GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/Auron of Neon (2)

Auron of Neon (talk &bull; contribs)
Auron pulls no punches. This is a good thing. He is helpful to those who ask for help and blunt to those who break policy or demonstrate foolishness. While this isn't always the best attitude for an editor in general, my experience has judged it to be quite useful to a team of sysops. We have enough nice guys like Xasxas256 and Gem on the sysop team already. Auron actually reminds me quite a bit of User:Karlos before he became a sysop -- except without the whole "the man is keeping us down!" complex. ;)

'''Note that, because I am a bureaucrat Auron has a... um... reputation..., by nominating this user for adminship via this process I willfully give up my right to appoint him. If Auron does get appointed as a sysop, LordBiro will have to be the one to do it.''' &mdash;Tanaric 13:06, 28 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Well... thanks, Tanaric. In the few months after my last RfA, I've had time to re-think my priorities; I respect other users more now, and I'm always willing to help if you ask :) So, in other words, I accept. -Auron  16:46, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Support
]] 05:38, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) A definite support. He is always helping me with bits and pieces of what I don't know. From that aspect alone, he deserves admin and will do a great job. Leina 06:02, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Support. --Dirigible 13:31, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) We need an admin with great PvP background and auron is definitely it.  With changes in the builds section, and he has been VERY helpful in creating new policies for builds and helping people understand what is going on.  With Skuld no-longer a sysop, we no longer have that "bad-cop" that really gets things done.  Like Tanaric said we already have the good cops on the sysop team.  We just need that bad cop to lay down the hammer especially when policy breaking is becoming ever more prevalent with many users not taking the wiki seriously, and using it as their personal playground. --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 13:39, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) I cast my vote in favor of Auron mainly because he is one to be blunt and to the point, and will not waste time pandering if he's being too mean, like many think DE would do. However, he also will not be scathing to the point of actually inciting new users to NPA like Skuld was notorious of. He has plenty of good edits throughout the wiki, sucessfully mediates comments, and IMHO be a very good person to give the sysop tools to.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 16:34, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) meowmeowmeowmeowmeowofcoursemeowmeowmeowmeow &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 18:46, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) ^^ That, in English. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs)  21:58, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) While I first voted neutral, I now see that we really need an admin, so here goes my vote. --[[User:Sigm@|Sig mA
 * 1) yaaaaaar! Seems very responsible since I've known him, and into builds 'n' stuff.(Not a fifty five 05:50, 29 March 2007 (CDT))
 * 2) Auron's cleaned up his act considerably since I've first gotten onto the Wiki (and since last RFA), and he is definitely admin material. It's about time he accepted. Auron knows how the system works and is a competent editor. He's got experience and tact, and having admin tools would be a good thing for him imho. What more is there to say? Support! [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 19:51, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) ^^[[Image:Pogsigv2.jpg]] (t-c) 20:02, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) - Skakid9090 22:42, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) Nothing to say... All been covered. How bout he is a great gw/gwiki vet. that good? [[Image:Asterisk.jpg]] AmericanVlad 19:42, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) Who's Auron? ;) Readem (talk *contribs ) 00:12, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I personally don't see what you will do with adminship, but I am confident that you will not abuse the right. Readem (talk *contribs ) 00:16, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Still got a bad taste in my mouth from the last nomination round, but I don't really know what he's been up to in the wiki lately. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 10:53, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Still not sure, but he sure could use the deletion tool, and he's been active in the poliy discussions too. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 02:53, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Okay, he has convinced me. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 08:47, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) I foresee no difficulty. -- Dashface [[Image:Dashface.png]] 08:53, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) A large part of wikis involves fostering growth of the community, and amidst competitiveness, arguments, creativity, jokes, hosility - what have you - it sometimes just boils down to welcoming and helping new users out. I was a long-time user of guidwiki, and I decided to join to share a certain build I created. I was new, so I tried my best to be friendly and open to criticism, and I got some very discouraging feedback from a lot of other users. It was a frustrating and almost embarassing time for me to receive such strong negative reaction from many people in the community, but Auron gave something that so few people offer in this community - constructive criticism. It's that simple, and yet so necessary to making new users feel welcome and appreciated. --[[Image:VFG-sig2.jpg|19px]]VoteForGwen 23:13, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) Better the devil that you know. (DISCLAIMER: it's a saying, not an insult). NightAngel 17:40, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Oppose

