User talk:Auron of Neon

May I ask...
...why you promoted R.Phalange when the community made it obvious that they felt it was a bad idea?-- (Talk) (Contr.) 00:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiki != democracy. - 71.224.123.149 00:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Never said it did, I just wanted a reason why Auron promoted him. Sorry if I implied otherwise.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 00:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly. He's proven his ability to be smart with block/delete/prot tools and is a trusted member of GWW. While some may say he shouldn't be "rewarded" for being good on another wiki, he doesn't become a different person when he edits a different wiki.
 * I've talked with him many times in the past few months, and have watched his responses to different situations. I've been pleased with them, and trust his ability to be a sysop here. We'll see how he pans out, but he won't be an outright failure or anything close to it. - Auron 00:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to add more to my "he doesn't become a different person when he edits a different wiki" point made earlier. Many people see sysop as a coveted position, something to strive for, yadda yadda... it really isn't that big a deal. On the lowest level, it's a set of tools that a user can bring to play to help sort out the wiki. However, because admins on this wiki are also expected to police themselves, care is given to only promote trusted users. Knowing when to use the tools and being able to prevent oneself from abusing them are really the only requirements for adminship; however, if you've proven yourself incapable of either, you really aren't suited for the job, even if you're super nice or super knowledgeable of wikicode.
 * R.Phalange can keep himself in check and has demonstrated exceptional use of sysop tools already. Some may protest his attitude, but I'm sure you'll now find it to be satisfactory... as long as yours is, in turn (that's a collective "yours," not really aimed at anyone specific). - Auron 02:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem most people have with this is that we have not had sufficient time to judge R.Phalange's character for ourselves, and I think that is a very justified position, especially since he felt he needed to use a different username on this wiki. It's not technically sockpuppeting, no, but it had the same intent: to free himself of the history/reputation of his GWW username.  If he has a good reputation at GWW, why not use the same username here so that the reputation can follow him?  It's illogical.
 * If R.Phalange had waited even another month, to give himself time to build a reputation here and to let the stain of wikidrama fade away, I have no doubt that most of his RfA's "oppose" comments would have changed to "support". As it is, his promotion at this time seems unwarranted and, yes, undeserved.  It might have made a difference had we known who he was on GWW, but instead we were forced to make those RfA comments based on the mere 22 days since he registered here.  Not to mention that he didn't even state why he felt he should be promoted, nor did you make any comment in support of him.  Either of those could have helped the situation greatly.
 * I'm not saying that this promotion was wrong in and of itself, only that the timing and handling of it could have been much better. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 03:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To little gain, though. I could have waited a year and he'd have gotten full support votes. Wouldn't have mattered either way. - Auron 03:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It would have made all the difference. Why do you think that people would have changed their votes over the course of a year? Because during that time he/she would have had the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities to handle the role of a sysop on this wiki. I do not consider edits like this to be sysop material. Given the way this R.Phalange's Rfa unequivocally failed, I'm clearly not the only person sharing this view.


 * There is no history on the GWiki of promoting someone with a handful of edits to a sysop because of their actions on another wiki or because they're a friend of a bureaucrat, with the exception of some of Gravewit's original promotions such as User:Adam.skinner. I don't remember ever seeing any change to GW:ADMIN reflecting this change, although I do read Further, because the administrator's character is well-known before his promotion, abuses of administrator power simply do not happen. Plenty has already been said about the role of bureaucrats recently so I don't wish to harp on but to me a bureaucrat's role is to enforce policy in the way that benefits the community as greatly as possible. This may not always follow the popular vote but the community should always have faith that the decisions that a bureaucrat makes are in the interest in the community, even if they don't know it at the time.


 * How has this promotion, which contravenes our current policies and processes benefited the GWiki community, particularly when you will not even reveal who R.Phalange is? I believe your own interactions with him off wiki can basically be discarded when deciding a person's ability to perform the duties a sysop is required to on this wiki. The administrators need to have the trust of the community and currently I have no faith in R.Phalange's administration skills and I am fast losing faith in your ability to perform your duties as well.


