Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Auron

Note: This RFA has been resolved. Please do not add further support/oppose opinions.

Auron

This request is for the reconfirmation of User:Auron talk • contribs • logs.
Created by: User:Horrible 16:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Result

Successful 16:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. He's been active a bit less than a year ago. Steve1 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC) If he's willing to accept that "on call" status I'd definitely keep him as an admin. As per Snograt and Infinite. Steve1 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
2. Support. Auron still browses this Wiki from time to time and remains reachable on the GW2W Discord. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Support. It's Auron, for pete's sake. If he doesn't accept, I'll be very cross. — snograt 17:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

   :( -Auron 11:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

   aww :( — snograt 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

4. Support. There is no other sysop with the same attitude and appeal that Auron has displayed and will likely continue to display. Browsing throughout the list of reconfirmations, this is the one GWW should care most about. - Infinite - talk 21:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

   I'm way more mellow now, thanks though love <3 -Auron 11:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

5. Support. Someone has to be the "bad guy" who enforces the tough decisions, and for much of my time on both wikis, that has been Auron's role to fill. While Auron can be a bit coarse at times, I think he fills an important role among the admins, and the administration team and the wiki as a whole would be much worse for the removal of his admin tools, even if he's taken less of an active role as of late. Aqua (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support. If Auron is willing to stay on in an "standby" capacity as discussed here, I feel we'd be lucky to keep him. horrible | contribs 00:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Support. As per my numerous comments on this debate and in light of the emerging role of standby sysops; I feel any sysop interested in retaining their sysop rights, should be allowed to do so. -- Salome 16:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
8. Support. I have faith in Auron aiming to do what's best for the wiki. Greener (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
9. Support. Auron said he doesn't mind sticking around to block/delete/protect as needed and is still interested enough to help defray some of the drama over these proceedings. No reason to not have him on standby. Toraen - talk 16:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. While this user has been a fine sysop in the past, years of inactivity shows a lack of continued interest in the role. I thank them for their previous work. horrible | contribs 16:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Auron's indicated on his talk that he does not want the position anymore, we shouldn't force it on him. He probably doesn't feel the nagging obligation the way I would, but it seems right to respect his wishes all the same. Toraen - talk 05:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Per Aurons feelings and saying on his talk page he no longer cares to have this responsibility. Drogo Boffin 06:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I've been keeping track of the wiki (despite my dead edit history) and I can agree with the spirit of the discussions. Not many people are left here from the old crew, and after almost a decade, I can see the merit of cleaning up redundancies. Perhaps it is more useful to new users who don't want to sift through a sea of sysops that may or may not answer questions or react in a timely manner to a situation. It might also reduce the chance of an old account being compromised and causing havok with blanket bans and deletes. However, no matter how old a wiki is or how little work there is to do, I don't like the precedent of removing community-earned privileges solely on the basis of inactivity or a lack of work.

Ultimately, my question is this: What does this solve? If we add a new core group of active administrators, what will they do that our current group cannot? Additionally, what does removing our list of inactive administrators do for the long-term health of the wiki? Active edits aren't necessary for us to be here in case something happens. Ultimately, I'm not sure I see what the end-goal here is beyond making the list look nicer. The activity-categories are there for a reason, and I'm not sure I like the idea of removing tools from a member solely because it's been a while.

That being said, I still do see the merits of cleaning up and making things easier for anyone trying to contact an active sysop. I just don't see enough positives to give full support to the idea. -- Traveler (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)