bad sysop. In fact, of the two "rogue" actions (if we can call them that), the demotion doesn't bother me in the least. -Auron 08:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you cite some examples of bureaucrats doing whatever they felt like to positive results? elix Omni 09:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There have been plenty of cases of people getting promoted without discussion. I'm not suggesting for a moment that there would need to be in depth discussion to pass Poke's RfA. If Cursed Angel had an RfA I doubt there would need to be a discussion before failing it. If you wanted to pass CA's RfA on the other hand... Obviously nothing Aiiane has done is on that level, I just consider the first action questionable, which lead to another action, which may have been the right thing to do but looked weird as hell and probably need not have ever occurred in the first place. All I'm asking for is an explanation of these actions, why Aiiane decided to act in this way. I believe that is fairly normal request and is actually specifically provided for in the definition of a bureaucrat's role. She'll probably get around to it eventually. I kind of disagree with you Auron on how often bureaucrats should interact, but that isn't really here nor there. People can make up their own mind on that front and speak with their votes depending on their level of comfort. 79.226.38.226 10:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Auron, I'm sorry to say that this - "I'm simply pointing out that it's incorrect to assume that bcrats have always been expected to act as a team" is assumption in it's self. I don't expect b-crats to always work together, but I do expect them to work together in a case like a 50/50 race that's not easy to go either way, especially when it can have bad results. Now if it was 60/40 or vice versa, I can see differently. However, some of Aiiane's actions as a b-crat, don't seem like proper b-crat actions, like if one has an rfr - they should go through another rfa right? unless they give up the tools, because they don't feel up to the job. Do you expect b-crats to never work together, except in an arbcom only? Do you want to give a lot of leeway to those with power? Or would you want to know or feel more comfortable that they'd use their powers for good and not personal reasons? Kaisha 16:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If Gares and Misery were discussing together and wanted Aiiane's input before deciding, it seems reasonable to expect Aiiane to discuss it too, particularly given that Gares and Misery disagreed with passing the RfA and that the RfA was contentious and lacking an obvious result. pling 16:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on Misery's original post, and I am assuming account for what he said. He is correct. At the time of Raine's RfA, Misery and I were in the process of finalizing the decision and awaiting Aiiane to respond to an email I sent. Based on the content of the votes, I was against the promotion. Misery was fine either way. I was too busy to deal with a shitstorm should I overturn Aiiane's decision, so it stayed. Although this is just speculation (as I can't seem to find any discussion over it), but perhaps Aiiane demoted Raine after seeing that she may have acted in error with the promotion (currently, I am unaware of how Raine behaved as a sysop). In any case, only Aiiane can give us insight into why she chose her actions. I believe Misery's request is a fair one. — Gares 17:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who of the Miseries are you? I do believe there are a few. - Reanimated X 17:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: The Raine Incident

Putting comments here, since they'd probably get lost in the discussion up above:

"At the time of Raine's RfA, Misery and I were in the process of finalizing the decision and awaiting Aiiane to respond to an email I sent."

Gares, I never recall receiving an email about Raine's RfA; if I had it is unlikely I would have taken action myself at the time. I just finished going through my GMail account trying to find such an email that I might have missed and was unsuccessful - there is not even a single email with 'raine' in it, and only a handful (4-5) with the word 'rfa'; none of those were referring to Raine's. Perhaps somehow the email got lost/marked as spam? That would be the most likely reason for you to have been waiting on a response; I'm typically fairly punctual with responding to emails (read: within an hour or two of receiving them if I'm awake).

Though I cannot say for sure at this point (the initial events are 9 months old, and my memory isn't perfect), I believe that this may have been a significant portion of the reason why I acted when I did - the RfA was a week and a half old, I had not seen any communication from either of the other bureaucrats asking about it (nothing on my talk page, and as far as I could see, no email), and someone had poked me about whether it was going to be dealt with any time soon.

With regards to which resolution I choose for the RfA (separate from why I choose to resolve it when I did), see here. That is probably the best insight that I could give into my thinking at the time, since it has now been about 9 months and so it would be hard for me to tell you precisely what was going through my head. In a more general sense, however, I think it would be safe to say that my thoughts were leaning towards "it is possible Raine could be a viable sysop, and if it turns out otherwise, mistakes can be corrected".