 * Alarm bells should already have gone off in your head when a ban tag was place on your user page after you resurrected the rfa, why would you then go and sysop the person? I do not like the idea that the people at the top are running an "old boys" club where friends get a leg up over everybody else. You didn't consult the community or ask for our input before making this decision which was obviously going to be controversial, where is your accountability? Your, "We'll see how he pans out" attitude scares me greatly, sysops are highly regarded members of the community for a reason, we do not promote people on a trial them demote them if they "pan out" to be a bad choice. They must prove them self to be a pillar of the community first. Finally I find it unlikely that a good sysop would accept the position after just a month of editing and getting to know the community and more importantly after the community has clearly expressed their wishes that are that they don't want to see the person sysoped. --Xasxas256 04:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The "we'll see how he pans out" attitude doesn't exist. I know he'll be a better sysop than most we currently have. You're correct; we don't promote people on trial and decide if they're good. If I had even the slightest doubt, I wouldn't have promoted.
 * If people took a moment's break from whining, they'd find out exactly who Phalange is, and spend a few minutes reading his edits and people's responses to him on GWW. Just maybe. Although that would be too sensible an option, naturally; the bureaucrat must be corrupt, AGF doesn't exist, etc etc.
 * You are free to have no faith in Phalange's administration skills, but if you have no faith in me, the wiki is truly broken. I've not broken my trust, nor have I ever acted to disrupt/destroy the wiki. I'm a dick - but only that. I don't try to break the wiki down, I don't try to drive away its users. I could probably be very successful at that tbh, but I have zero interest in it whatsoever.
 * This is a trial period for you guys, mostly. There'll be no difference in the end. I know he's capable and headstrong and all that jazz, and he's not going to fail. So instead of waiting a year with him not helping as a sysop, I can use him for that year and by the end of it (or sooner, hopefully), he'll be just as accepted as normal.
 * This wiki had a slight shortage on amazing sysops. We had a few adequate ones, but not very many excellent ones. With Entropy's leaving, we were one under my quota - so instead of wracking this wiki for a person that may or may not be an excellent sysop, I got someone I knew was qualified.
 * I'm not gravewit. I'm more of a tanaric. My decisions might not always be popular, but they're almost always right - especially big ones like this. This isn't some random user, this isn't some IRL friend. He's a solid wiki contributor that has sysop experience and will do an excellent job.
 * And yeah. I didn't do it per policy. But since this wiki needs help in the worst way, I'm willing to go out of the way to find it. Now all we need are regular users that fit the "wikidragon" editing style... - Auron 05:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need to "break trust" when you've never earned it to begin with. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 05:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't be cute, it is not the responsibility of the community to research who a person's monkier is on another wiki. The question was asked, and you refused to answer it. If his or her ability on another wiki is all the proof we should need, then why were we not provided with that proof? Are basically saying that your wishes are greater than the GWiki community? We have RFAs for a reason. A good bureaucrat would have stated these things beforehand and kept us in the loop, not argued them after. Why has there been no transparency in this appointment? If there's one seen from the arguments with Gravewit, it's the transparency is vital to the success of a wiki and one of the important ideals we hold here. Almost none of the old guard circa 2006 is left here with the exception of myself, Pansola and possibly Gem. So just because you don't have as many people beating down your door doesn't make it any better. Those principals and ideals the wiki was founded on were there for a reason and