Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Auron/Archive 4/Archive 2

In response to votes

(Moved from main page)
Strong Oppose — He has always seemed to have a problem with me, no matter what I do or how long I never talk to him. Besides, I believe that Sysops should be devoted to the wiki they are trying to sysop, but he is a Sysop on Guildwiki and a Beaurocrat on PvXWiki. I think 2 wikis is enough. — ク Eloc 貢 15:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd have a problem with you if I contributed here more. And did you read the acceptance bit at all? Lord of all tyria 15:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm, you certainly don't understand how much time some of us have on our hands? 3 wikis is very easy to handle and often 3 isn't even enough. BEsides, Auron doesn't contribute to GWiki anymore. -- (gem / talk) 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

How is "he doesn't like me" a reason to strongly oppose? He is already resigning his position at GuildWiki and I don't doubt his word that he will do his best for the community here. Jennalee 17:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved this from the actual voting to avoid cluttering the voting with comments. They are better placed on the talk page. - anja 16:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmmkk. Thanks. Lord of all tyria 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one, he's been a jerk to me since pretty much the day I met him. He also PMs me ingame and bitches at me for a lot of stuff which has little-no meanining. — ク Eloc 貢 00:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Many people above seem to think his bluntness or "tell it as it is" attitude is an asset. I for one strongly disagree. It goes directly against Guild Wars Wiki:Assume good faith which to me should be more than enough to oppose his nomination. Like Tanaric said, he often moves into grey areas of NPA. Sysops are supposed to deal with conflicts not create them. Many of Auron's comments seem to be emotive and often offend other users. Don't choose a devil to police a devil. I also don't think he should just quit GW sysop and just pop over here. Anon 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was up to bureaucrats to stop the conflicts... —Ebany Salmonderiel 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats don't stop conflicts, they help resolve conflicts that users couldn't resolve by themselves. -- ab.er.rant 01:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Auron a user "in good standing"? He's admitted to trolling and borderline personal attacks. Yes, Auron can be trusted to delete things and block people according to policy (a lot of people could be trusted to do this, really), but are you sure his views of our policies wont influence these actions in some way? I'm personally not okay with handing sysop rights to someone who thinks the system is a joke. And electing him won't change our model of adminship - he would still have to follow policy, and telling trolls to bugger off won't have any admin weight behind it. I agree with the others above that say he would do just as well as a regular user. - BeX 03:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

GL trying to find someone completely neutral to everything to do the janitorial work, then. Maybe if they were completely oblivious to the way the wiki works... Armond 03:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I say I was looking for someone completely neutral? Please don't put words in my mouth. - BeX 03:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't think of any other way you can get someone to do a job without being influenced by their opinions. Armond 04:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying either. - BeX 04:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit requirement

"(Do I need 100 edits for this? im at 92 now.) I think Auron would be good as a sysop.--Ryudo 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)"

No, you do not need 100 edits. That is a requirement only for the bureaucrat election. --Xeeron 16:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rawk out.--Ryudo 16:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can ips vote? 122.104.231.28 18:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the policy forbidding it. --Xeeron 18:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon

"I also don't think he should just quit GW sysop and just pop over here. Anon 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)"

Auron quit GuildWiki because he doesn't like the editors there ignoring stuff like YAV, and acting like idiots. I can probably be included in those editors. Lord of all tyria 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that also included me :/ Jennalee 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Many people above seem to think his bluntness or "tell it as it is" attitude is an asset."