This leads fairly directly into the reason for my actions with regards to the removal of Raine as a sysop; over time it has become apparent that Raine was probably not an ideal sysop, and thus, that mistake was corrected. As it was my original judgment that had granted Raine the position in the first place, I took the responsibility of correcting the action; my granting sysop status had been tentative to start with, and given Raine's record over the past 9 months, it seemed clear that it was best for that status to be removed.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So you have no intention of communicating with other bureaucrats unless they contact you first. elix Omni 23:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth; I never said that I have no intention of initiating communication with other bureaucrats. All that I said was in that situation I did not; a major factor in that case being that as far as I could tell, the RfA had gone on for a week and a half with no bureaucrat attention. It is not uncommon for RfAs to be dealt with by an individual bureaucrat. Apparently in this particular case, Gares and Misery had been giving it attention in some form not visible to me, and thus the perception that the RfA had been neglected was faulty. (Perhaps it would have been better to have such a discussion on-wiki?)

I find the tone you are taking here rather combative/sensational, Felix; I realize that you may not approve of my actions as a bureaucrat, but I would appreciate it if you would not treat my words as if you are a tabloid reporter. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My tone is actually one of haughty disapproval with a bit of scoff. But seriously, don't try to couch this as a personal issue. My opinion is that you are extraordinarily unfit for positions of authority and your presence as a bureaucrat is harmful to the wiki, so please don't expect me to pull any punches. I will be civil but not kind. That's politics. elix Omni 00:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not expect you to be kind; I simply request that you not interpret a statement as something it is not. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Have there been any situations in which you did initiate communication as a bureaucrat, or are you waiting for the right one to come along? elix Omni 00:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there have been situations where I initiated communication. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please name them? elix Omni 01:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I do not believe that it is a reasonable request to ask me to enumerate the times I have talked with other bureaucrats, especially given that due to the nature of what tends to require discussion, those discussions have occurred months ago if not more. If you'd like, you are more than welcome to find, say, Tanaric and ask him if I ever initiated conversation with him. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Refusing to communicate doesn't make you look particularly communicative. elix Omni 01:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between refusing to communicate (which, if I were doing, I would probably not be responding to you) and refusing to fulfill your every demand. I have offered you a means of verifying my statement that does not involve a unreasonable request; it is your choice whether you choose to pursue that option. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Contacting Tanaric is a much less reasonable request, given that he ragequit the wiki last year and I've never had his contact information. But I'll see what I can do. elix Omni 01:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If she had given you some communication examples, would you have believed her? So it might be just as well that she refer you to outside verification. --JonTheMon 01:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would. I doubt Aiiane's judgment, not her honesty. Realize also that I'm discussing this so other people can make their own decisions as well; it's not just about answering my questions. elix Omni 01:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If you would like an example, as opposed to a list, link (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. elix Omni 01:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

She has prevented a perma on me by Pling over a photo issue. Some of her past actions were well within rights, but recent ones are those I'd be concerned over. Kaisha 00:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a sysop issue, not a bureaucrat issue. Whether Aiiane should retain sysop rights is another can of worms. elix Omni 01:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, what I understood was that, in both instances, she didn't see the need to consult with the other b'crats about those two situations. The first was 'crat discretion and the second was, cleaning up after her own mistake (my apologies, Aiiane, if my paraphrase is putting words into your keyboard). I can see how one (or many) might disagree with both/either choice; I can also see how ppls might think that a reasonable approach, given the circumstances. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think Aiiane should be re-elected solely for the whole Raine affair. O miserable o happy 88.153.105.75 17:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Aiiane's communication

My talk page is probably less appropriate than responding here.

Firstly, this is an awkward situation for me as I suspect showing support for any individual candidate could subtly change the nature of this election -- most likely it would cause them to lose. Thus, to be perfectly clear, the only candidate I support for b-crat is Tanaric. The only candidate I oppose is also Tanaric.

Secondly, full disclosure, I'm commenting because I [was] asked to. I was made aware of this request by an IM from Aiiane. We communicate infrequently—on the order of once every few months or so—and usually not about the wiki. I'm not sure why she invoked me in this particular situation, but as I respect her for doing the job that I got too impatient to do, I'm honoring the request.