those policies reflected it. I am not accepting you saying "trust me" as a reason to appoint a sysop, particularly when you didn't feel it was necessary to explain to the community first. "My decisions might not always be popular, but they're almost always right - especially big ones like this." This is very worrying and I fail to see how you haven't broken the community's trust, you have gone with your own ideals instead of the GuildWikis. --Xasxas256 05:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Has anyone asked him what his GWW user name is? One time? I'm pretty sure there's a problem with that. If I wanted to know who someone was, I'd post on his talk page, not someone else's asking for his information.
 * We have RfAs for a reason; to appease the public. Occasionally we gain insight on the RfA-ee. Since they've rarely done the latter (much more so in this case, when the level of useful feedback was nil), I ditched the facade. As usual, I gained no more insight than I already had on the subject matter (I'd considered the lack of mainspace edits, trolling posts made in conjunction with Banjthulu, seeming newness to the wiki, etc all before I decided to promote).
 * "Those principals and ideals the wiki was founded on were there for a reason and those policies reflected it." I'm pretty sure the bureaucrats did the same shit back then, too - with the exception of very few early RfA's, they've all been absolute jokes. When people think a vote count matters, they stop trying to provide reasoning. At that point, RfA's become pretty useless as a tool, so they mostly get ignored. I realize now that I made the same mistake Entropy did; I shouldn't have opened one to begin with.
 * Why has there been no transparency? The only thing you don't know is who the user is, and that's a combination of both our faults. I haven't given it out, but nobody's asked him, either, so you can't begin to pretend that one's all my fault.
 * I've gone with my ideals of capable sysops over guildwiki's ideal of capable sysops? Not following your point. If you mean all the beating-around-the-bush crap, then right, I didn't follow it; I gave my reasoning for that already. This wiki needs help. In case you didn't notice, it is dying. If nothing ever changes, it will die. The longer we wait, the harder this task of improving it becomes.
 * I'm the only one I've seen trying to change things. Jedi has been a sysop for a good while, and is now a bcrat, but has done jack all to improve the wiki. Same with Entropy - an admirable effort was extended at keeping the wiki afloat, but more is needed or the wiki will dwindle. The influx of users from the Wikia merge has been all but imperceptible, and I think that's partly been the administration not paying close attention to new editors and helping them develop.
 * When this summer camp finishes, I want to work with Wikia staff on possible contests (or any idea, hell) to get new users interested in the wiki. Newer users means new ideas being introduced, and possibly something to give us an "edge" over GWW, and thus gain more users. In the meantime, side projects and improvement drives will pop up, and the wiki will improve visibly.
 * I'll be more open in the future, as I have been in the past. Since you're missing Phalange's identity, and that seems to be a major point of contention... why don't you ask him about it? I'm not even sure he wants his identity to remain a secret. But because I hadn't specifically asked, I decided against breaking any perceived trust and giving it out.
 * Actually, hell, I've given it to JediRogue. It's not a super big secret :/ - Auron 07:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no qualms with R.Phalange but I have some serious reservations with yourself. I don't presume that a user has a secret identity, why should I have asked who they are on their RFA? Even if I did know they were a prominent member of another wiki I wouldn't have felt it necessary to ask them to reveal themselves anyway, it seemed pretty obvious that their RFA was going to fail. The community only had a reason to question who they were after you sysoped them. If you have some grand plan to reinvigorate the community then I suggest you tell them, instead of eroding their faith in the administration, aside from anything else, if this plan is going to be successful I presume it will need their help.


