Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Auron/Archive 4/Archive

Comments

"[...] I was going to start an RfA for him myself, but Poke beat me to it. - Tanetris"

Lies! "<Tanetris> Auron: Go make an RfA page for yourself, say I nominated you and you accept. Too lazy to do it right now." :D poke | talk 21:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note on his time as BC

On GW2 wiki BC may be able to use sysop tools like a sysop however on this wiki they are not - they are only given them for technical purposes and are very limited in what they can do and when they can do it. A BC is not a sysop and does not represent heir ability as a sysop. During his time as BC his role involved reviewing cases which people believed had become significant enough that the admin's ability to deal with them was no longer effective - which tallied at around 2-3 times he had to do anything (which was balanced by two others anyway)I believe. As a BC he was not given half the power a sysop is allowed, nor was he involved with any of the daily tasks a sysop is, such as dealing with problem users prior to their being brought up for ArbCom, he had no more power than an average user until it was brought before ArbCom - and arguably less power than a sysop even then. It is for this reason I beleive user votes citing his (you have to admit) hardly extensive term as BC as their only reason this proposal should be accepted - when his prior one failed - to be misguided. If we gave Eloc BC position for the same period of time and he didn't "break anything" - which given the narrow scope and limited involvement a BC has it wouldn't be too hard - I doubt people would want him with sysop powers. Being an admin is very different from being a BC. Auron didn't prove anything about his suitability to the admin role during his time as BC. Even Eloc is capable of banning vandals and others who repeatedly violate policy - it's the situations where things could be solved without a ban or the use of sysop tools I don't want Auron to be a sysop. 122.104.161.96 17:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the admin policy was changed not too long ago to give bcrats more of the sysop power. Auron 'has used that for "daily sysop work", with good judgement, in several cases during his bcrat period. I would guess that is what people are referring to. Apart from the fact he is/has been sysop on other wikis, and that could weigh in. - anja 17:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if you believe Auron didn't do enough/any sysop work as a bureaucrat, there are so many other reasons to support Auron that it seems difficult to oppose. -- calor (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying there are many reasons to support without listing any of them is as good as me saying I'll pay you tommorrow for a pie I buy today. I admit I wasn't aware the policy had changed - it seems a small number of people who propose these changes eventually sneak them through when no-one catches them, but prevent changes they don't want - however it seems the changes limit their power even then to near foolproof and non volatile task such as deleting pages with tags - as per the deletion policy, or in situations where no admin was unavailable (which knowing the wiki as it is I doubt has ever happened - let alone when auron was bc). If promoting someone based on their ability to delete pages alone was how we did it, 90% of RFAs would likely be unopposed - many wikis have bots which do this. It's the discretion which is not allowed to BCs - and thus Auron has never had - which is the problem. PvX wiki is a benchmark for a troll and vandal training ground and meeting place. Guild Wiki has a lot less traffic (especially when you consider the main problem areas in this wiki - developer feedback) compared to GWW. 122.104.161.96 18:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My primary reason for supporting Auron is because he's the type of guy who won't but up with any BS, and would deal with vandals and trolls quickly and efficiently with as little dramatic side effects as possible. What you say about the standards set for RfA's is true. Almost every RfA, if not every, would go unopposed if it was simply "Support. This user can delete pages". No RfA candidate, assuming we focus on actions on this wiki, has had an opportunity to exercise discretion, so saying "This user hasn't exercised discretion" is pretty flawed logic. Perhaps on other wikis Auron has, at least in your eyes, not performed up to expectations. But he is a candidate for admin on this wiki, and so his actions in other venues should by and large be disregarded, and we should focus on his actions on this wiki. -- calor (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

<reset indent> To clarify, my point isn't I oppose him because he hasn't demonstrated the ability to exercise discretion. As you said, most people haven't. My point is people claiming his time as BC demonstrated an ability to be Sysop is false as the most important consideration for being a sysop is how the discretion will be used. Otherwise most people can perform most sysop functions provided they know wiki policy, which many users unsuited to being sysop do.

• I agree he doesn't need to demonstrate an ability to use discretion by actually using it, obviously because he has none.
• That was actually my point, he never had discretion as a BC and so people who said being a BC means he demonstrated ability to be a sysop are wrong, because he never had discretion.
• Without justification other than "because he didn't fail at being a BC" or the incredibly weak "what he said" I don't think people properly considered their votes and the reasons for them given the differences between sysop and BC I pointed out here.
• I think many people can deal with trolls and vandals. I don't think that makes them a good sysop.

As I have said elsewhere I will likely not respond here again, I have made my point and tried to be clear what it was and my reasoning for it. 122.104.161.96 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just in response to your vote;
That's why we have sysop teams. I wouldn't be the end-all solution to every problem on the wiki - hell, I probably wouldn't see half of them. Problems where diplomacy is required would most likely be dealt with by someone else; problems where more aggression is required would most likely be dealt with by me. Neither case happens 100% of the time, so, naturally, the best admin team would be the one capable of dealing with all situations.
Also, stop it with the fallacious argument. You bring up J.Kougar's case to make the point that, because I'm (supposedly) incapable of doing anything other than banning, I would be unable to deal with people like Kougar. Guess what? Diplomacy didn't work either. He stopped when he got bored, not when any particular person "diplomatically" calmed him down. Do more research on past events before bringing them up, unless throwing out red herrings is part of your plan of attack. -Auron 20:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm reasoning my logic not "attacking" or throwing out red herrings. I pointed out J Kougar as an example of when bans (and aggressive action) did not work - and created more drama. Not an example of when "diplomacy" does. Any admin that can't deal with a situation where you perceive your role would be isn't a very good admin. All admin should be capable of banning someone causing trouble if the situation requires it. Admin teams aren't about having an admin for different actions, you don't stake out territory and act in that. Situations where less aggressive action works are obviously not as prominent - because that's the whole point of them. Aggression should not be something synonymous with a sysop, you wouldn't want an aggressive police officer so why would you want an aggressive sysop?. Everyone agrees some people need to be dealt with, but that is currently being done by people who aren't aggressive. I'm not going to change my vote again but I haven't changed my mind about aggression being a terrible thing to support in a sysop. 122.104.161.96 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RfRecon

Cite please. --Riddle 04:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? I'm not trying to convince anyone, and per policy not required to. Suffice to say I thought Auron's trolling to be a good thing as long as he limited it to vandals' talk pages. — Why 12:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to oppose a RfR? Cause most of the people voting for it seem to be acting like bads. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 02:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, only supports count. If there is enough support for a request of reconfirmation, then a new RfA process is started, where everybody can participate again, and decide if the users should remain as a sysop, or not. poke | talk 07:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to miss the point of this RfRecon? Watching backlogs ain't convincing me. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 08:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In regards to: "Abuses his Sysop, hates ANET, hates Guildwars... doesn't deserve to be an admin whatsoever.--'ÑöẊĭƑýtalk 15:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)": A dislike of Anet has no bearing on his abilities as a janitor sysop on this wiki. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 13:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, a dislike for Guild Wars has no bearing on his abilities to clean the mess caused by the kids trying to go at each other on the wiki. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 14:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest becoming a sysop is a pain in the first place, being required to reconfirm under straight voting doesn't seem the fairest way forward to me. Surely a sysop should be judged upon how they've acted as a sysop and evidence of abuse of the sysop tools or being unfit for being a sysop, should be key to starting any reconfirmation, not just the number of votes? -- Salome 15:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy change suggestions can go elsewhere, and the reconfirmation is a two step process, as Poke stated above. If there's enough support for a reconfirmation, it goes back to a vote, where he may very well be reconfirmed as a sysop. I'd imagine the process is the way it is to prevent a sysop from automatically being a lifetime appointee. Freedom Bound 15:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

However being a sysop is supposed to be a lifetime appointment or until the person either no longer wishes to be a sysop or that the sysop is deemed unfit for their role. Surely one should have to provide some measure of proof rather than this being a simple popularity contest. However as stated in the policy for reconfirmations, if one takes place is open to BC discretion, without proof it is unlikely that any of them will take this forward to the next stage. -- Salome 15:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wyn stated that after one year, a single vote for reconfirmation would start the process (here). Freedom Bound 15:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

