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

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 x 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 22:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Pling has served as a bureaucrat for a total of 6 months (1 2). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure anything I did can be described as an "achievement", but my term involved a couple of arbcomms: one of which was accepted and resolved and the other declined. I think there were also some RfAs, but my userrights log doesn't show me promoting or demoting anyone. I remember being bureaucrat during about five of Auron's recon requests, don't ask me which one.
• I dunno. If there were any, I obviously learned from them enough to forget all about them.
• Weighing up comments in RfAs is pretty much the only regular thing they do.
• Pro-nucular. pling 20:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the responses. I remember reading shortly after the Fukushima Daiichi disaster about a European energy analyst who was previously staunchly anti-nuclear, but after the disaster changed his opinion entirely. He essentially said "We've seen the worst that can happen, and it wasn't that bad." I pretty much agree with him. elix Omni 20:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Continuing the off-topic talk: Fukushima wasn't the worst that could happen. He is a stupid "energy analyst" if he really believes that. poke | talk 20:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe he was a journalist, I don't remember. My talk page would be a good place to continue this discussion. elix Omni 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

← moved to User_talk:Felix_Omni#No_nukes.3F_Nukes.3F_What.27s_the_Straight_Dope_on_Nukalar_safety.3F

Ability to remain impartial

I would like to know how you feel about your ability to remain impartial while making decisions. I have in the past seen your personal feelings about issues clouding your judgement and believe you tend to feel too passionately about this wiki and the issues on it to make decisions based upon logic and consensus.

As an example I will put forwards Wynthyst's request for reconfirmation before she resigned. You were one of the nominating parties and after the votes were cast you absolutely refused to discuss the outcome of the vote, stating simply that you requested the confirmation and voted against her and still believed she should lose her rights, regardless of what the outcome of the vote was. At the time Tanetris was for Wynthyst retaining her rights, but at least took the time to discuss with me the outcome of the vote, but you basically decided to ignore what had taken place on the reconfirmation page.

Was this an isolated event? Do you feel you would still act in this manner if a similar situation were to arise again, ignoring the wants of the community completely on the basis of your personal feelings?

Have a nice day,

A piece of Misery 79.226.37.116 20:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I skimmed the msn log between us:

• 20/07/2009 21:17:58 Pling Misery purely by numbers, she has 35-15, which isn't really the 3:1 thing the policy suggests
• 20/07/2009 21:18:10 Pling Misery going by reasoning, that's for you to decide
• 20/07/2009 21:18:17 Pling Misery i'm a tad biased here

As you said, I requested a recon and opposed during the RfA. That's why I abstained from discussing or determining the outcome, leaving it to you and Tanetris to deal with. I might point out that abstention is also an option during arbcomms, usually used when a bureaucrat is too involved in the issue, as was the case during this RfA. If I was too involved in an issue in the future, whether I was sysop or bureaucrat, I probably would abstain again. pling 21:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that it is the correct approach to remove yourself from decision making processes when you are unable to overcome personal bias, would it not have been better if you were able to set aside your personal opinion and discuss the matter at hand in an objective manner? I admit that this is a comparison of an ideal situation with what occured in reality. I am merely seeking your answer as an insight into your character. 79.226.52.149 23:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the correct approach to remove yourself from decision-making whenever you're involved, whether you've overcome personal bias or not. When I'm personally attacked by a user, do I block him for personal attacks? Probably not; I let another admin sort it out. There's a reason we have three bureaucrats and not just one or even two. Your questions indicate you've already judged my character, so I'm not sure how pointless this response will be. pling 19:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am usually able to overcome my personal biases, but as I don't have a valid account with 100 edits I guess I will take your approach of removing myself from the decision making process when personal bias is involved. Good luck Pling. Nice response to Reanimated X on Aiiane's discussion by the way. It's coming pretty close to what I was hoping people would realise. 79.226.23.75 11:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pruning

The entire pruning debacle, Pling's banning me from IRC without provocation and his complete refusal to even acknowledge my requests for the block to be lifted have convinced he's incapable of remaining partial. He was completely willing to use his sysop abilities to harass users he didn't like, and I don't see why a user like that should be allowed to continue on as a bcrat.--TahiriVeila 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

IRC has nothing to do with the wiki, so please keep that out.

“use his sysop abilities to harass users” – do you have any examples where he used his sysop status to do that? poke | talk 22:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't an admin during User talk:Pling/Pruning - I just got the discussion going and tabled the ideas. pling 23:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tahiri, you do realize bureaucrats are less likely to use sysop tools than regular sysops, right? elix Omni 00:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I realize that yes Felix. I wasn't aware that you weren't an admin when you started that page. But it's exactly the kind of drama-whoring that detracts from the performance of the wiki. Half the users Pling brought up ( and eventually got blocked) weren't even active at the time. Yet you argued (and successfully got many of them blocked) that these users should be suspended for actions that had often already been adressed. In my opinion he had a great dislike for the members of the PvX community on GWW and simply decided to harass them. That's not the behavior I think a bcrat should exhibit. I realize that he'll probably get voted through anyway, but I feel the need to voice my opinion.--TahiriVeila 00:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That pruning was actually the best thing we could ever do to resolve the general drama and trolling that was around back then.. But maybe that's just me. Also blaming Pling alone would be very wrong, given that many people actually participated in that discussion. If it was such a bad idea, then it would have never get so much attention as it did. poke | talk 00:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't blame pling completely. There were plenty of other people who supported the change. He happens to be the only one who pushed strongly for it who is also running for bcrat.--TahiriVeila 00:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

But since many people that supported the pruning effort weren't sysops or bureaucrats at the time (including pling), shouldn't you be more worried about the ones that aren't running for bureaucrat? elix Omni 00:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What?--TahiriVeila 00:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to prune you. elix Omni 00:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

wat?--TahiriVeila 00:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

TV, you’re one infraction away from being perma banned around here and you have the audacity to play the victim card?