 * "We have RfAs for a reason; to appease the public" this basically says to me that you're the wrong man for the job, simple as that. You demonstrate a lack of respect for the community, RFAs are there to help a Bureaucrat make their decision. They give the candidate an opportunity to answer any questions and to take suggestions on board. Not all rules are bureaucracy and red tape, a person in your position should know this. If you feel otherwise then you can suggest and enact changes to our policies, but ignoring them as you see fit is not an option. "...with the exception of very few early RfA's, they've all been absolute jokes" I don't believe that at all, as far as I can tell our policy here has always been to sysop people as they become necessary and I don't take the input from users lightly.


 * In spite of the above I feel it is important to say that you've been a positive influence on the wiki and you've dedicated an enormous amount of time and effort to improve the place. I'm eager to hear what your ideas with the Wikia staff are, and I'm happy to help out with any good ideas as my time allows. But I do not think you are suited to the role of Bureaucrat, I'm sorry. --Xasxas256 08:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you think that as well, but there's nothing to do about it. It's down to a difference of opinions. RfA's have given me no insight in *ages*. It's not just that I ignore people, it's that I've thought of it before. RfA's theoretically give the community a chance to put forth their opinion in an effort to sway the bureaucrat who, now and throughout all of GuildWiki history, have complete control over promotions. The bureaucrat is the final arbiter - if you feel strongly against someone because valid reason X, then you put "valid reason X" on the RfA. For example:


 * "Only 2 mainspace edits --JonTheMon 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)" is fine. It's an argument presenting cold, hard facts in its defense. Unfortunately, I had taken that into consideration.
 * "Though I think this user's perspective is correct, I don't think someone recently blocked for wiki disruption would make the best admin. Also, this user's sharp (for lack of a better word) attitude and frequent veiled/borderline NPA doesn't quite convince me they'd make a good adminstrator. --Shadowcrest" is equally valid, and supports a good argument with a valid defense. Also unfortunately, I knew the circumstances of his actions and why he did what he did, and decided it wasn't that important.
 * For the entire rest of the RfA, all of the votes are cast in ignorance. They're basically flat wrong. "Not enough experience." "there are *much* better candidates.." and "I do not feel that this user has had enough time on this wiki for promotion."
 * That's aside from the people who give bad votes to begin with, completely outside of their logic and argument. "I don't think he deserves Admin because he hardly has any mainspace edits or helping people in talk pages of the mainspace. Also when does having more than 80% to User and User talk pages allow people to be RfA'd? Then again you did do this for yourself which I'm highly against but thats your decision to get 10 oppose before it's over" shows ignorance of the entire process. Since when did edit counts/namespaces matter? I think the only time I've seen that argument hold water was against Defiant Elements back when he was shot down for GWiki adminship because most of his edits were in the Build: namespace. Now, on a wiki where most edits happen on the user talk namespace (seriously, look at RC, it's quite disturbing), the year-old expectations of a mass of mainspace edits are quite outdated.
 * That was, as I said, my fault. I should not have opened an RfA at all in this case - it misled the community. The normally appeasing process was mostly ignored, which is much of the reason people are so butthurt. Get over it. I just shot down the majority of the comments that were there, and explained how I had already thought of the valid ones. It isn't a necessary process. Want another example, but to the other extreme? Requests for adminship/Gem. A landslide of "i think gem is a pretty cool guy eh" votes, and no thought put into it. Hell, even I had voted in a vain attempt to be diplomatic instead of honest. :/
 * Biro bent under pressure and promoted, which carried over to GWW. After a few months, Gem performed... decently. No unjust blocks were performed, no pages had been maliciously deleted, but the community finally realized their mistake... after months of watching. This case is the other way around - the community universally dislikes, but again, is universally wrong. The reason in either case is irrelevant (here, mostly due to ignorance - again, my mistake on the RfA opening - in gem's case, the community liking carebears without giving enough thought to the matter).
 * As much as I hate "the ends justify the means," it really applies to this case. The wiki prospering is the ultimate goal. For that to happen, we need more movers and shakers - and less people so scared of change that they'll go out of their way to prevent it, letting the wiki stagnate.