She said "can", thats not "will". BC's still have complete discretion. -- Salome 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok, "could" start the process. To get back to evidence, I can't remember the first time I saw posts from Auron that made me question whether or not he was appropriate to be a sysop, but I can point to the ones from today. Freedom Bound 17:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what does that have to do with his role as a sysop? Misery 18:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sysops are entrusted with powers to do the wiki good. Statements like undermine my trust in the discretion that comes along with the position. If you're asking if it is directly related to an abuse of sysop powers, I fully admit that it is not. It has everything, however, to do with the level of support that a new candidate for sysop-hood would receive, hence my interest in a reconfirmation. Freedom Bound 18:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So... you're questioning his ability to be a sysop because of something completely unrelated to his performance? --67.240.83.137 18:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not support Auron attacking Arenanet via Linsey. First of all she is not a programmer but a very valued member of the Life Team. Secondly I do share his "irritation" about latency. The best I can advice is an internal discussion with Auron and the other Sysops including the bureaucrats about "keeping face". They will solve it together. There still is freedom of speech though. And I trust Arenanet members to be VERY capable of answering if they feel the need to. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 18:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

@67.240.83.137 That pretty much sums it up. My point is that if he were up for sysop-hood today, that type of interaction on the wiki would very much be taken into consideration, by me. I can speak for no one else. I see no reason why such interactions would not be considered in the process, either this request for reconfirmation or the initial request for adminship. Freedom Bound 18:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I love this overwhelming amount of evidence showing Auron abusing his Sysop tools. With this vast amount, he shall be neutered of his Sysop powers in no time. Good job, guys. --Riddle 18:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's because there is no good basis to judge a sysop on before they become a sysop, so people use poor bases to judge them. Misery 18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure his personality drastically changes if he is not a sysop. --67.240.83.137 18:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding the point of a request for reconfirmation and the possible results. I was thinking that if the rfr is granted, all that would happen is that he would be up for confirmation again. If he passed, great, he's still a sysop. If he doesn't, then he's no longer a sysop. What's so bad about that? If he passes, he's got the community support, if he doesn't, he didn't have the community support and shouldn't be a sysop. (edit conflict) So far as his attitude changing, I don't expect it to, but his attitude colors my perception of the wiki as a user, and whether or not it's intended, he represents (to me) this wiki, its leadership and thus, the wiki's attitude toward the game and its creators. Freedom Bound 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you understand perfectly. I'm not actually opposed to a reconfirmation because I think he would pass and then everyone would have to shut up about this for a while, but it is kind of sad that he can be put through this because a troll like Noxify decided to start campaigning against him. Misery 18:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well, to be honest, he wasn't the first one to request the reconfirmation. His addition to the list "stirred the pot" so to speak, but the initial reconfirmation request was back in March. Freedom Bound 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

@Riddle: Oh I get you riddle, so he must not be neutered from sysop if he's a good sysop in the process we neglect the whole thing about being an asshat.--ShadowFog 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Abuses his "sysop"? Where is the log for that, out of curiosity? --Antioch 21:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing how much turbulence this is causing, as the original poster, I feel I am obliged to elaborate on why I requested Reconfirmation for Auron, even though I originally was hesitant to do so, as you can see above. Hesitant, because what is happening now is exectly what I wanted to avoid.

Over time, Auron has proven to be a sysop perfectly capable of dealing with trolls and vandals, mainly by being mercilessly direct and blunt. Great. I love it when vandals or trolls get put in their place. Occasionally though, Auron has shown that this bluntness is not something he reserves for vandals only. This especially caught my attention. Yes, it is a simple goodbye-message in response to Shadowphoenix leaving the wiki. Her reaction of course was way out of line. However, it is common knowledge that she despises Auron. He knows this. That is why I consider his message to be pure provocation, a practice that is, I think, for Sysops, totally unacceptable.

As I said, Auron has done a commendable job as a Sysop. For him, I hope that he gets Reconfirmed soon and that this propaganda against him is stopped. However, based on what I wrote here, even though I originally supported him, I myself no longer believe his personality is fit for adminship, an issue outlined multiple times in the original RfA. Seriously, I feel quite uncomfortable as I ended up in the same list as known trolls. But not uncomfortable enough to refrain from doing what I believe is the right thing. That is all I have to say. — Why 01:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, it actually increases the weight of your vote manyfold. Misery 06:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Now if only everyone else would do likewise, this RfR might have more than a snowball in hell's chance of ever occuring. Vili 点 06:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I second Misery, and I thank Why for elaborating when he didn't have to. If it's any consolation mate, no one thinks of you as a troll. -- Salome 11:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Generally administrators should be able to enter situations in a level headed and respectful manner, Auron lacks this. He approaches most situations blunt and as if he lacks a social filter. There is nothing wrong with being blunt in situations, most of them require that you are, but you can do so in a respectful and level headed manner. The posting on my talk page was not appropriate. Was my response appropriate? I want to say no, but I feel it was. He has trolled me to no end since the GWW:BDAY fiasco. He doesn't like me, I don't like him; so if you want to call my vote bias go ahead. But the fact remains that his behavior is not that of any other administrators that I have seen in the 6+ wikis that I am active on. His attitude/actions would get him banned on some of these wikis (and not just by me, I assure you). I admit that he has experience using the administrative tools, but don't most of us? Does that mean we are all fit to be admins here? I have loads of experience but I would never be a fit administrator for this wiki. Honestly, Auron would make an excellent admin on ED but not here imho. Until I see less trollyness and more adminness, I will continue to have this opinion. --Shadowphoenix 13:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that a "trollier than thou" attitude, Shad? ...Sorry, I'll go now... --snograt 13:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this about him being a bad sysop or because people don't like him? - Bex 14:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

it's more a case of people don't see his attitude being appropriate for a sysop, rather than him being a bad sysop. ~PheNaxKian Talk 14:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• To get back to evidence, I can't remember the first time I saw posts from Auron that made me question whether or not he was appropriate to be a sysop, but I can point to the ones from today. Freedom Bound

As you have probably gathered from earlier responses, my performance as a sysop and my actions as a user are two completely unrelated things. Sysop tools grant me the ability to block users or delete/protect pages. Nothing else. My ability to post on talk pages is granted by me being a user on the wiki, just like you - it is not granted by me being a sysop. Thus, when judging my ability to perform as a sysop, you need to judge based on my actions as a sysop. Anything else will just cloud your judgment.

• Over time, Auron has proven to be a sysop perfectly capable of dealing with trolls and vandals, mainly by being mercilessly direct and blunt. Great. I love it when vandals or trolls get put in their place.

Yes, my sysop actions are, for the most part, flawless. However, you're already starting to confuse my ability to talk with my ability to use sysop tools.

• Occasionally though, Auron has shown that this bluntness is not something he reserves for vandals only.

This is where your fallacy begins. To be frank, it doesn't matter. My bluntness is not a sysop tool. As I stated above, I can post on talk pages without being a sysop. A reconfirmation is about sysop tools. If you feel I am a bad choice for sysop tools, please point to where I misuse sysop tools in any way (poor judgment, bias, helping my friends win arguments by protecting pages or banning users who disagree with them, etc - all examples of sysop abuse).

• This especially caught my attention.

My posting on a talk page gave you the idea that I used sysop tools poorly? Hm, I think you'll have to explain yourself in greater detail on that one.

• That is why I consider his message to be pure provocation, a practice that is, I think, for Sysops, totally unacceptable.

Again, assumption and fallacy. My posting is done as a user, unless specifically stated otherwise. If I am sending a message representing the will of the sysops, I will make it plain and obvious. If I don't say something to that effect, it represents one person's will - my own. Stop confusing the two. I talk as any other user would, and generally keep my own priorities at heart when conversing with people. When using sysop tools, however, my personal agenda goes out the window - sysop tools exist to benefit the wiki, not myself. I will troll people who show poor logic all day long, but I will not ban them to save face or to win an argument, nor will I protect a page to save my revision. The sysop Auron and the user Auron are two different people with two different goals in mind. If you have a problem with the sysop Auron, please, do show some evidence here. If you have a problem with the user Auron that has nothing to do with his ability to use sysop tools, please, stop wasting the bureaucrat's time with your bitching and moaning.

