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

A newcomer arrives

I realise you are not a newcomer to the wiki, but you have never held a position of responsibility here. I recognise your name, but I'm not really active these days so I find it hard know exactly what your role on the wiki is. A very brief glance through your contributions yielded some constructive edits and some fairly benign discussion on user talk pages. I did find this one edit that was showed some of your discussion style and thoughts on administrative matters, but otherwise I feel in the dark. Would you be care to expand upon why you think accepting this nomination was worthwhile and why people should support you? 79.226.23.75 11:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the very question I expected upon accepting this nomination and will attempt to explain fully as to why I was driven to give this election a shot (bear with me);

As you may (or may not) be aware of, I am extremely active on the GW2W. I have a lot of social and personal investment in that wiki. The GWW however, is on a different level altogether for me. I lurk around and closely monitor the admin team. I have followed and educated myself about the various incidents around here and only very sporadically make edits to the actual content of this wiki (which is what I mean with no personal investment). So to speak I am as up-to-date as the other candidates, without the edit count to boot.

That said, I believe a bureaucrat should at all times remain objective. The more personal and emotional investment involved, the bigger the risk of a biased bureaucrat. This does not mean I believe the other candidates to automatically fall within the biased area, rest assured. In fact I know very well that obtaining support within this community is something that may be mere illusion: the other candidates are not only involved on a much closer level; they are also more experienced with first-hand attendance. I understand if the wiki would prefer a local bureaucrat. As mentioned, I believe a bureaucrat is best off isolated from certain fields to ensure the wiki is functioning as it should, with limited (ideally none) incidents for the bureaucrats to get involved with. I am not involved (much) with this community and believe this is my forte in this election.

The flip-side to this is obviously a lack of trust in me (even as a candidate). This I can not "fix" in a flash and the only solution — aside from addressing the questions here — would be to start getting involved, which is the exact opposite of what I feel a bureaucrat should aspire. The last thing I would want here is to end up biased. I will address issues when requested, but I will otherwise remain a separate individual for the well-being of this wiki (save the discussions I am required to participate in, were I to become bureaucrat, of course). I will ensure to answer any questions raised here to hopefully gain the trust required for support. Everyone has to start somewhere and I trust myself sooner in a bureaucrat position than in a sysop position, due to the limitations of content-altering tools.

I will inform you that had I not planned to participate in this election, I would have ensured to not be nominated in the first place. Restating; this is, in fact, a serious attempt for election.

To summarize;

• I am a separate individual within this community, solely concerned about the well-being of the wiki (and the game itself).
• I have no emotional/personal investment in this wiki to ensure objectiveness, which is something any bureaucrat should aspire.
• I understand if this wiki prefers a local bureaucrat, and I support whatever decision ends up being made.
• I believe a bureaucrat is best off less involved with the community and more involved with the wiki itself.
• I will address any questions to ensure users can trust me in this position (if not now, perhaps in the future).
• I could have stopped this nomination prior to being nominated had I intended to.

I hope this clears things up and I look forward to answering future questions and issues. - Infinite - talk 13:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Worst case, don't worry, all the best bureaucrats lose their first few elections. —Tanaric 18:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That gives me hope :P Koda 21:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As requested by Felix Omni

Felix contacted me via IRC to appoint me of my daily activity in the IRC channel whilst claiming to have no personal investment in the wiki. This is something I feel should be resolved and elaborated upon during this election. If anything, I can put my various insights on the table regarding my aspired position on this wiki.

TahiriVeila's block

On 19 June 2011, TahiriVeila was blocked by Auron for past behaviour that mainly consists of trolling. This block was linked to IRC with questions. Auron was not present on IRC at that time. Although I was not asked personally, I decided investigation could not hurt. It was posted in the public channel and thus there should be no objections. It was however expressed to not mention it here until Auron was contacted (this has since transpired).
One of the questions regarding this block was the timing; the timing of the block, including the evidence to justify said block were not following active policies. In short, a block was handed out without direct justification. It was then asked if TahiriVeila was allowed an appeal. I simply concluded yes. The direct circumstances allow TahiriVeila an appeal.
Another important factor that comes with this block is Auron's reasoning aside the so-called evidence. This is where I step into a very sensitive area within this wiki. Many may conclude that they no longer care about the justification of this block; these users are (at least silently) happy enough to see this user go. Many may consider this a good thing. I am not interested in any of that. After checking the contributions made by this user I concluded that this user was in fact risky to keep around with many actions that break policy at first (throughout time), but realized that this user (at least logged in) has a majority of contributions that are nowhere near wiki-threatening behaviour. You read that correctly, this user was actually beneficial to this wiki in general at this time.
But that does not mean I believe TahiriVeila's block was a bad decision. Behind the scenes (and in the past) is where we find strong reasoning to merit a block. I am not disputing Auron's decision. All I want to clear up is that the timing and given reason for this block was messy and not addressing the problems directly, which fully justifies contesting this block (but as I mentioned, the arguments exist in this user's behaviour over a longer timeframe and was still apparent up to that day, so contesting it would not change anything).