 * I can't say much more without repeating myself, but I think I've covered all the bases. RfA's are a tool to placate the masses; occasionally, someone will have a unique opinion, but those occurrences are so few and far between that all the drama caused in the meantime really isn't worth those very rare pearls of wisdom. In the end, Bureaucrats make the decision. This recent episode of drama mostly reinforces my belief that RfA's aren't worth it anymore, but I don't care enough to abolish them entirely. I guess I'll wait and see how the next few placate the masses before coming to any kind of a final decision. - Auron 09:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have escalated this matter to your fellow bureaucrats, PanSola and JediRogue. I don't believe I have much more to say on the issue either. On RFAs, of course certain votes will be less meaningful than others but the process is nevertheless important. I think that all bureaucrats take these things with a grain of salt but there can still be useful comments. I don't think is was particularly uncommon for LordBiro or Tanaric to say during or after an RFA that they hadn't really considered this or that until it was mentioned. Ignoring RFAs to me says that you believe you know more than the entire community put together. I cannot understand how you say that not opening an RFA would have mislead the community less. To me a bureaucrat is someone who listens to the feedback the community gives, the evidence at hand and then makes a decision based on the policies we have and what they think is best for the community. Not just what they think is best, ignoring policies and the community. Using the word "butthurt" to describe community anguish is unnecessary and talking of "placating the masses" is insulting. I don't think you appreciate the weight your position and actions hold and with due respect, I don't think you have the required diplomacy. --Xasxas256 11:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Under some other name on GWW? Because there is no R.Phalange user page or user talk page there.  Quizzical 00:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm not sure I'm at liberty to give it out, but feel free to ask him. - Auron 02:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically, the RfA wasn't open any more as it wasn't listed on GW:RFA - but that's a technicality. What irks me most is that what we read here from Auron wasn't posted to the RfA - a clear vote of support from Auron and this discussion should have been had before the promotion, not after. --mendel 07:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, the wiki has fallen a lot if its come down to users vs bcrat. Auron is right; without Wizardboy's Image: spam, we get like 300 contribs in a day. Noon GMT and we have edits from 3~ pm the previous day showing. I have to truthfully say that, regardless of position on another wiki, R should prove himself before being sysoped. And the nature of which he has shown, being somewhat trollish, is.. disturbing, to say the least. I'd also like to point out that R.Phalange started the RfA, not you Auron, so are you saying that you're R? Or did you tell him to start it? In any case, I'm staying away from this potential drama, but first I'm going to give my opinion on it:
 * May I remind you that RfAs are supposed to only be a popularity contest, RfAs in themselves don't really matter; its always been the bcrats decision. Its just that previous bcrats have always been a tad more.. Diplomatic than Auron, following the community rather than what they thought. Auron himself is, as he does acclaim to be, almost always right in his judgement of character. It'd just be nice if who R.Phalange is could be told. From what I can tell from your reluctance to tell his name, theres a somewhat high chance that hes a sysop with a bad reputation; or perhaps he has asked you to keep his name secret.
 * At the same time, I think it is evident that Auron likes this person, since undeniably I'm here to help the wiki, he wouldn't promote me if I got 14 opposes (Which is a point I raised with him on IRC). Auron is evidently bias, and so I have to say, wouldn't it have been a better choice to tell one of the other bcrats (Jedi or Pan) what you knew, and wait for their decision?
 * I know that at heart, if not always working, he wants to help the wiki. This is one of those things that will end badly if a compromise isn't reached soon, I think. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 12:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh... the notion of Phalange having a bad reputation on GWW is actually somewhat comical. Anywho, I believe he's been asked on his talk page to reveal his identity, so to speak, so you may want to wait for his response.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  17:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