I wasn't asked to research the current situation and so I won't.

In previous situations where we worked together (anybody want to link some old ArbComms?) Aiiane and I frequently communicated via IM. She initiated these conversations as often as I did. In the cases where we found ourselves disagreeing, we hashed it out on-wiki. In the cases where we agreed, we'd figure out how we wanted to solve a problem and then one of us would execute, usually without mentioning the other party.

This is as best as I can remember it, but if you have additional questions I'll do my best to answer them.

—Tanaric 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response, Tanaric. I can say I'd be somewhat more comfortable with Aiiane retaining her position now. elix Omni 21:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"My opinion is that you are extraordinarily unfit for positions of authority and your presence as a bureaucrat is harmful to the wiki"

I'm glad you took a Midol Felix. Sardaukar 03:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Anything times zero is still zero. elix Omni 03:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at past elections, I see Tanaric only served as a bureaucrat with Aiiane for two months before resigning his position. This is not comforting at all. I've noticed that a lot of bureaucrats resign while serving with Aiiane. elix Omni 09:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

My resignation had nothing to do with Aiiane, and was entirely personal. I had an incredibly inflated ego and was acting without regard for others. Rezyk noticed this and convinced me it was true, for which I am grateful; it started a sequence of events that lead to significant improvements in the quality of my character. Please don't make meaningless correlations. —Tanaric 16:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make the correlation, I merely pointed it out. As my edit summary said, correlation doesn't equal causation. But more to the point, I find it odd that Aiiane chose as her example of communicating a person who only served with her for two months instead of any of the people who fulfilled their terms. elix Omni 20:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you there—especially because it's been 3 years since I was especially active. —Tanaric 23:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

True. One wonders why she's not picked any of the others within the recent years to show "collaboration". Kaisha 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I picked Tanaric as an example because he happened to be the first person to come to mind. That by no means prevents asking others if one desires to do so... (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there, perhaps, another that comes to mind? At least one within the last couple of years, maybe? Kaisha 23:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Some questions

Here are some non-controversial questions I'd like you to answer at your leisure.

• You've served as bureaucrat on GWW for a total of 30 months. What would you say was your greatest achievement as a bureaucrat during any of your terms?

• What about your greatest mistake?

• What do you think are the most important qualities for a bureaucrat to have?

• What is your position on nuclear power? elix Omni 02:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Pointless questions are pointless. You have an insight into Aiiane's BC style and she's fine and able at what she does here. A BC does not set out to "achieve" anything, a BC's job is to ensure the smooth running of the wiki by fulfilling their role effectively. Something which Aiiane does. As she did not receive an email indicating ongoing discourse about Raine's RFA it was not normal for her to seek discourse about it (be that advisable or not). There is ample evidence to show that most RFA's are approved by a singular BC acting on their own judgement. This is not an oddity. By all means Felix, ask pertinent questions but don't post blatantly trolly questions to have Aiiane jump through pointless hoops for you. You don't like how Aiiane Bc's, that's noted, now can we move on? -- Salome 13:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought Aiiane was just waiting for the discussion phase to start answering these questions. I'd be interested in hearing the answers as well, just out of principle if for no other reason. Though the nuclear energy one is a bit trollish I guess. :D razor39999 16:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I too would like answers to these questions> Salome, so you're saying that a b-crat makes a decision when it's 50/50 and they don't consult each other? Kaisha 17:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you read? That's not at all what Salome said. -Auron 21:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Salome, I've already said (and you should already know) that these discussions are not just for my benefit. The more information people have, the better they'll be able to judge Aiiane's worthiness. I am giving her the opportunity to provide that information herself instead of "putting words in her mouth." If she doesn't want the position then of course there's no reason for her to waste time answering my questions. Additionally, these questions have nothing to do with Raine's RFA, so it was rather pointless bringing that up. And finally, I am legitimately concerned about the outcome of this election, so no, I will not just say "I don't like Aiiane" and then idle the rest of the month. That would be pretty stupid. elix Omni 22:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

People in general learn from their mistakes, so I find it rather amusing to ask a question related on that. Things that happened in the past don't guarantee same behaviour and decisions in the present, so I don't see any relevance. If you're going to ask about mistakes, flaws and achievements, then be fair and ask all participants. -- Cyan 22:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Kaisha, refer to what Auron said.