In short, Auron should have taken more time to accurately justify the block with his comment (and not leave it up for any interpretation that would allow others to contest the block). Contesting the block would take time away from documenting the game and the is best left alone (or at least in Auron's hands).

Other IRC "complications"

Users reading this may question how all of this could happen behind the wiki-scenes. Is the IRC really that vital to the wiki structure? The answer; no.
The IRC is a simple method to contact a multitude of admins and regular users (of both wikis). It is a separate entity altogether that is usually filled with non-wiki related topics. It is just convenient from time to time. But it is true that my presence here was from afar, mostly from IRC. The people there are nice and we have a lot of laughs. Equally from time to time we have discussions and arguments; we're all still people with opinions. If anything, I observe that in a lot of cases the admins present on IRC can at times disagree. About everything, including this wiki. Regular users express their opinions also; in a way there is isolated transparency. And the key is isolation: they are truly separate.
Felix wished me to address this and so I did. Any questions relating to me as a candidate are welcomed. I strongly recommend not starting any discussion here regarding the example (the block) of the effectiveness of IRC. I would like to conclude with the fact that I am a daily visitor on IRC and can be contacted there as well. I hope this all gave any reader more insight into my perspectives on things.

Thank you for reading and thank you, Felix, for bringing up the topic in the first place. - Infinite - talk 19:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify?

You posted a wall of text about something that happened off-wiki; it's not clear to me what it has to do with the election. Could you clarify?

1. I do not understand why what possibly happened on IRC matters at all on this wiki (except, of course, on a personal level to those involved).
   • In previous RfAs, BC elections, the community has generally and quickly rejected using outside behaviors as part of the evaluation process (whether positive or negative).
   • As a voter, I have no way of learning what might really have happened outside the wiki; I have to rely on hearsay evidence of the participants...and I will never be able to see the full context.
2. I do not understand why Tahiri's block is relevant — that was an action taken by someone who is not running for BC; it might or might not have been justified, but that is a topic for a block appeal.
3. I have read twice through the WoT above. While I appreciate that Infinite took the time to share his opinion of current events, I am not sure what I was supposed to learn about Infinite or any of the other current candidates for this BC election.

— Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand either TEF... :0-- Necro Shea Mo 02:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Infinite, do you think Felix used you to bust Auron's balls because of some constructive criticism he didn't like? Sardaukar 04:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you think Felix asked Infinite to comment on TV's ban at all? I asked him to disclose that he was active on IRC, nothing else. elix Omni 04:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The events are relevant due to them being about something which I feel transpired incorrectly ("amateur" could be an accurate phrasing) on the wiki. The only reason I brought it up now was to give readers the perspectives they requested (in this case Felix requested me to include IRC, of which I used an example of what transpired there). I feel every single interested user has the right to know where I stand on recent events. It matters because it is about the wiki and should've remained on the wiki in transparency (and not publically on an isolated channel).

• Outside behaviours that influence the wiki even in the slightest are still relevant and should be included.
• This is the same issue I have with IRC, personally, when it regards wiki issues; there is a definite lack of transparency when issues are taken publically off-wiki. I believe all users (at least those involved in the discussion that takes place elsewhere) should have access to the entire discussion. The voters and users in general should not feel excluded in any way, if discussion off-wiki regards them.
  

The block itself is not relevant, as I specified: My perspectives on it and how it came to be are. A bureaucrat should evaluate dubious cases of any admin, whether they are requested so or not. If someone does something out of line (or incompletely), it should be commented upon. Auron does not have to be running for BC to have his actions reflected.

Finally, the first topic on this talk page says it all; I am a newcomer for most users within this community. If I genuinely wish to gain support, I feel it is required for me to give them at least some insight in my point of view. I can't just barge in, accept the nomination and expect to be elected. The other bureaucrats are mainly appointed of past events they were involved with firsthand. Due to those events genuinely lacking for myself, I can at least share what I felt about recent events from a distance. It is meant to give some insight in my trail of thoughts. The voters are to judge whether I sound objective and accurate enough to be anywhere near a BC position. As for the other candidates, if you feel I should share my insight regarding them, then by all means; you only have to request it.

Again, I hope readers learn more about me and can decide what that merits in the voting stage. I thank you for your time (especially Tennessee Ernie Ford for his response with more interesting questions and arguments).

P.S: Felix (or anyone for that matter) can not expect to be "using" me on any occasion; I aspire total objectivity and am aware when I would be "used" for my position. - Infinite - talk 15:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Infinite: Thank you for taking the time to post a prompt and thorough response (and I apologize for being tardy with my thanks). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Relevant?

Dude goes out of his way to communicate with (disgruntled) editors and desperately encourages the continual input and correction of beneficial contributions. This user mediates with far less douchebaggery than most editors (unless merely in jest and even then only in trivial matters). I realize what the scoreboard looks like at this point, but I wanted to add my two cents in relation to this subject. Teddy Dan 00:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)