R.Phalange has said on his user page that he used to be Brains12 here. I doubt that Auron's refusal to give out the previous name was attempting to hide anything; most likely it was just trying to respect privacy when he wasn't sure if R.Phalange would care. But it's now a moot point.

What isn't a moot point is Auron's contention that if he had waited a year, R.Phalange would have had overwhelming support. Brains12/R.Phalange has contributed to this wiki for nearly a year. Let's have a look at his record. As Brains12, he has exactly 14 mainspace edits, all of which were pretty minor. Those include reverting a vandal, introducing a few typos, fixing several other typos, adding a trivia section, and then deleting that trivia section. They're all pretty routine stuff, and not terribly objectionable. In addition, he had 24 talk edits as Brains12.

Suppose that the community knew that R.Phalange was also Brains12. With that thin of a track record, would the community have been overwhelmingly in favor of making him an admin? It might not have been unanimous opposition, but that thin of a track record probably would have merited more responses along the lines of "who is he?" than support.

Auron's contention that mainspace doesn't get edited much anymore is likewise false. I don't care to look up the statistics on others, as it can be a pain to determine when people first registered. Personally, I first registered late last October, more than three months after Brains12. In particular, I registered long after GWEN had been released, so I didn't participate in any rush to post new content. In that time, I have 238 mainspace edits, of which many are minor tweaks, but some are major reorganizations or largely rewrites of long articles.

The reason to bring up mainspace edits is that those are essentially the point of the wiki. Take away the mainspace and we'd have nothing more than a social club only marginally associated with Guild Wars. Take away everything but main, talk, image, and template, and the wiki would be scarcely less useful to the plethora of unregistered users who read it as a resource.

Auron has no right to complain about a lack of useful comments in the RfA. What was essentially done was to say, here's a candidate for admin, but we're not going to tell you who he is, so you can't look at his track record. After hiding the candidate's track record, you cannot complain that people weren't able to make useful comments about it.

Is the RfA primarily to appease the public? While that is one reason for them, it is an important enough reason that the RfA process would be important even if that were the only reason. Even if admins and bureaucrats could invariably make the best possible decisions, if those decisions are buried in secrecy and never explained, it would create the perception that the wiki is run by some abusive, incompetent cabal. Perceptions matter, as it is perceptions that lead people to join or leave the wiki community. Often perceptions will follow reality, but not if all who know what is really going on keep it secret.

But that is not the only reason to have an RfA process. It is a basic principle of good governance that in any sizeable community, the smartest member will rarely know more than the entire rest of the community added together. While the wiki is not and should not be a democracy (in part because elections are often decided by turnout among people who don't particularly care), transparency in administration and consulting the general public does matter. If it is adviseable to give an explanation upon reverting a minor edit, how much more so is an explanation important when appointing a sysop for life!

There is also the issue that some people are very good at being nice to those they perceive as being in charge, and otherwise being an obnoxious jerk. Someone may be widely hated through most of a game's community, while his superiors are completely unaware of it. Examples that I've personally seen in other games come to mind. This tends to be less of a problem when everything that is said is out in the open for everyone to see, as is common on the wiki. But that precaution seems to have been wantonly discarded here.

Gem is cited as an example of a sysop who was supported by the community but didn't turn out that well. To that I ask, how so? If you concede that you can't point to any abuse of the sysop powers, then how did it harm anything for Gem to become an admin? If that is the worst indictment of the community consensus sometimes being wrong, then that would be quite a powerful argument in favor of the traditional RfA process.

Auron talks of changing things, but leaves open the question of what to change. It is not possible to have generic change in the abstract, but only to change particular things. Changes made for the sake of making changes almost invariably turn out to be destructive or at best inert.