@ Felix, trolling is trolling matey and you and I know it. You are far from stupid so please dont assume the rest of us can't see that the questions you are asking here are just trolololol. Any answer Aiiane gives will be used to fuel whatever issue you seem to have and it's distracting from the overall debate. I too care about the election, which is why I'm against people trolling them. Misery had a legitimate question, it has been answered. This furtherance here is just crass journalist sensationalism in the making.

@ Razor, if you look through the 3 years of history of Aiiane being a BC you will find the answer to all the questions that were asked above, which should sway you far more than what any BC has to say on the issue. Actions speak louder than words so they say. -- Salome 22:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Cyan, an inability to recognize mistakes generally precludes an ability to learn from them, and suggesting past behavior doesn't correspond to future behavior is inane.

@Salome, please assume good faith. I can strike the nuclear power question if it upsets you, but the others were not in jest. elix Omni 22:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Only your 3rd question has any relevancy Felix. Questions 1 & 2 are trivial at best. Is #4 suppose to show how legitimately concerned you really are? Speaking of which, what are your concerns? Is it simply you wanting TEF in and Aiiane out? You have a burden of proof on your shoulders to disqualify Aiiane if that’s what you want. Provide the proof yourself then, don’t throw a tantrum and expect Aiiane to answer meaningless questions. And just because the questions have nothing to do with Raine’s RFA, doesn’t mean you’re not ticked at Aiiane because of it. Sardaukar 22:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't expect Aiiane to answer these questions. I apologize if you were offended by my attempt at humor. Again, this isn't a personal vendetta. Please remove the log from your anus before pointing out the stick in mine. elix Omni 23:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Salome. I didn't say you said . It was a question, please answer. (I'll rephrase it) In other words is it okay for a b-crat to make a decision when it's 50/50 and they don't consult each other? (After all, you've been in the elections and I'm curious as to your opinion - btw hope your life is getting better.) Kaisha 00:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Kaisha, it was because you said "you're" instead of "are you". The former is a statement, the latter a question. No worries though.

Personally I have no issue with BC's exercising their discretion, that's what its there for. All RFA's are decided by our BC's using their discretion, regardless of ratio of yay to nay votes. It is a simple rule of thumb which says its a 3:1 split needed to pass RFA, but that's not actual policy. If Aiiane had been alerted to the discussion by the other 2 BC's and then went ahead to make Raine a sysop, I would be somewhat saddened, as it shows clear intent to disregard the opinions of fellow BC's, which counters the ideal of BC's working as a team for the betterment of the wiki. However Aiiane never received the email sent to inform her this was the case and thus exercised her discretion as per usual. She had no reason to seek consent or to assume Mis and Gar were discussing Raine's RFA, as the fact that it was being discussed isn't that normal from what i gather. From what i can see Aiiane acted in good faith in this instance and in the hopes of gaining us a sysop, when the sysop team as a whole was becoming more inactive. The fact it did not work out, is not something I think that can be put on Aiiane.

Over recent months my view on guidelines for BC and sysop discretion has changed greatly. I used to be a staunch opponent of unfettered discretion in the admin team and wanted things clearly stated wit consensus by multiple parties, i think that's my legal background coming through, however that approach simply doesnt work on a wiki. The admin team need the ability to utilise a certain degree of autonomy from one another, otherwise the simple running of the wiki would grind to a halt. Aiiane had no way of knowing that Mis and Gar were even looking into the RFA at the time and thus was asked to make a judgement call and she did, which im fine with.

If you want Kaisha you are free to suggest a policy change that states that where the result is ambiguous, such as a 50/50 split, the RFA needs discussed by all BC's, but as its only been an issue once in over 4 years of wiki operation, i'm not sure theirs a pressing need for it. I hope this answers you're question, as in short im saying "Yes, im fine with what happened".