• As I said, Auron has done a commendable job as a Sysop. For him, I hope that he gets Reconfirmed soon and that this propaganda against him is stopped.

Why thank you. However, I don't believe a reconfirmation should even begin until evidence of sysop abuse is posted. Plenty of people dislike me as a user, for a myriad of reasons, but from what I've seen, not a single one has posted any proof of misuse of sysop tools.

• However, based on what I wrote here, even though I originally supported him, I myself no longer believe his personality is fit for adminship

As I've said several times by now, my personality as a user and my personality as a sysop are two completely different things. Since this is a "Request for adminship," I would request that you think about and judge my personality as a sysop to make your decision, since judging my ability to wield sysop tools on anything but my performance with them would be folly indeed.

• Seriously, I feel quite uncomfortable as I ended up in the same list as known trolls. But not uncomfortable enough to refrain from doing what I believe is the right thing.

That is, in the end, what separates you from them. You are probably the only person on the list who has given serious thought to this matter. Unfortunately, you are trying to judge my ability to hold sysop tools on something that has nothing to do with sysop tools, which is where your logic hits a snag. In closing, Why, I respect you for standing by your position, but as Ian Anderson put it, "You had the whole damn thing all wrong."

As I said to Why, the majority of the votes on this page are made in ignorance - either ignorance of me and my history or ignorance of the sysop tools and what they entail. Or both, in some cases. I'll go down the list and basically respond to each one, since most don't require very much effort to debunk. Some of the votes are completely baseless and were just cast as a grudge against me - like Shadowfog's. I trust the bureaucrats to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff on this list before coming to a decision.

• Dominator Matrix - I've acted the same way since I started posting on GuildWiki, which was quite a long time before I became a sysop on GWW. Ignorance of my behavior doesn't excuse false assumptions like that one.
• Wandering Traveler - oops, you're trying to judge my ability to delete/block/protect on my personality. I've already debunked that logic leap in this rant.
• -'ÑöẊĭƑý - no comment necessary really, just trolling to troll. His propaganda against me is just proof of that. His actions and stance are in no way for the benefit of the wiki, and his methods of garnering votes are nothing more than absolutely deplorable.
• Freedom Bound - ignorance of the sysop position and tools. For the hundredth time, my personality has nothing to do with my ability to block, delete and protect.
• ShadowFog - aside from the vote being wrong (as I explained before, my personality hasn't changed in the 3+ years I've been wikiing, so it obviously wasn't the sysop position getting to my head), the user is on a personal vendetta. After disagreeing with him on balance discussions, I told him to open obs and use reality as his guide, yet he vehemently refused and decided to hold a grudge against me instead. He also makes the logic leap that personality has anything to do with sysop tools.
• Karate Jesus provided no reasoning for his vote, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume he's feeling vindictive for my banning him on PvX regarding Guild Wars balance leaks.
• Wealedout - agrees with ShadowFog on pretty much everything and has similarly held a grudge. No reasoning given, but just looking at the connection between this user and ShadowFog I'm going to assume it's more of the "I'm trying to judge a sysop based on stuff that has nothing to do with being a sysop" logic.
• Shadowphoenix - I'm actually going to respond to your rant separately
• Mtew - again, personal bias more than an argument against my sysop tools. I vocally disagree with a lot of the changes he makes, so his dislike of me as a user carries over to his dislike of me as a sysop, without ever stopping to realize that they're completely different things.
• Qaletaqa Hania - really? Aside from that not actually being a requirement of sysophood, I am able to "adress issues in a polite and respectful manner."

I would request that someone provide proof of my inability to use the block, delete and protect functions. You can disagree with me as a user all day long. You can hold grudges against me for years. I honestly don't give a shit. However, when you start talking about sysop tools, you need to realize that you're talking about sysop tools, and focus your argument on that. -Auron 01:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Auron I know you act like that from Gwiki, and I am not clouding my judgment by that. The issue is in the way you treat people here at GWW. These are substantially different community's, and the way you treat people over at Gwiki can't be the same way you act here. Don't get me wrong Auron you are capable of using the tools -- so this is obviously not the issue. The real issue is your personality towards users here. Dominator Matrix 01:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read anything except the two lines specifically addressed to you? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 01:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"I don't believe a reconfirmation should even begin until evidence of sysop abuse is posted. Plenty of people dislike me as a user, for a myriad of reasons, but from what I've seen, not a single one has posted any proof of misuse of sysop tools. " This is all that needs to be said. King Neoterikos 01:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you should not be a sysop.No further science needed.--Wealedout 01:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Very flawed argument there, Auron and too much of a wall a text for that.--ShadowFog 01:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You do what you must, because you can?--67.240.83.137 02:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Auron: Of course I'm basing your sysop abilities on your personality. Thats a lot of what the sysop job is, whether someones personality and way of handling things is proper. And as time has passed I've grown less and less comfortable on how you handle things. I think you're a great user, but I'm still really hesitant. -- Wandering Traveler 02:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Auron: That's a great, very long, example of exactly what I meant when I explained myself above. Thanks for reinforcing the point. You can argue all day long that the two (user and sysop) are separate, but that doesn't matter to me. To me, those are one and the same, and I do not believe that someone with your attitude as a user should be a sysop, and I think the community as a whole should revisit the decision. Freedom Bound 02:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Here Is All The Proof that you needhope you enjoy them all. Dominator Matrix 02:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Auron wrote, "The sysop Auron and the user Auron are two different people with two different goals in mind." But the Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship policy specifically states "Sysops are users that are also granted technical access to a few restricted features (including blocking users and deleting pages), and the additional responsibility of not misusing them." So he's not "two different people" unless User:Auron is a shared account. Loves to Sync 02:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

English is SOOOOO hard to understand. I would have thought it was so blatantly obvious to realise that what Auron means is that he handles personal and work issues differently. You don't treat everyday chatting with the way you would handle a general miscreant, nor vice versa. So naturally, to be a sysop he must be two different people to

1. Handle his sysop duties properly, which he has faithfully done for a long time
2. Handle his personal "life" on the wiki, which he has toed the line and kept to policies, albeit in a "dangerous" manner.

I have yet to see people giving evidence that Auron has abused his sysop privileges, broke the site's policies. Instead I see people whining about having the truth shoved into their faces when they themselves are responsible for drama caused, or start fallacious arguments with "I don't think Auron deserves to be a sysop because of a reason I don't know why", "Auron is a bad sysop because I don't like him asking me to stop posting and misleading other users regarding balance because I haven't even played PvP on any level" or "Auron is a bad sysop because he banned me when I was breaking site policies and actually doing his work that the community appointed him for. 152.226.7.213 02:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Auron: While you and I disagree about some of the stuff I do, that is not the basis for my objections to your being a sysop. The problems I have are 1) you banned me precipitously and 2) you have threatened to delete material I created and used you status as a sysop as justification. Your pugnacious attitude as a user is annoying but not the reason why I consider you to be a poor candidate as a sysop. --Max 2 03:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

/facepalm -- Salome 03:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Proof of that? 2) What kind of material? Material containing rubbish or is totally unrelated and unneeded on the mainspace? I see people making baseless claims, but failing to back them up. How sad, that there are always little flies buzzing around. Empty vessels make the most noise, so i herd. Pika Fan 03:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