One final question: if there aren't enough active admins, does that mean we should be trying to nominate and support more admins from within the community? Surely that would be preferable to having more random unknown and only marginally active people foisted on us over the objections of the community. I know that admins are supposed to use the power to ban, delete, and protect pages as appropriate, and that bureaucrats are additionally supposed to appoint admins. Do they have other major duties that I haven't noticed? Quizzical 21:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * o no i created wiki-drama--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 03:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Disrespect to the community. That's the feeling I get reading Auron answers. As a newcomer, I'm surprised about the way this RfA is handled. Apparently it was needed to hide his identity and there was no need to tell the readers of the RfA about it. Then an RFA was started without even mentioning *why* he should be an admin. Somehow, it wasn't allowed to be closed. Again, without any good explanation. Now he became admin and people asking why, since he had no positive feedback on the RfA. For the first time, Auron shed some light why, how and when. Basically it sums up to: "yeah, you dont know what I know, he's a cool kid and will save our GW and trust me on that one. Your comments where lame (because you don't know what I know). Admins chosen by the community are not better and I shouldn't started an RfA in the first place." Although the motives are noble, I can't help to think that we -as community- are wanted, informed, asked or valued in any way, following this line of reasoning. Sheez, thanks. Apparently you don't need us at all here, why do I even bother ? -- [[Image:merty_sign.gif]]-- ( talk ) 03:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Apparently you don't need us at all here, why do I even bother?" To run the wiki - keep the content updated, make changes to the content, form consensus on this policy or that, etc. The community at large excels at everything except picking admins, at which they are decent... but not great. They tend to favor carebears, sacrificing individual reliability for kindness. That leaves you with a wiki that can't handle trolls and/or major asshats.
 * I prefer a mix. Carebear sysops are necessary in any good admin team, but they can't make up the entirety of it - that's like going into GW with a team full of monks, ditching warriors and eles and stuff just for the healing power. It works sometimes, but when the going gets rough, the team can't handle the situation.
 * This wiki hasn't had too much of a problem with an overwhelming carebear crew. Entropy picked quite well, given the limited resources available to her, and kept the wiki from descending into a spiral of decay. However, if the community gets the pick, the carebears will fill up the spots and the rest is history.
 * That was the problem with Gem. He's smart, trustworthy and very kind, but didn't... get it. He never abused his admin powers, but he didn't need to; he contradicted himself in several discussions (sometimes multiple times in a single discussion), and would seem to agree with whichever crowd was loudest. I still think he's better than several people at the job (most notably some of the earlier admin picks on GWW), and he's certainly not the worst, but he's my preferred example of why carebearism doesn't win. At this point, I'm happy that he's on board on this wiki; he's learned from feedback over the years, and has shown quite an effort to improve.
 * Anyway, back to the point. It was my mistake opening the RfA to begin with, I've said it before - I wasn't faulting anyone (even in my previous post) for their ignorance, because there was no possible way for them to know. I should have just left discussion out of it and let his actions speak for themselves. Ever since his block, he's been acting and performing like the Brains12 everyone knows.
 * I should have asked if I could tell everyone who he was, but I honestly didn't think of it until it was too late. I was (like my userpage says) up at camp, so I was getting random 15 minute intervals to catch up with the wiki stuff, and my random intervals never coincided with his online time, so I never got a chance to ask. What with the stress of campers showing up (and a boss who thinks any minute I spend on my computer is a minute spent gaming), I didn't realize I could have just asked him on the wiki - dumb on my part.
 * "To me a bureaucrat is someone who listens to the feedback the community gives, the evidence at hand and then makes a decision based on the policies we have and what they think is best for the community." Xas, that's exactly what I did. The RfA brought up two solid points, and a bunch of extraneous stuff. I factored in those two points before making the decision. The evidence at hand was knowledge of his account name on GWW - again, it played a major role in his being promoted, even if it was known only to me (and Jedi). And lastly, I promoted because I did think it was best for the community. He'll be a great sysop and a fun editor.
 * "or perhaps he has asked you to keep his name secret." I think he did, at one point, back when he was in the trolling mode with Banj. Maybe that's why I was confused and didn't think to re-ask after he had agreed to act like his normal self. However, May, the promotion had nothing to do with bias; if I were promoting friends, Scourge and DE and probably Tanetris would be admins. I told you exactly why I wouldn't promote you, no matter what the vote count; I simply don't trust you :P