As for my personal life, thanks for your concern. I'm okay, just getting on with stuff at the moment best I can, but thank you again it is appreciated. :) -- Salome 02:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your answer. I don't know if a policy change should be changed on a 50/50, but I think this message sheds a better light on situation such as Raine's. I think I can respect Aiiane's choices, especially when she was poked to do such and the others hadn't taken a chance, etc. Personally, I'd consulted others with such an rfa as that. More opinions than one - to me tens to help better. Even though at the time, as you said - there were more inactives in the sysop realm. I can't say that I blame her. It was technically in some respects a need, despite the 50/50. I really want to thank you again for your reply. Kaisha 02:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it was Misery's or Gares' obligation to contact Aiiane instead of the other way around? elix Omni 09:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Salome: I'm aware of her past history as a bureaucrat, but I still expect any candidate serious about their possible future term answer such questions themselves. Same reason people debate irl with potential political figures about both their plans for the future and their past actions, even if those are known or easily accessible without such a debate. It's just a matter of being willing to communicate in a manner appropriate for an election, which I'm sure Aiiane will do once the discussion phase rolls in. razor39999 10:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Raz. I understand your point and it's fair enough, but the questions are clearly loaded considering the current debate and the clear agenda being put forward.

@ Felix, where did I say there was an obligation on any party? Please reread what I said. I don't mind debating with you Felix, but I'm not going to debate things I never said. -- Salome 12:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess you could say they were loaded, but considering he recently asked Pling about the same things on his nomination page, as far as I'm concerned that's "unloaded" them enough. So I don't see a reason to not answer them. Besides, it's kind of pointless for the two of us to even argue about (not) answering those questions, it's up to the candidates to decide. As far as I'm concerned I'm looking forward to seeing both Aiiane and Pling's answers, if they choose to do so. razor39999 13:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Salome, I've seen a couple of people suggest that since Gares and Misery didn't contact her, Aiiane was justified in taking action after a week and a half of no decision. It's an understandable position. But it seems to me that after a week and a half of not seeing any discussion going on, it would have made more sense for Aiiane to send a short e-mail or even a talk page message to Gares or Misery saying "Could we talk about Raine's RfA?" instead of assuming they had no opinion whatsoever. It's not really a major issue, but it's definitely something that could have been done better. elix Omni 22:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It may not have been a major issue, Felix, but you certainly have turned it into one. As Misery pointed out this wiki is trolling itself, and sadly, this time you're the one fulfilling the role of the troll. It has been pointed out to you times and times before that it is common for RfAs to be dealt with by an individual bureaucrat and it is not something to be frowned upon. The fact is, she didn't need to consult with the other bureaucrats about that situation. And she was not obliged to contact them either, that's the point of the bureaucrats being fairly autonomous. That's why we have bureaucrat discretion. She had no reason to seek consent or to assume there was a discussion going on, or even start one, as discussions aren't that common from what I have seen on this wiki. It is the standard. - Reanimated X 18:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If acting without discussion is the standard, what drove Misery and Gares to discuss instead of just acting on their initial impressions? I think we can safely say it is Aiiane's standard, but not a general bureaucrat standard. I also don't consider civil discussion to be trolling. elix Omni 23:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The exception proves the rule, Felix. Auron himself said that discussing RFAs was never the norm. But as expected, you quickly forget about all evidence brought to you because of your personal vendetta. If you hadn't, you wouldn't have replied that it was solely Aiiane's standard, and not the norm. And by the way, what exactly about your input in this discussion was civil? You put words in people's mouths, you see refusal to fulfill your every demand as a refusal to communicate, you post pointless loaded questions that would have derailed the whole discussion in pointless drama. The fact was, only your third question had any merit. I'm sorry, but you have been trolling, and that's not just my observation - other users have pointed that out as well. You can call a pear an apple, but that doesn't make it an apple, now does it? - Reanimated X 16:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Different bureaucrat have different ways of operating - some might want to discuss RfAs, some might not. Maybe Aiiane and Auron don't discuss them as much as others. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it isn't. Either way, there's a support section and an oppose section, there are other candidates, and bureaucracy on GWW doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, so who cares and just vote, since that's all this election and other elections will amount to. pling 19:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A subheader, again

"You've served as bureaucrat on GWW for a total of 30 months. What would you say was your greatest achievement as a bureaucrat during any of your terms?"