1) The key word is 'precipitous'. That is a personal opinion. It is not something that requires 'proof'. 2) The nature of the material is less important than the threat and the attempt to use his position as a sysop to implicitly reinforce his opinion. (herd? You mean you're part of a faceless and unthinking mob? That's obviously a homonym error, but somehow appropriate...) --Max 2 03:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Dominator Matrix: I laughed for a good 5 minutes when I saw you linking his neutral vote on your RfA. So far Mtew is the only person who has commented directly on Auron's use of sysop tools, if you can provide links to diffs where he threatened such things, other than the comments about your test edits which Dom already linked, that would help your case a lot. Misery 06:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mtew - I abused my blocking tool except you have no proof. I also threatened to delete your pages except you have no proof. Am I seeing a trend here? -Auron 07:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that count as proof? Mediggo 08:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm seconding what 152.226.7.213 wrote there.
As I've said several times by now, my personality as a user and my personality as a sysop are two completely different things. Since this is a "Request for adminship," I would request that you think about and judge my personality as a sysop to make your decision, since judging my ability to wield sysop tools on anything but my performance with them would be folly indeed. <- If Auron was abusing his sysop position, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been in his position for this long, especially since the whole RfR started from this. I've never seen Auron abusing his sysop status in neither GWWiki nor GWiki. Unless you have some other, better proof than this or this, this RfR should be called off. Even if he has/had been trolling, Auron provided you all with proof that he is not doing a bad job as a sysop... And as Auron said, Mewt's reasoning up there isn't very convincing... Mediggo 08:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"I would request that you think about and judge my personality as a sysop"... yeah, we are doing just that.--ShadowFog 12:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Auron is a good sysop, end of, he has my vote if this farce of a RFC every comes to fruition. --Lemming 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Doesn't really seem like that to me, ShadowFog. Most people are only being spiteful towards Auron because of their sensitiviness to his comments as a user (!= actions as sysop), like, "cool story bro." Mediggo 12:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So hes a sysop overnight and a troller by day or acuse other and dodge the disruptor sysop. yur a funny gai.--ShadowFog 12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As per my reasoning above, I hardly consider him as a 'troller'. He's doing good job as sysop, not abusing his position as a sysop, and that's pretty much what sysop has to be. Even if he is not always giving out the best example, I think his critical attitude suits him well as a sysop. Mediggo 12:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So, Auron, the main issue we are disagreeing on seems to be whether Sysop status is entirely separable from day-to-day user activity. According to your view on adminship, User X can be a total jerk to everybody, but still be a Sysop because he/she does not misuse his/her tools. I don't think it is possible to define actions as "User actions" and "Sysop actions", for the plain reason that people (are supposed to) look up to Sysops. In my opinion, Sysops are not just here to use Sysop tools, but also to provide an example of how a good user should behave on this wiki, hence a "good Sysop" is not just a Sysop who does not abuse his admin tools and trolling should not be accepted. But I see consensus is against me there.

Anyway, thanks for responding. Also, I want to stress that the above "User X" is an extreme example, not a reference to anyone. — Why 12:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So basically the reasons for a recon are: bawwwwwwww he banned me, bawwwwwwwww he neutral'd me, bawwwwwwwwwww he told me to stop doing nonsense, bawwwwwwwwww he's mean and bawwwwwwwwwwww he doesn't like GW? Mini Me 13:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You summed it up there so nicely that I'd be wordless if I weren't. MAYBE this farce will end soon. Mediggo 13:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Frosty 14:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh shut the fuck up, if you can't post something relevant to the discussion don't post anything at all. --Shadowphoenix 14:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am actually being quite serious. None of you has provided a good reason. Mini Me 14:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe bawwwwwwww sums up this whole discussion very well honestly. I find my contribution to be very valuable, devalue-ing my contribution will never hurt my pride. Frosty 14:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So are they are accepting a troller, flamer and someone that antagonizes the GW community as an sysop administrator?--ShadowFog 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Grow a pair, he gets the job done. Frosty 14:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say this as I do not agree with this recon, but people, before we get into a flame war, please remeber that under policy their is no requirment for proof and we can't really add it retroactively. So as it stands one doesn't need to justify ones votes for them to still count, the people giving reasons are doing so through their own choice and are under no compulsion. As it stands their is a large enough pool of votes to at least necessitate some consideration by the bc's of starting a recon, although as stated above BC's can choose not to, if they think the recon is without merit. On a personal note, I don't feel one can remove ones sysop tools from that of ones own behaviour on the wiki, as a huge part of being a sysop is not just the use of tools and the like, it is ones ability to manage people, mediate arguments and try and minimise wiki disuption. Thus i do think people's interpersonal abilities should be a major consideration in the role of any sysop. Although I do not agree with how Auron talks to people, I do not think it actually makes him a bad sysop. He can be blunt, rude and abbrasive, however he also effectively shuts down trolls, prevents arguments from continuing and mitigates wiki disruption. In conclusion Auron is not the nicest admin on the wiki, thats true, but he is effective in what he does. -- Salome 14:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think people are saying that they have to provide proof, but rather that the bureaucrats will consider this more seriously if they do. It is all down to bureaucrat discretion after all. Misery 14:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Misery, you're completely wrong. It's up to the community, the Bureaucrats HAVE to start a re-election for him once there are enough votes, it's outlined in their job duties. Auron is the true hypocrite of the entire wiki, and no longer will he get away with his trolling/flaming/admin abuse once his admin is stripped. I'm gonna personaly have a party in game when he gets removed :D. The only thing I dislike is that Misery, another troll is going to be bureaucrat unless he gets more negative votes.--'ÑöẊĭƑý 15:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

=O My Misery is not a troll! He is a Abhorrent Freelance Editor! --Shadowphoenix 15:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) From the relevant policy: "Whenever this threshold is reached (as judged by a bureaucrat, not simple tallies), a bureaucrat will give notice to the sysop that they must be successfully reconfirmed within two weeks or lose their sysop status."

As such, it is for the bureaucrats to decide when a reconfirmation should occur. I'm giving advice on how to progress this further and you are calling me a troll, thanks Noxify. Misery 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok peeps. You have enough info now bureaucrats. He trolls, posts bad stuff, does almost nothing constructive, and criticizes wiki users. I don't care how you see it as well, but giving me a 9 month ban for violating 1RR to remove his inappropriate posts on User:Linsey Murdock's page is ridiculous. For one thing, she works for arenanet, if someone posts something bad on a page that is accessed by 100's, maybe thousands daily then that should be a qualifying reason to violate 1RR. Also, banning without even a warning was really really strange, especially because the SAME day someone violated 1RR and Auron said "I don't care". He is a biased admin that DGAF about the wiki. --'ÑöẊĭƑý 16:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason I see for the block is: # 07:46, 31 May 2009 Auron (Talk | contribs) blocked NoXiFy (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 9 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (personal attacks: disruption, removing other users' comments, trolling)

Care to perhaps expand on why you believe you were blocked for violating 1RR? I see 4 different supposed "violations", I assume the last three could potentially relate to an instance of 1RR, but that doesn't explain the personal attacks. Misery 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

While you're responding, I also have a question. You say that "The only thing I dislike is that Misery, another troll is going to be bureaucrat unless he gets more negative votes." Could you, then, explain to me why you voted for him? I'm sure I can't be the only one curious about this. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 17:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to the ban myself, but it looks like Wyn has explicitly stated that the nine month ban was implemented at her request, so why is it still an issue (with regard to Auron)? *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Armond, I voted for him because he removed his comment that I was a troll. I originally voted for him, then saw that he called me a troll, so I striked my vote and gave him a negative vote or w/e. After seeing that he crossed out the comment I restored my vote.

And @Misery, Minutes after I was banned Auron commented on my page with the reason. As you can see, he say's right there that it was a personal feud and unrelated to the wiki. When asked to cite the personal attacks, trolling, and such... he never did... because, he COULDN'T. He banned me because he straight out doesn't like me. AKA, for the 418024th time, abusing his powers as Sysop.--'ÑöẊĭƑý 17:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

a) That's obviously sarcasm. b) As has been pointed out repeatedly, that ban was asked for by Wyn, Auron only carried out it out. DarkNecrid 16:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

Better link -- ab.er.rant 06:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This section reserved solely for evidence of abuse of sysop tools by Auron.