I don't think it's an asset (really it's another kind of warts-and-all arrogance, and if there's one thing the interweb doesn't need any more of it's arrogance): under normal circumstances I wouldn't support but people keep behaving like idiots and nobody steps in. Auron's given every indication he will. If he messes up and breaks policies he can be de-sysoped via ArbCom, but it's about time somebody - anybody - made sure people don't get away with continual trolling. --NieA7 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be misinformed. You can't ban for trolling, it's a perspective crime anyway. Our admins aren't like the ones on GuildWiki. If Auron went around banning the way he is able to there he would breach policy because he is far more restricted over here. Our admin are expected to conform to a much stricter standard of conduct, if Auron will act like you say he likely won't fit the role of admin. 122.104.231.28 18:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To all the blunt-is-good users

I would like to make some observations and pose some nagging questions that I have. This is a good place to do it I suppose - many like-minded users watching this page (hopefully). Sorry Auron, hijacking a little.

Auron has already stated that he will abide by the policies, regardless of what he may think of them. As such, I would like to ask the supporters: Exactly how does reasons like stronger admin response, with an iron fist, blunt and undiplomatic, plus descriptions like "blunt", "scary", "abrasive", be applicable? Given the current nature of the sysop policy (even Auron himself believes that it is nothing more than janitorial in nature), please enlighten me as to how these traits would apply? Give him sysop tools to back up some of his more borderline NPA responses? I am not saying Auron is incapable of using the sysop tools reasonably, I'm asking for reasons why those reasons would apply when he can do no more than what the current admins are doing. So some of you guys think all sysops should bluntly tell off any trolls, troublemakers, and idiots? Despite AGF? And despite the fact we're not supposed to ban them? Or do you guys actually think we should ban them?

Some of the reasons given by the supporters are indirectly demeaning to the current sysops. I find it strange that we always have a bunch of users who are so outspoken about how the current sysops are lame or weak or ineffective, yet I do not see most of them even interested to comment on Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship, not bothered to participate in Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship on attempted proposals to change or rewrite it, such as Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/Draft 2007-11-14. Granted, some of you may be ignorant about those links, but still, not being bothered to even attempt to change anything means regardless of who you vote in, regardless of your views on sysophood, nothing is going to change.

Yea, I'm ranting again, maybe whining too. -- ab.er.rant 02:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, my mention of bluntness in my support is due to the fact that many seem to dislike him and oppose his nomination due to that bluntness. I don't think that his bluntness has any effect on his qualification for sysophood. --Edru viransu 02:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In no way were my comments intended to disparage the existing sysop team. I think they are doing a great job. However, I do feel that having Auron on that team would add another aspect to the balance and composition of that team. I knew this RFA was likely to be contentious, and I am sorry if any sysops took this as an attack on themselves, such was certainly not my intention. I guess I feel that the sysop team should be representative of many different views within the GWW and I feel that Auron's addition to the team would benefit this. I feel that the admin policy (including the proposed changes) are sufficient to keep Auron from any potential misuse of sysop powers in any worst case scenario. If this occurred I am also in many ways reliant upon the sysop teams ability to police themselves. I certainly do not see the elevation of Auron to sysop role to be a portent of doom and gloom for the GWW, nor do I believe that you think so yourself. In general I also feel that having more sysops for this wiki is not necessarily a bad idea, as I am worried about members of our sysop team burning out under their workload. I hope that helps to explain my perspective. Don't worry about ranting, at times it can be necessary :). --Indecision 03:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The policies for this place are hopeless, not so much in content but just in sheer volume. I find it impossible to track down every detail relating to every action that I'm supposedly allowed or not allowed to do. At the beginning I participated in several policy and formatting discussions, but they all got so hopelessly bogged down that nothing could be agreed on or decided. This wiki is not my life, it's not important enough to me for it to be worth my time spending hours and hours reading dozens of policies, discussions attached to policies, proposed policies and policy debates. I suspect that the same is true for many other people.