I'm not really sure what one might go about putting here; being a bureaucrat really isn't about personal achievement so much as keeping the wiki running smoothly. I suppose along that line of thought, one could say that things like this ArbComm case could be seen as accomplishing that goal by not dragging out matters when it would not be helpful overall.

"What about your greatest mistake?"

This one is probably simpler to answer. I'd have to say I'm definitely not proud of how the matter involving J.Kougar played out; I acted in that case in a way that I should not have, regardless of my stance on the actual matter being dealt with. I've learned from that experience, however, and have no desire to repeat it.

"What do you think are the most important qualities for a bureaucrat to have?"

The ability to remain calm while making decisions and during conversations on the wiki.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

My concern

→ moved from User talk:Sardaukar

My concern is if she is reelected despite her past performance, Aiiane will take the result of the election as public approval of her policy of enforcing her personal standards and opinions on the community without regard to consensus. Some parties believe bureaucrat discretion means you can do whatever you want and ignore the consequences. This is incorrect. If anything, bureaucrat discretion means acting without clear consensus when necessary and then seeking consensus for the action afterward. Aiiane promoted Raine without clear consensus last year; that action on its own was within the bounds of what I consider acceptable discretion. However, the decision also showed poor judgment and a lack of foresight, as projected by parties such as myself and as evidenced by the wealth of complaints against Raine in the coming months. Despite this clear evidence that it was a poor decision, Aiiane waited for three quarters of a year to correct her own mistake, and when she did so, she did it in the same fashion that caused people to object the first time around. I personally don't disagree with the immediate demotion but it did establish the pattern that Aiiane doesn't communicate with other bureaucrats and she doesn't care about the public opinion. For this reason I have sought out candidates that I believe would do a better job than her, and for this reason I am committed to vocally opposing her candidacy. elix Omni 23:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

so basically, "baaaaaaaw?"

that's about all i can gather from your paragraph. -Auron 03:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're such a kidder. elix Omni 04:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How much sight do you have on out-of-wiki communication? -- Cyan 07:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

All of it. I'm Felix Omni. All the instances of noncommunication I've cited are confirmed by the other bureaucrats. elix Omni 09:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. By my opinion your arguments clearly hide a personal vendetta against Aiiane, this is no longer usefull information for everybody relevant to this elections. Good luck with whatever you're doing. -- Cyan 09:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by personal vendetta. Obviously I personally believe Aiiane is unfit for the bureaucracy so I am personally arguing against her. Are you suggesting I'm expending all this time and effort solely because Aiiane said I was ugly or something? elix Omni 10:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1+1=2 even if the mathematician is angry. When someone claims 1+1=3, prove the maths wrong. Personal attacks will not help you make a point. To assess a bureaucrat's past performance at re-election time is a good idea. Users on both sides are expected to give convincing arguments as to the suitability of a candidate. Felix Omni attempts the argument against. The other side should tell me that Aiiane has been a good bureaucrat. --31.150.9.44 10:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion you are currently crawling in every possible corner to find a weakness which can effortly convice others about the incapability of Aiiane as bureaucrat. Your first questions were reasonable, but later one it got mixed with trolling and unusefull discussions. Of course, I don't suspect that what I think will change your behaviour, or that you even care. And Im not suggesting anything, because you motives are unclear for me. The whole situation is irritating and no longer reasonable. Last, we will never agree in this matter, so I think its best for me to stop commenting. -- Cyan 12:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I most certainly do care about your opinion, but if you don't wish to continue the discussion I won't press you. elix Omni 20:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is pretty much a complete joke to the wiki, Felix. I doubt anyone takes anything you say remotely seriously. I'd imagine some people were on the fence before, but now there's not much left to the imagination; it's pretty clear your arguments and reality have very little to do with each other. Please refrain from continuing to disrupt this bcrat election with pointless and nonsensical comments and accusations or risk a ban. -Auron 20:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Auron, if you could come up with a counterargument instead of slathering me with disdain I'd be much obliged. elix Omni 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

While Felix may not have made the most persuasive arguments, I believe the concerns raised here are relevant and of interest to voters. Felix has not been the only person other than myself to express concern, he has simply been the most vocal.