1. Auron marked this page for deletion. I contested the deletion. Yet Auron deleted the page anyway and wrote in the deletion log "Deletion uncontested after three days" which is false information. The evidence is in the talk page which was also deleted by Auron, and the whole incident shows that Auron not only abuses his sysop tools but covers up objections against his behavior. Loves to Sync 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

   Conveniently enough this is impossible to prove now that the page is deleted, which also means that this is not, in fact, evidence. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

   The page could be restored. Pretty sure the bureaucrats can look at it. Misery 18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

   Obviously, yes - I was meaning more about the rest of us. (Also, who knows, ANet might have decided the wiki was using up too much server space and cleared the deletion cache.) -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

   The deletion information on this page is still available. However reading the talk pages it looks like aberrant agreed with the removal, not to mention it was in the much contested skill feedback section. Also Auron posted quite a lengthly explanation at the time stating his legitimate reason for the removal which does not appear to have been countered. --Lemming 18:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

   The talk page should be restored because you are omitting my objections to the deletion. The deletion was not uncontested. Loves to Sync 19:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

   The bureaucrats can read it themselves, they are the only people that matter. Thank you for bringing it to their attention. Misery 19:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

   From the deleted talk page: ArenaNet skill feedback pages are basically an extension of Izzy's talk page. And no you don't delete suggestions from talk pages just because you don't have room in your elitist mindset for wild and unusual suggestions. This is not Auron's skill feedback page; this is a place for everyone to submit their feedback to ArenaNet however crazy it might be. - Loves to Sync

   If you check the deletion log for skill feedback pages that were deleted, you'll notice that Auron was not the only one to attach deletion tags/delete skill feedback pages on the basis that the suggestion was not a good one. There was a fairly large scale attempt to do a bit of quality control with regard to the skill suggestion pages. Therefore, being as there was plenty of precedent for Auron's actions (meaning that the reason you provided for contesting the deletion was null and void), and considering that you did not actually contest that the suggestion was a good one (merely that Auron did not have the right to delete it), Auron was within his rights to say that the deletion was not contested (and to delete the page). This is not an example of sysop abuse. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

   More omission, that was only one of my comments on the talk page. And I do not appreciate you snipping things out of the deleted talk page without the entire context. But thanks for proving that I did contest the deletion of that page. Loves to Sync 20:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

   I have restored the talk page and re-reviewed all of the comments that you made. You failed to contest Auron's explanation as to why the suggestion was not a good one, ergo the deletion was uncontested. Furthermore, it looks as though Aber agreed that the reason you provided was insufficient, so this isn't an example of Auron doing something on his own without precedent/the agreement of at least one other sysop. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

2. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_talk:NoXiFy/Archive_5#blocked..._yet_again should be all the proof you need. Banning me for a personal feud, when asked by other wiki users to provide evidence of trolling, disruptive edits, or any kind of abuse he did nothing... because I did none of what he banned me for. And right in that post you can see why I was banned, for removing his troll from a serious ongoing discussion with 50+ posts. --'ÑöẊĭƑý 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   Read your talk page, Nox. It counters your point completely. 0/10 for posting proof that has already been debunked. -Auron 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

3. He just vandalized a wiki page... ? http://www.wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=N.O.X.&diff=1545931&oldid=1545930 --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:67.240.81.210 (talk).

   Yeah, that was just a poorly chosen revert point. Not actual vandalism (but pretty funny). Freedom Bound 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   Thats vandalism from earlier that hadn't been spotted up till then. — Why 19:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

   That's the wrong diff - it doesn't show any modifications Auron added to the page. What Auron did was this. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Baw give me proof or reason again cuz I don't read criticism"

Fine, for the 500th time I'll copy/pasta what everyone has said:

"@Auron: Of course I'm basing your sysop abilities on your personality. Thats a lot of what the sysop job is, whether someones personality and way of handling things is proper. And as time has passed I've grown less and less comfortable on how you handle things. I think you're a great user, but I'm still really hesitant. -- Wandering Traveler 02:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "

"You do what you must, because you can?--67.240.83.137 02:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "

"Here Is All The Proof that you needhope you enjoy them all. Dominator Matrix 02:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)"

"So are they are accepting a troller, flamer and someone that antagonizes the GW community as an sysop administrator?--ShadowFog 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "

Also according to policy if we feel you should not be a sysop we just have to sign that we do not feel you should. "Show me evidence that I abused sysop tool";That is not the case, the case is whether we as a community feel and think that you should not be a sysop because of X and Y things. So yea, I think you should not be a sysop.I'm planning to update this as necessary. You can post all the wall o' texts and "ooh so intimidating list of people who vote against me so that trolls have targets list" all you want, but it is what we think.--Wealedout 14:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dom's "proof" is really just a load of bullshit.

And if you want my honest opinion: this is whole reconfirmation is a load of bullshit as well. Sure he can be harsh, and he's very blunt, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I know from my short period of being in the same guild as Auron that he's actually pretty damn nice. He probably doesn't remember me, but that's irrelevant.

I have yet to see any of this so called "abuse of sysop tools".

Also, Auron is, in the end, just a regular user. While he can be blunt, there are other sysops that can be blunt at times too. Mini Me 14:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Show me where the request for reconfirmation requires that the sysop is abusing his/her tools. In fact, show me where the initial request for adminship requires that we ignore his/her actions as a user. Freedom Bound 14:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And to add to that, I would rather an admin that is blunt, than a carebear admin who goes round patting troll on the back saying, "if you say sorry I will let you off" blah blah blah.
The point is if you want an admin to do his job well, he is going to have to be blunt, or he won't doing his job well, especially considering what the internet spews out at the moment. Frosty 14:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Obviously there is no requirement such as that, however, seeing how a certain person claims he abuses his sysop tools yet does not provide any proof of that whatsoever, I believe his statement should be taken with a grain of salt. Mini Me 14:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Have you even read the previous posts? Being blunt is required when you are a sysop, like you said most carebear sysops do exactly that. But there is a point where you go from being blunt to being a rude and disrespectful dick. Also, like Wealedout says, you don't have to be abusing your sysop powers for a ReCon to be called policy says nothing of it (accuse me of wikilawyering all you want, but it is truth). --Shadowphoenix 15:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Dominator: my comment which you so kindly quoted was directed at Wealedout, and was an absolutely terrible attempt at humor based on his "science" comment. Btw, great links. --67.240.83.137 15:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That sleugh of links dominator gave are useless, that's just him being a user, as he explained if you bothered to read his wall of text (which I did o_O). Nothing to do with his sysop use.-- anguard 15:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm disclaimer.--67.240.83.137 15:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I love how Dom says Auron is a dick (or whatever his point is here?) because Auron voted neutral on Dom's own RfA with a reason of "Meh". (It's the link titled "enjoy"; yay tinyurl.) -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 15:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Tbh, Auron isn't a bad admin, he's just a dick with a strong case of egomania. However, no matter how much we dislike him (and I'm including myself) that does not make him a bad administrator. Now, if there was a code of conduct for administrators, then he would have lost his admin status a long time ago, but there is not. When it comes down to it, he really hasn't abused his sysop tools. He's just been an ass. Karate Jesus 16:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Wealedout, Shadowphoenix, et al - You all are technically correct in saying that you don't need to provide reasons when you add your signature to the request for reconfirmation. You're also correct that you aren't required to provide evidence of sysop abuse. However, while those are not de jure requirements, if you actually want to see a reconfirmation take place, it is in your interests to post compelling evidence (esp. evidence related to sysop abuse), because they essentially amount to de facto requirements. Remember, regardless of the numbers of signatures that the RfR accrues, whether or not the reconfirmation takes place is still up to the bureaucrats, and while I obviously cannot speak for the bureaucrats, it's hard to take an RfR seriously when the best links that people can provide as evidence are of Auron writing "cool story bro" and when no one seems able to point to substantive sysop abuse. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the policy should be changed to make that clear. Freedom Bound 16:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"as judged by a bureaucrat, not simple tallies" It's already there. Misery 16:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