Generally I've found that trying to contribute to discussions on adminship simply boils down to whoever talks longest wins. Meanwhile hundreds of stupid "Welcome to the wiki" talk pages are created, foul insults are thrown are ANet staff and other users, prima donnas noisily slam the door behind them and pointless bickering between "wiki celebrities" continues. I suspect that the policies we have now are so vague that it would be entirely possible for a determined admin to take the bull by the horns and start thrashing rogue elements into shape. So far nobody has done this or tried to do this - I'd like to see what would happen if somebody did. If he gets it wrong, he can be booted. If he gets it right, we all win. The current admins are doing a fine job, they're just not doing all the jobs that need to be done. --NieA7 09:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"The policies for this place are hopeless, not so much in content but just in sheer volume" - funny, I don't see that much difference in volume between this and this and this. Could you please explain what "sheer volume" are you talking about? Erasculio 10:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that PvX wiki and GuildWiki were better examples with fewer policies, so for me I'm afraid the comparison is moot. Besides, Aberrant was talking not only of existing policies but keeping track of proposed policies and (more importantly) the discussion that goes with them - none of those are listed in that category. --NieA7 11:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my point is that many wikis have as many policies as this one has - those are needed for the working of this (and any other) wiki. Furthermore, I understood what Aberrant was talking about, but I also understood what you were talking about - and proposed policies who have not beed accepted, failed policies and the discussion within policies don't have "detail relating to every action", so they are not limiting you. The only thing that limits users are policies, and the "sheer volume" existing here is the same as anywhere else. If you believe you know of a way to deal with a wiki using significantly less policies, please enlighten us, GuildWiki and PvX Wiki. Erasculio 12:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wiki is imploding and PvX wiki appears to be very hostile to all but the in-clique, I don't think they're good examples to follow or useful shields to employ (nor is Wikipedia come to that). The solution I would prefer is simple but un-wiki like (dump specific policies and introduce more broad rules that can be interpreted and enforced by regularly elected admins) and will therefore not be accepted, so I'm not going to bother to suggest it - it'd only be a distraction. I'm not offering instant solutions, I'm saying that I perceive a flaw with the way Guild Wars Wiki is working and believe that appointing Auron as a Sysop may go some way towards fixing it. That's not a criticism of existing admins (different people are good at different things), nor is it a roundabout way of me saying I can fix all these troubles if you only ask: it's my opinion, nothing more, but it's that opinion that's made me say I believe Auron would make a useful sysop at this point. --NieA7 13:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What I was thinking is very neatly summed up by Indecision. I feel Auron's adminship would complement what we already have very well. - anja 10:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Our sysop team isn't lacking in any way. Like I have said elsewhere Auron won't be able to do anything different from our current sysop so his personal views are irrelevant to performing the role. The change you all seem to seek looks a lot more like a desire for policy change and not new admin. If you desire a smaller work load for current admin there are MANY better suited users on the wiki to perform the role. Auron is often a part of the problem we have on the wiki, problem users often display similair attitudes and behaviour to Auron's when dealing with other people on the wiki. Respect is very important in dealing with conflict and the "blunt" approach only escalates it. 122.104.227.205 12:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"there are MANY better suited users on the wiki to perform the role"

Could you name some? This isn't in any way sarcastic or rhetorical; I'm curious who you think could be a good sysop that isn't already. More sysops are a good thing, and there hasn't been an RFA besides this one since September. - Tanetris 17:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Votes in Favour