I am somehwat concerned by your comments here Auron as they are bordering on sysop tool abuse. It is not clear what exactly you want Felix to stop doing, you were careful to be vague with your threats, but if you were to consider any discussion of this issue that you didn't like to be disruptive or nonsensical it puts you in a position to ban at will anyone who doesn't fall in line with your opinion. I would not like to see discussion quashed in such a heavy handed manner.

You have not aided the discussion very much yourself, in fact your comments have been mostly limited to stating that other editor's arguments are nonsensical and claiming that your interpretation of policy and practice on this wiki is the only possible interpretation and in a manner at least as combatative and disruptive as Felix's. I don't really want this to degenerate into a discussion about the differences between how you and Felix are acting, so if you wish to respond at length, please move the second and third paragraph of this post to your own talk page and we can continue by all means. 79.226.49.38 23:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Felix; obvious trolling is obvious. You are not the first troll to attempt to disrupt bcrat elections with seemingly relevant (but not actually relevant, when you look at them) conversation and questions. I've yet to see an argument that paints Aiiane in a negative light. In her years of service, she's done only two things that raise eyebrows - and she's offered explanations in both cases. Even if the explanations are shit and you don't really agree with them, that's a long time for someone to not fuck up in other ways. Trying to burn someone at the stake for two fuckups that weren't even that serious to begin with tells me that the fuckups aren't really the focus at all, especially given all the other straws you've attempted to grasp at to "prove" Aiiane unsuitable for the role of bcrat (namely, omg other bcrats sure seem to resign a lot around Aiiane).

You claim that Aiiane is "extraordinarily unfit for positions of authority" without offering any solid proof or evidence as to her supposed failures at the job - your only point being that she doesn't communicate as much as you would like her to. If she was extraordinarily unfit for the role, would her extraordinarily long service in the position not be riddled with constant fuckups and mistakes? You claim, in the same edit, that her "presence as a bureaucrat is harmful to the wiki," yet you are unable to offer any proof or evidence of said harm - and given her years in the position, one would figure that harm would be easy to find. Yet you don't link to any. This suggests that either no harm actually exists and you lied through your teeth, or you were simply too lazy to gather evidence despite demanding it of everyone else in the conversation.

Either way, your argument is unfounded and lacks proof of any kind, let alone proof of massive detriment to the wiki which you claim her presence entails. As soon as you find hitherto unnoticed evidence of said detriment to the wiki, you are free to back up your "case" against Aiiane - but so far it's complete waffle, and I'm calling it for the bullshit it is. -Auron 23:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I only see this as insulting and disparaging. I don't know how others will see this. Felix has every right to question Aiiane and she has every right to defend herself. I do not see anything trolling from Felix. Especially, when other users like Misery has questioned her actions as well. Other users have every right to help show the good that Aiiane has done to show if she should be worthy of a B-crat again or not and some users like Salome has pointed this out. I'd like to see this settled without the need to remove a user from the wiki over trying to understand motives, etc. Kaisha 23:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Auron, the key similarity between "unqualified" and "grossly unqualified" is the "unqualified" part. Aiiane herself has pointed out that there is very little call for bureaucratic action, so even a single mistake or example of poor judgment is still significant. elix Omni 00:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Kaisha, stop trolling. There's a difference between unbiased discussion, which this is not and the witch-hunt that Felix has started. I'm sorry but this whole thing reminds me of the Scythe-Auron affair. - Reanimated X 06:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trolling. I'm stating a fact. I'm sorry you can't see that. Also, what is biased about Felix's questions? I don't see anything personal between him and Aiiane on here. I don't hold anything personal either. I, like others, have concerns. Have you not noticed this from Misery as well, Reanimated? Kaisha 06:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Downtime

Contributors have expressed themselves, sometimes to great degrees, on this page. Hackles have been raised, people have felt offended, and clarity has fought with muddied water.

There are two more days before this election moves onto the next phase. I do not foresee any new perspectives being raised in that time. So while I do not wish to protect this page as a means to reduce tension, I will go that route if I see more of the same continuing between now and then.

As is customary, if you feel you have not slighted any of your fellow contributors in the above page, please take the time to reassess that stance. We are all aware of how text fails to accurately convey our intentions.

There is no need to add onto this particular section which I've created. Thank you. G R E E N E R 15:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)