^ It's one of the only bcrat responsibilities. How did you not know that? Tbh, I would love to see someone present a good case against Auron (again, I think he's an ass), but none of you can because he's a good admin just not a nice guy. If you think that's unfair, then try to make a policy that has a code of conduct for admins. Until then, by current standards, he's a good admin. Karate Jesus 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Misery: Read the rest of that paragraph and tell me where it says that the bureaucrat should only count votes where there is evidence presented of sysop tool abuse. That snippet is related to the number, specifically that the number of votes required declines over time, it says nothing relating to the quality of the votes. It does say that links to "evidence" would be nice, but it does not specify what that evidence is to be. Which, evidently needs to be clarified, since this whole page is pretty much debating what constitutes valid evidence for a reconfirmation. But, since this does end up being pretty much completely up to the bureaucrats (based on the current vague language), maybe them chiming in and saying, "yes, only abuse of sysop tools counts" would make this stop? Freedom Bound 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You're free to present whatever kind of evidence you'd like to present -- you can even elect to present no evidence at all. That's not the point that I was trying to make. Yes, evidence of abuse of sysop tools is probably the most compelling evidence, considering that this is, after all, a request to reconfirm whether Auron should have those tools, but the more important point is that very little substantive evidence of any kind has been presented so far <insert mandatory statement about how this is my opinion here>. As I said, presenting evidence is not (and perhaps shouldn't be) a de jure requirement (i.e. required by "law," or, in this case, policy), but the de facto truth is that it's hard to present a compelling case for why the bureaucrats should have to force Auron to undergo a reconfirmation without at least some substantive evidence. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We all know how erratic Auron is. Who is left behind on the train?--ShadowFog 18:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

wut? Karate Jesus 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And for some, the train is yet to arrive.--salvius 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well actually guys, I've been reading up on the policy and the BC's have discretion in deciding the number of votes which will trigger the recon. They don't have discretion to give certain votes more weight than others dependant upon the reason for the vote. I know it's a fine point, but true none the less and what it means in practicality is that a BC can't decide if a recon should take place dependant upon the reasons for the vote, they can only decide based on if they think their are enough votes for recon to take it forward. That's why reasons were never a requirement, as they don't affect the discretion open to the BC's. I for one however think this should be changed and that a need for proof be added to the proceeds. -- Salome 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The policy provides explicit two upper bounds -- a general upper bound and an upper bound that comes into effect after one year. However, the policy also explicitly states that whether or not the threshold has been reached is to be "judged by a bureaucrat, not simple tallies." That statement confers discretion upon the bureaucrats, discretion which explicitly trumps the vote count alone. Thus, while they may not have the explicit power to weight votes differently per se, they do have the authority to maintain that the necessary threshold has not been reached, which leaves them implicit leeway to do so until they feel that a sufficiently strong case (based on the evidence provided) has been presented. In fact, with the wording as is, it is theoretically possible for the bureaucrats to maintain that the threshold has not been reached even if there are an arbitrarily high number of users in favor of reconfirmation. As you say though, it's a fine line. Personally, I'd be in favor of altering the policy to explicitly state that the bureaucrats determine the point at which a sufficiently strong case has been made for reconfirmation (possibly throwing out the vote tally altogether), though I suspect a lot of people would be opposed to that. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) An example to demonstrate the practical implications of the statement "as judged by a bureaucrat, not simple tallies." Let's say I went to 'Etris and asked him whether this RfR currently has enough signatures to succeed and he told me that it did not. Now some random wiki-goer comes along and adds his signature to the list without providing any explanation. I go back to to 'Etris and he again tells me that the threshold has still not been met. However, let's say that instead of the random wiki-goer that provided no explanation, a wiki-dragon were to come along and conclusively demonstrates that Auron has abused his powers on countless occasions. This time when I talk to 'Etris, he says that the RfR has met the threshold. Obviously, there's no difference between the random wiki-goer and the wiki-dragon as far as vote tally is concerned. However, because 'Etris is under no obligation to determine a precise a priori threshold, there's plenty of leeway for him to say yes in the second case and no in the first, especially because I have no way of knowing what he would say in response to any arbitrary hypothetical. Yea, I know, this argument could be deemed wiki-lawyering, but, frankly, the policy is vague at best. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Freedom, I'm giving advice. You don't have to do what I say, but if you want a reconfirmation instead of limbo, I believe that will give you the best chance of having one occur. I don't think limbo serves anyone's best interests. Misery 20:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Auron's trolling/flaming/disrupting list

This is an old list I had for a rainy day. Anyone can to add, feel free, state your links in a separate paragraph, dunno if some links are already broken:

1)[[1]]--I guess you can file a support ticket too, but I doubt he's too stupid to figure out how to do so himself. Since it didn't involve anyone else, other people filing support tickets seems silly and redundant - if it has nothing to do with you (and especially if you have no idea what's going on), stay out of it. If you're reporting me out of spite, remember that constitutes harassment, and you're guilty of the same thing you're reporting me for. Don't be hypocrites. But mostly, don't get trolled so hard. You can't take anything on the internet this seriously. -Auron 03:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

2)[[2]]-NPA warning

3)[[3]]Way too many retards to troll mirite Raptors? :P -Auron 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

4)[[4]]And like Lemming said, you've been warned extensively (more than you need tbh, given your attitude), next time will not be a warning. It will be a ban. -Auron 01:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

5)[[5]] What an utter waste of time and energy. Go do something productive. -Auron 11:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

6)[[6]] ".... Mods who are unable to distinguish between productive trolls and destructive trolls, who can't bring themselves to ban idiots for the good of the forum, and who are basically incapable of doing what is required to maintain a high level of meaningful communication and content...."Auron 09:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

7)[[7]] I was getting ready to ban Armond but I really see nothing wrong with his comment there. -Auron 05:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

8)[[8]] "..., we're saying "shard can't be a huge douchebag because that's not accepted on wikis, anywhere." -Auron 06:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC) "

9)[[9]]"Row row fight the power only goes so far. Be sure not to break any policies while protesting or you may get banned, and that's not fun :( -Auron 06:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)"

10)[[10]] "Edrama yeah! -Auron 13:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC) "

11)[[11]] "And nothing of value will be lost. -Auron 09:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC) "

12)[[12]] "As you can tell, that usually doesn't get very far - the person feels butthurt and is less likely to listen to anything I say. Frankly, however, I don't care. They're bad at the game and will continue to be bad at the game until they get their heads out of their asses and learn to play."

13)[[13]]"Bye. -Auron 15:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC) "

14)[[14]] "I'm sorry you got offended by "permaban incoming," ShadowFog. Should I get you a tissue? -Image:User Auron csig.png Auron 12:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC) "

15)[[15]] "Also, don't be a dick to people over nothing. Your posts on wyn's talk are way too bitchy for too little effect. Be nice to folks and they'll be more willing to agree with stuff you say. -Auron 01:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC) "

16)[[16]] "Lol. U r funny gai. -Auron 16:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC) "

17)[[17]]] "Lol wow. This entire section is filled with people who can't comprehend how godly pure damage reduction is. -Auron 03:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC) "

18)[[18]] "If you ask him to be nice and he won't, that's his problem. Don't worry about it, he's a big boy; he can take care of himself. -Auron 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC) "

20)[[19]] Reading comprehension is gud. -Auron 00:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

21)[[20]] "Cory, idiocy should be a permbannable offense. Fix plz? -Auron 07:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC) "

22)[[21]] "Fun fact, nobody gives a shit. GTFO and stop wasting everyone's time, including your own. -Auron 04:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC) "

23)[[22]] "There are far too many idiots/unskilled players that feel the need to make themselves heard on izzy's talk page for it to ever be effective. It was nice back when none of them knew about it, but now it's just a retard fest. -Auron 10:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC) "

24)[[23]] "I don't really respect the policies of the wiki, but that would in no way hamper my ability to enforce them. -Auron 11:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC) "

25)[[24]] "Just refrain from putting stupid shit in the wrong places. That's all I'm asking. -Auron 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UT"

26)[[25]] "Do you feel yaks, by any chance? -Auron 08:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC) "

27)[[26]] "lmao, u r funny gai!! -Auron 07:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC) "