"drama-whoring that detracts from the performance of the wiki"

Really? You don’t care about the performance of the wiki. If you did, you wouldn’t have been banned as many times as you have been. And even if the pruning took a little while to sort out, the result was a blissful, uneventful few months without you and your cohorts slowing down the wiki’s performance. Also, stirring up drama here isn’t helping your case. Sardaukar 05:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

While most of what you just said may be true, Sardauker, it was almost entirely criticism of TV rather than the argument he submitted. For the most part you should respond to the comment, not the commentator. That being said, I can't imagine Pling coming across as a "dramawhore." elix Omni 06:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at my contribs for the last 2 months. If you've got a problem with me, take it to my talk page. Don't bring it up here.--TahiriVeila 12:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

/agree - The pruning incident, much like the Watergate Conspiracy or the Bush Administration, Has left a permanent black mark. One that casts serious doubt on a user's ability to remain impartial. --BriarThe Spider 08:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just /popcorning during that "incident", but it's pretty much what you would call a "crowning moment of awesome" for Pling and not something that should be taken as a minus against him. It was the first step of lessening the troll problem this wiki has. razor39999 14:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Fight trolling with drama and more trolling?--TahiriVeila 14:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting a plan of action to deal with trolling might be drama but hardly more trolling. The drama part was, unfortunately, unavoidable. razor39999 14:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and would argue that the entire plan was a passive-aggressive form of trolling. But I'm not going to comment on this page anymore because, as another user noted above, the sysops here don't appreciate it much when I express my opinion.--TahiriVeila 14:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh it's hard to figure out why! I'm sure he was both passive aggressive and drama whoring. Now go back to pvx with the other 13 year old boys. -Cursed Angel 14:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@TV: So suggesting the removal of trolls is considered trolling? Aqua (T|C) 03:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pruning +1

Pruning is one reason I support Pling as a b'crat: he took a proactive stance to improve the environment here, built consensus, adapted it based on feedback, and helped see that at least some useful piece of the idea was implemented. Net result from my point of view: a safer place to be a contributor.

For those who weren't around (or don't remember): Pling created a page that said, it's bad to let trolls disrupt the wiki. Let's do our best to remove the worst offenders. The basic identification criteria were: those who continuously derail discussions, annoy/harass other contributors, and/or otherwise get in the way of providing the most effect GW knowledge base possible.

A lot of people contributed to the discussion. There was debate about how far back in the past to review, whether to consider useful edits by the putative trolls, and whether to try to include people in the gray areas between troll and last place in Miss Congeniality contests. (And, by and large, none of those were factors.) I have no way of telling whether any of those supporting the idea had any personal issues with any of the named individuals, but a 5-minute review of the contributions of those specifically named leaves little doubt that (at the time) they fit the overall criteria above. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Pruning was a good idea, but I don't trust (I feel uneasy in other words) him as a b-crat cause he does take personal with bans, etc. over things that don't need it or needed less bans like for example a perma on me over a picture (others have had worse images imo)... Which Aiiane reverted. Also, the things with Wyn and other editors. Honestly, I don't think he'd be able to be un-biased. I just wonder in the future or now, if he's learned from his mistakes then. If he can be un-biased. If he can, I'd like to see examples. So far, I don't much think I've seen much of any to change my mind. I did respect him, until I've seen some actions to have my thinking more this way now... I'd like to respect again, but I'd like to see examples to help prove to me that he'd be a good candidate. Pruning is only one, but imo not enough. Not when people still try to get away with things. Kaisha 18:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you give some links where his actions were "personal" and "biased" as you say? Cause from what I know of the situation with Wyn, it wasn't just him annoyed with her behaviour at that time. That is if you're referring to the time in late 2009 if I recall correctly when people asked for his RfR? razor39999 17:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Pling/Archive_box/2010_Jan-Mar. Enjoy. Kaisha 17:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, so I read that, out of those blocks discussed on the page, it seems only yours was undeserved. So yeah, he probably is biased against you if that's any indication. I doubt there's a bias against the other ones though, they seemed like logical decisions. razor39999 18:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And biased against Wyn. To me, if anyone becomes biased against others. Would that hurt their decisions as b-crat? It's something I am concerned on. Kaisha 18:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm another one who doesn't have any problem with what Pling did. The atmosphere on the wiki at the time was positively toxic, and he did what was necessary to fix things. You'll never get rid of all the bitching and moaning, but at least it's more civil now. -- Hong 12:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not been, and currently am not, interested so much in the background of the "pruning" effort as I am in the sour grapes being posted against this candidate, specifically by those who were "pruned". Imo, if you disagreed with the actions taken, you HAD defined appeal rights--- which you either used (and lost) or didn't bother with. In either case, bringing your personal bias (for or against) a candidate is NOT an appropriate action----NOR is this an appropriate venue for your "anguished feelings". Sorry, but for a candidate, I much prefer commentary appropriate to the position the vote is for--and to the candidate's qualifications (or lack thereof) for THAT position. Undouble 16:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)