 * 1) Auron is a little less abrasive now. And he is a good contributor. But he's still too aggressive, too dismissive of people who disagree with him, and too quick to turn nasty. And he seems to think he's always right, which is not a good thing in an admin, because he's not as likely to make sure he's doing what's best for the wiki (instead of what's best in his opinion). Also, I think it's premature to appoint another admin before the new builds section is finalized, especially a person who is so focused on builds. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 17:16, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Things like this "Being designed for "Nog64's Skill contest" does not excuse a sucky build. It's a pointless build using a junky elite. -Auron 15:23, 2 April 2007 (CDT)" Make me wonder.  Solus  [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 23:20, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Neutral
]] 15:40, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) I have seen auron around, and I agree a little with what everyone says. D.E. makes a few good points, however, I dont think that Auron would be as bad as D.E. is saying. Lania Elderfire also makes a good point. Policy Breaking is happening more and more frequently. As stated, we already have enough Gems and XasXases in the Sysop. Maybe the wiki needs a bit more of a strict policy. However, both sides make good points, and I am still undecided. Caramel Ni 13:42, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) I vote Neutral again. I find Auron a great member and he deserves to be an admin, because you do everything an admin could do, but... I don't think we need one, we have enough with Gem. If I am wrong and if we greatly need an admin I'll support you! --[[User:Sigm@|Sig mA
 * Tanaric's nomination does somewhat mean we need admins....--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 16:49, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) I took a look at the previous nomination for adminship, and, I feel that I am torn between respect for Auron as an editor and the many problems, that users brought up before. I feel that, based on what I have seen, Auron has trouble being objective and in matters of conflict resolution.  While being blunt is sometimes necessary, taking it too far is another thing altogether.  On the other hand, he has a vast knowledge of both the site and Guild Wars and has made a lot of good contributions.  I am not convinced of what exactly he would be able to do as a Sysop that would be much different from what he does as a regular user and the lack of "people" skills is a little worrisome, but, I have decided that I will not stand in the way of his nomination.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 13:34, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Note: For anyone who reads this vote in considering Auron for Adminship -- This was originally an opposed vote, and I am still weakly opposed to the nomination. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:14, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) This is my "giving the benefit of the doubt" vote (read: was almost an oppose). Auron has been a contributor for a long time, making many good edits. He's also been blatantly rude, disrespectful, and stated his willingness to disregard wiki policies. Most of the negatives are wholly related to the builds section, but that's still no excuse in my book. I've seen far too many insults from him (not to me, mind you) to actively support this RfA. As he's basically admitted he was in the wrong in these cases and has had a change of heart (see his acceptance of nomination), I'm willing to consider that he's reformed enough to be an admin and so I will not actively oppose him. As for statements that the wiki is needing a "bad-cop", that a load of hooey. Tanaric's right, having an admin who's blunt is good. But I don't feel having an admin who's openly disregarding rules is acceptable. --Zampani 18:34, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Nobody said anything about openly disregarding rules mate. We were just saying that the wiki may need someone who is tougher than other Sysops. Caramel Ni 21:09, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm reading the literal interpretation of what was said. The term "bad-cop" often signifies someone who disregards rules or uses intimidation tactics in order to get things done. No offense meant to anyone, I simply want it known I don't agree with that as it was stated. --Zampani 23:15, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Doesn't seem to understand both sides of an arguement, never gives people the oppturnity to present there case. Gordon is more deserving as well.  Solus  [[image:Shield_of_Judgment.jpg|19px]] 21:18, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Not sure, I've seen some questionable stuff from him before, and though he says he's not the same now, it's still a tad worrisome for me. Not worrisome enough that I'll actively oppose, but worrisome enough that I won't actively support, either. Basically, same reasoning as the others who voted neutral. DKS01 08:40, 5 April 2007 (CDT)