28)[[27]] "It's a holiday dildo. [2] -Image:User Auron csig.png Auron 10:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC) "

29)[[28]] Fuck --ShadowFog 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I lol'd at the last 2 examples tbh. Mini Me 20:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I lol'd at almost all of them... Numbers 16 and 27 especially. As about half of them are not real/serious trolling or flaming, I do not feel like discussing about them. If you can't see why they're very bad examples, then I suggest you get rid of your personal feud against Auron, or ask an outsider why 'Bye' is such vicious trolling (the user said he was going to leave GW, Auron had the usual blunt sarcasm there, which the person deserved IMO). And, as this RfR is entirely based on personal feelings towards user Auron, it would be a good start to close this RfR discussion. Or at least get the actual reconfirmation going on, so myself and others can vote for him. ;P Mediggo 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Read what Brains posted below and then re-evaluate what you have posted. What you should notice is that the list you have has very few (or no) policy breaks, no abuse of power, really not much of anything. Imo, get tougher skin or drop a testicle and give solid proof that he's abused his sysop tools. (Oh, and if you aren't aware, I'm all for Auron losing his sysop powers; however, losing them for no reason or because of his popularity is bullshit). Karate Jesus 21:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of these counter themselves, but I should explain the note on Necros' talk page - I PvP'd with him daily for a long time back in the day, and his IGN was Necros Feel Yaks. -Auron 04:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's five more:

1)[29]

2)[30]It was a joke, and you're a terrible troll. I'm somewhat happy to see you withdraw before you got a chance to accrue a massive number of oppose votes, as I'm sure that would have hurt your ego, which would have led to more bitching and moaning. I think everyone is happier now. -Auron 07:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

3)[31]

4)[32]0/10. Not even remotely good

5)[33]Take unrelated crap off this page - that goes for Armond all the way down to Elysea. Keep this page for discussion of Shard and evidence for/against him, not how much your heart bleeds for people who cry over shit people say on the internet.--ShadowFog 18:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you even read these before posting them? I'm asking seriously, because that last one is a very good example of a sysop keeping offtopic posts from cluttering an important arbcomm page. You seem to have ignored that entirely and posted it anyway. Care to show your reasoning, if there is any to show? -Auron 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, this is what I mean,"Baw I don't read or understand". Anyone can understand why ShadowFog believes you should not be a sysop. I don't believe you should be a sysop because you troll, flame and disrupt the GW community. Especially you take it personal against anyone who doesn't agree with you in anything. You calm down when things like this happen. The thing about sysop tools is bullshit, if an user believes you should not be a sysop for whatever reason he/she has the right to call you out for whatever reason.

Doesn't matter what X sysop is looking for here, if anyone reading this believes that Auron should not be a sysop, please sign. I'm sure Auron will follow this up with "Baw I don't understand".--Wealedout 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only a bureaucrat can start a reconfirmation or remove user rights, so it kind of does matter what Brains thinks. Misery 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wealedout, he is posting proof of me being a good sysop as evidence of me being a bad sysop. Does this not concern you? If you were trying to make a solid case, wouldn't you want to leave out all the stuff that shoots your argument in the foot? -Auron 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The users are the ones to sign. So you mean if (probably won't happen,"guild mates help me",but for example) if the majority of users vote against Auron it doesn't matter?also he is posting evidence in my favor.Damn you really don't read, for the 500th time. I believe you should not be a sysop because you troll,flame and disrupt the GW community.--Wealedout 19:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact the policy is specifically written so that the opinion of the bureaucrats is the only thing taken into consideration, which does indeed mean that "if the majority of users vote against Auron it doesn't matter". I would be interested, also, in seeing why you think he's "troll[ing],flame[ing][sic] and disrupt[ing] the GW community" with his posts here - to me it looks like he's pointing out holes in logic as would happen with anyone in any debate. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 19:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Auron is just creating imaginary holes, very flawed argument and ego.--ShadowFog 23:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove that by countering his argument. I assure you there will be no shortage of people wanting to see why evidence of Auron acting as a good sysop is reason for him to be demoted. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

He hasnt made any argument only contradictions.--ShadowFog 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Auron's style of argument is rather similar to the sophists of Greece, where he never actually says anything half the time, and the other half he completely bypasses logic and jumps straight into fallacy. That's not to say that that he should be demoted, or that he isn't a good sysop, but rather just to say that most of the people making arguments here have either no idea how to argue or an I.Q. around 80. ··· cedave 00:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, most of the time Auron argues simply for the sake of arguing. I believe I heard from someone that Auron is a "trained debator" or something like that. Well, discounting your opponent's statements on the grounds that they used a double negative or other such technical bullshit may be the way to win a debating match, but it's not the way to win an internets. 99.142.23.74 11:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ShadowFog - you think that posting a reference to a person's IGN on their talk page is trolling. I don't need to say any more, really. You contradict yourself so well I don't even need to try. -Auron 12:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Things I'm looking for

These are the types of things that I'm interested in, as a bureaucrat, when someone requests a reconfirmation or accuses a sysop of abusing their position (both of which usually come hand-in-hand). I tend to take someone more seriously when they include some of these.

• Log entries - examples of blocks, deletions, and protections which show that a user has misused the tools; things like using protection to secure one's own preferred revision during a revert war, blocks solely to win an argument or because that user just isn't liked by the sysop, deleting a page when consensus is against it. Those show abuse of the sysop tools.
• Warnings - examples of warnings which show that the sysop is threatening blocks/deletions which clearly aren't block/deletion-worthy (e.g. "If you don't stop disagreeing with me, I'm blocking you for three days"; "If you don't take off 'i <3 sf' off your userpage by tomorrow, I'll be deleting it"). You could say that the user is indirectly abusing those tools and is abusing the position they're in.
• Policy violations - since sysops are generally expected to enforce policy to some extent, we can't really have sysops repeatedly violating those same policies. While following policy isn't an expectation applied solely upon admins, violations show that the sysop is going against consensus (i.e. policy), can't be trusted to enforce policy, and may be likely to abuse the tools similar to how he abused policy. Though this is much more of a grey area than block logs n stuff, it still helps to determine whether one can trust that sysop to be a sysop.

I haven't seen a great abundance of these things. If starting a reconfirmation was purely based on bureaucrats' discretion, this one wouldn't start. However, since there's a degree of expectation in policy that bureaucrats determine the 'threshold' based on the number of users as well as discretion, that 12 votes for reconfirmation have been made on an adminship lasting 9 months with 27 support, and that this process will only decide to open a new RfA and not whether Auron stays a sysop or is demoted, I'm assuming a reconfirmation will start at some point.

I'm inclined against starting it now or in the immediate future, when there's bandwagoning and emotion flying about on both sides - that's usually a bad time to reason, vote, discuss, or reach a consensus. There's also the point that any reasoning given to support a reconfirmation or demotion is very weak (at best), and I wouldn't be wrong to say that some requests haven't been made in complete objectivity. To those users supporting a reconfirmation, you'll get a lot further in convincing me if you provide examples of the three things above. For extra points, explain how they show that Auron requires reconfirmation. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'm gone.

My reasons for originally starting this RfR are outlined clearly in the sections above. Even though I still stand by them, they are based on my personal belief of what is important in Sysophood, not on the letter of the policy. Because of that, and because I do not want to partake in this witch hunt for "evidence" of Auron's "abuse of sysop tools", I am withdrawing my support of this RfR.

No evidence of abuse of admin tools will be found, because it is not there. Auron is a sysop who follows policy, and I am thankful he does. Neither do I believe he is in any way "biased" or whatever rubbish has been said about him. Moreover, him being "biased" or "abusing his sysop tools" are not the reasons I requested a Reconfirmation at all. If this RfR is accepted for those reasons, I will not even oppose Auron's adminship, because the Reconfirmation would have been started for the wrong reasons.