Seem to be more of a desire for a change in what Sysops are allowed to do and not what they currently are allowed to and should do. If this is the case many of their votes seem very misguided, if you want the Sysops to do those things propose policy changes, because electing someone to do them even in the face of our restraining policies is silly, as they can't do it. 58.110.136.10 07:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't vote for him cause I think he'll change the wiki, he's perfectly capable of doing that as a normal user. I voted for him because I think he'll be a good sysop. Just because you didn't vote in support of him doesn't mean we're misguided for doing so. - HeWhoIsPale 14:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I voted for him because of his record on the other wiki and how he preformed his duties on PvX wiki. unlike most of the other sysops he didn't delete votes because he didnt agree with them. he takes other peoples opinions into consideration when making decisions (I think), and that makes him good in my book. Grim Lavamancer Joe 00:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I, as well, voted for him because he would be a good sysop. --Edru viransu 01:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Auron is open more than a week now so it should be closed. Since this is the first time a RFA is close by the standards of the policy, I suggest we discuss whether it is successful or not on its talk page. --Xeeron 13:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My personal impression is that this RFA is unsuccessful. Our job as bureaucrats is to make sure that whatever the community wants to happen happens (as opposed to deciding what we believe is best for the community), using the three-to-one ratio as a general guideline to interpret which way consensus is leaning on any particular RFA. While we are certainly not only allowed but expected to use our discretion in weighing the results, in this particular case I feel that the opposers are clear, rational and realistic in why they are opposing the RFA, and as such I'd feel uncomfortable not treating these opinions as valid and giving them full weight. In fact, the supporters acknowledge those same characteristics and support Auron for them and, while the neutrals acknowledge the same blunt/harsh qualities, they consider them to be negative traits and significant enough to not allow them to vote in support.

Thinking from a "if it's on the fence, consider it successful" point of view, at this point I'm not taking into consideration at all whether the supporting votes are acceptable and serious in their intentions or not, I'm giving them all the benefit of doubt and full weight in the balance inside my head^(*). And yet, I still see the number of opposers and of "he's a good guy, but I can't support him because he's too..." neutrals too high in comparison to the rest to consider this a successful RFA.

* If the opposing opinions were too few to stop the RFA from succeeding, then I would look at the supporting votes to consider their validity, and see if that would make a tangible difference. --Dirigible 04:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lacking ten votes is considered close? Backsword 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the content of the votes... i would say yes. Maybe giving him adminship over the guilwars2 wiki, and waiting a couple of months for confirmation over this wiki? :) (i think he could be useful on the new wiki, now that we are just starting it). I doubt the current policy allows it, but it could still be considerated as an option.--Fighterdoken 18:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It was supposed to be on a 3-1 vote ratio if it's successful mainly. Also, a RFA here does not affect GW2W. They are individual sites and there are no policys over there right now. So he wont be a Sysop overthere just because he might now have had the required votes here to be a Sysop here. — ク Eloc 貢 18:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been able to respond to this sooner. I would agree with Dirigible that the request has been unsuccessful. LordBiro 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is unsuccessful as it's supposed to be near a 3-1 vote, but Auron is a little ways off of the (or even near) 3-1 ratio. — ク Eloc 貢 22:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That 3:1 is only a guideline. If it goes with it, that's good and should be considered. If it's not 3:1, then that should also be considered. Ultimately it's up to consensus, discussion, bcrat's decision, whatever.-- br12 • (talk) • 22:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got nothing but love for Auron, but I agree with the bureaucrats in that this RfA has been unsuccessful. —Tanaric 07:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Brains, I know it's only a guideline, but when you're pretty far from the guideline, then it's pretty unsuccessful. If he was off by maybe 1-2 votes, then sure, it could be considered successful, but he's further than that, which would be considered mainly unsuccessful. — † Eloc † 08:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty close to 3:1. A number of the opposing votes have... wrong... reasoning, so one could ignore them and make it look even better if one chose to. Armond 10:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting both Dirigible and Xeeron seem to think the opposing votes had fine reasoning and you go and state you think they had wrong reasoning. Please clarify which reasonings you believe to be wrong - I think the supporting votes more often than not had wrong reasoning or even no reasoning which is far worse. Very few of them demonstrate their reason for support with reasonings, if you want to support someone in an election fill out your vote with solid good qualities that person possesses and demonstrate critical thought of that person's ability. Otherwise your vote is no different from a feeling. 122.104.230.147 10:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 122.104. Whether you agree with them or not, the detractors, in general, genuinely thought about and supported their opinions. Some were a little weak -- I think Ebany's comment is way off, and Erasculio provided no reasoning -- but if you ignore those 2, you have to ignore votes # 2, 8, 10, 11, 14, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 on the support side too. —Tanaric 10:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)