Auron, good luck. — Why 00:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, my support for the RfR was based on whether his personality was right, not whether he has misused the tools or taken any bias. There is none. Auron's a great sysop and a great user, but the reasons for the RfR have all gone to hell. -- Wandering Traveler 00:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I backed out because I've gain a lot of respect for Auron, and because I saw the direction this was going and didn't like it one bit. Also, Godspeed and good luck Auron, God knows you'll need it. — Jon Lupen 00:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As the only one who actually mentioned Auron's questionable use of the sysop tools and position, I think this HAS turned into a witch hunt. Note that I use 'questionable' and NOT 'abuse'! I still think his judgment and style make him a poor candidate for sysop, but the abuse that has been heaped upon him is uncalled for. --Max 2 02:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how his personality matters anyways, he does the job very well, and he's not a "carebear" but yeah, he does rub some people the wrong way, but that's just the way he is, and IMO so long as that personality doesn't conflict with his ability to use the tools or follow policy, why does it matter? DarkNecrid 04:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The perfect solution

Keep Auron as a sysop but remove his rights as a user. 99.144.229.95 04:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1/10 ~Shard 04:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

10/10, Shard's bad. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 04:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop this witch hunt

^^ — Jon Lupen 19:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "witch hunt". It's a request for reconfirmation and one of the criteria is if there is enough user support. Loves to Sync 19:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a RfA. Misinterpreting doesnt help anyone.--ShadowFog 19:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sync its a RFA to judge a persons ability to be a sysop. Not personality. There is an arbitration comm for that matter. Dominator Matrix 19:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reconfirmation is a process by which a sysop is reconfirmed in his role as sysop. If the reconfirmation fails, the person in question loses sysop status. The reconfirmation process itself is simply another RFA for the sysop. It can be brought about by one of the following conditions:

enough user support:

While a user is a sysop, anyone may add their support for the reconfirmation process to the "Request for reconfirmation" section of that sysop's latest successful RFA. Short explanations are encouraged, but avoid personal attacks; consider simply giving links to evidence if necessary. This generally has no immediate effect and does not trigger the reconfirmation process until there is enough accumulated support for reconfirmation. The level of required support starts at the amount of support given for sysophood during the latest RFA (direct opposition to either is not counted), and this requirement gradually descends over time to a minimum of one user supporting after one year. Whenever this threshold is reached (as judged by a bureaucrat, not simple tallies), a bureaucrat will give notice to the sysop that they must be successfully reconfirmed within two weeks or lose their sysop status.

the sysop in question voluntarily choosing so

community consensus (such as a reconfirmation timeline for grandfathered sysops)

part of a ruling/remedy by the arbitration committee (not an individual bureaucrat)

--ShadowFog 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[34] that explains perfectly how much support you need. ~ PheNaxKian 19:50, 25 June 2009 19:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That was Defiant Element's interpretation of the policy. The three sitting bureaucrats may have different interpretations. Loves to Sync 19:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

that's any sane persons interpretation. There's no "pre defined" threshold, it's a case of "yes we've got sufficient evidence for a reconfirmation to take place" ~ PheNaxKian 19:55, 25 June 2009 19:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult for a sane person to ignore a disrupting/trolling sysop.--ShadowFog 19:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tell the trolling and disrupting bandwagon to calm down. This process is to see, for a time, how many votes will go in. Besides the trolling bandwagon, looking at GW wiki posts, seems bigger. Auron might stay as a sysop. Not even something simple as waiting for votes can be left untouched by trolls.

Like the ones who run this self righteous hipocrisy, I wish I had PvX, Steam and guild buddies here. I've seen that they certainly help a lot in terms of numbers.--Wealedout 20:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, "PvX, Steam, and guild buddies" have major overlap in this context (although I don't think anyone opposing Auron's RfR shares a guild; many, as I understand it, don't play Guild Wars anymore, including Auron himself). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You make accusations of self-righteous hypocrisy, you imply that people are only supporting Auron because they're his "PvX, Steam, and guild buddies," and you deem the people who are disagreeing with you disruptive trolls and yet you all have the gall to call Auron the agitator? Yea... 'bout that... *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And I doubt anyone Aurons guild would visit this wiki, or any wiki for that matter. Frosty 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds more like trolling itself as he clearly didn't verify any facts. I am not on PvX, I don't know Auron on Steam and I haven't ever been in his guild. --Lemming 20:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

it's also worth mentioning Auron perhaps makes one edit a month on PvX :/ ~ PheNaxKian 20:20, 25 June 2009 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been in several guilds with Auron he is a great person, and incredibly intelligent. He doesnt beat around the bush and he doesnt sugar coat his words. He also knows the game better than most people. Drogo Boffin 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool story bro 99.142.23.74 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You can peruse my steam friend's list to your heart's desire, wealedout. I daresay not a single one of them has posted on this page, except when they saw it come up on RC. I certainly have no need to call in a cadre of friends to come to my defense - as after all, it is the quality, not quantity, of posts that matter in this case. -Auron 20:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, your quality lacks everything.--ShadowFog 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh. 'Quality' isn't something that can lack in something, seeing as how quality is a condition rather than an object. That post doesn't make any sense. --76.25.207.171 00:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he meant to say "[Auron's] posts completely lack quality". Things like that are extremely hard to ascertain, yeh? ··· cedave 00:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

srs bsns

Attacks on character hardly qualify as worthwhile arguments. However, a large number of people who have been associated with Auron for a long time jumping to his defense doens't look all that good, either. Bias and purported trolling seem to be the only arguments against him, and effective use of sysop tools seems to be the only argument for him. With any officials, you will always have bias to some extent. However, if police officers were arresting people they didn't like and permitting the actions of those they did like, society would be in a very poor state. Similarly, in the real world, police officers who spent their plain-clothes time beating women or participating in KKK parades would not be employed for very long. However, this is the internet, and we're only talking about words. Responding to something with "cool story bro" is hardly productive, but it's not very detrimental either. Banning any non-constructive user on a whim is hardly detrimental, either, as is preventing the ban of a user who, while a tremendous troll, is also constructive. In large, the argument against him seems to view the wiki as a social-networking site, which is far from the actual purpose of a wiki. The argument in defense seems to view the wiki as an encyclopedia, where user interaction is largely disregarded, or at least should be. The extended debate on this page is about as fruitful as an argument between atheists and devout christians. I'd propose that the opposition to Auron find actual violations of policy, not possible violations of NPA or possibly biased bans. Similarly, those in support of Auron should really consider whether his lack of tact makes up for his abilities, considering that user interaction does happen on a regular basis.

tl;dr Everyone on this page uses far too much fallacy to support their arguments, and this is the fucking internet, where Wikidrama is more important than spending time with your family and friends. ··· cedave 20:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

indeed. --Cursed Angel 20:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

cool story bro

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Anyway, I'm pretty sure Auron is fine as a sysop and, while I think that the drama-lama "lynch mob" we've got gathering should be kept around and milked for as many lols as possible, this whole "issue" is a farce. If Auron was actually abusing his sysop privileges, then I'd be the first to say he needs to go, but unless someone can actually show me some sort of proof, it should be assumed he hasn't. Being an unorthodox admin not being a fucking carebear is not grounds for demotion. --Jette 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends on your point of view. I couldn't give half a fuck how personable Auron is, but certain other communities expect their admins to be extremely friendly, which might be the issue some users have. There's also some bias, but every admin has some, it's just a matter of who they piss off because of it. ··· cedave 16:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to abuse the admin position to have an RfA. Sysops in the past have requested their own reconfirmations. If this were to pass Auron wouldn't lose his admin position, the community would just have a chance to review his actions and decide whether or not they believe he is suited to the position. It appears he has less support now than he did when he got in and it's a very real possibility that an RfA would fail for him if it were held now. There is more to being a bad sysop than abusing the powers or breaking the rules. 114.78.1.246 12:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look through all of those were either grandfathered sysops who felt that they should actually go through an RfA at some point, due to potential abuse of sysop tools (Lemming64 and possibly making up violations and punishing for them, Tanaric and how he handled a situation with Eloc) or Lord Biro's reconfirmation which seems to have been more of a joke than anything else. How does this support your point at all? Misery 12:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)