 * "The reason to bring up mainspace edits is that those are essentially the point of the wiki." Right... but wrong. "Administrate users, not content" is the old adage, it's probably still on the admin page somewhere. A person can be an amazing sysop simply by editing the user talk namespace; he doesn't have to touch the main namespace to get his sysop work done. Again, the person would have to be an exceptional speaker, but excellent mainspace edits don't magically hold more water than excellent user talk edits.
 * "But that is not the only reason to have an RfA process." Yeah, it really is. If people were giving excellent, unique opinions, I'd keep it up in a heartbeat - but that hasn't been the case, so they've caused more headache than anything. They aren't worth a damn if all they are is a vote count.
 * I have more to say, but I've got to go pick up uniforms, BBL :< - Auron 04:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Amusing. This section alone is getting a 32kb message. I obviously missed a lot of drama while I was gone. Personally, I agree that he'll be a good admin. Obviously more explanation would be good, but you've evidently figured that out without my help =) [[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]Entrea  [Talk]  04:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In short, Auron: In promoting Brains you have probably made the right choice and certainly acted within your powers. But you've pissed off several of the (very small) band of people who still make constructive edits. That's not good. You may have done the right thing, and abided by the rules, but your community relations need more work if you expect this wiki to survive.Lurkerabove 09:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Auron; Knowing who R is hasn't changed my perspective, if anything it has lessened my opinion of Brains, whom I always thought a decent editor, and in no way a troll. What my basic point is is that you've alienated just about everyone who voted in that RfA, and probably a dozen more people aside.
 * Entrea; the fact that so many people are opposed to Auron shows that, at the very least, the decision wasn't good for the community. Sure, he may have been right in the long run, but is losing 2-3 members of the wiki worth gaining 1 sysop? I don't know if anyone will leave, but some people I know are considering it.
 * Would you please explain your rationale for promoting Brains? Sure, I know that you consider him a wonderful sysop on the other wiki, but theres got to be more to it than that; else I'm sorely disappointed. Surely you of all people should know that bad reputations carry, not good ones.
 * R.Phalange has only been a troll, and most of his contributions somewhat.. pointless. Of course, perhaps the sysoping will make him more responsible, but from what I've seen, he'll only mess around.
 * Oh, and Auron; I don't blame you for not trusting me, but isn't that a Assume Good Faith breach? :o &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 10:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a breach of AGF cause you're known to cause havoc and be reckless when having an idea. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  10:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not assuming anything anymore. I've seen too much of your actions. AGF mostly applies (in spirit and wording) to anonymous/new editors who make a mistake - one that we assume is honest. You're neither anonymous nor new, nor am I responding to any specific edit you've made. AGF couldn't apply to this situation less, tbh. - Auron 12:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Who says he did the right thing? Have a look over R.Phalange's contributions. He's only been here for less than a month but during this time he managed to get himself banned because of his actions. These kind of matters always attract comments from a small few, possibly most are unaware of what's going on and as for those who choose not to comment, perhaps they don't like to deal with conflict, or they don't feel as though they can add anything constructive to the debate, I don't know. This doesn't mean that the repercussions of what happens here won't end up having an effect on these users. Whether people like it or not we have certain processes here for a reason and it's not to placate the masses, these things do matter. Having one person at the top calling all the shots while chainsawing through red tape may sound like a wonderfully romantic idea but the reality is different and I wouldn't trust anybody with that. You cannot help a community who's rules you don't care for and don't listen to. Look what's your main role as a bureaucrat? It's promoting and demoting sysops and bureaucrats; you're not some maverick go getter politician or lone sheriff. You're basically a judge, listening to the relevant arguments.
 * If Auron doesn't back down then I will ask for his demotion and that becomes a decision for the remaining bureaucrats. If they made their decision and said the arguments for the community were largely worthless and handed down their verdict without explanation then I would be much aggrieved, particularly if the decision was unfavourable I suppose. Even if somehow their verdict could somehow be quantified as "correct" I'd still be unsatisfied. This is a people person role and requires listening and diplomacy, not just action, even if it is the correct action. And I also don't see how any grand plans for reinvigorating the wiki require bureaucrat rights.
 * I urge people to think about the contributions of the person who got sysoped, was this really the right decision? Think about the way it was done, against the community's wishes and without any prior explanation. Look at the language he's used to describe the community. Consider what Auron has said, next time he wouldn't bother with an RFA. What does this mean for the future if we decide this course of action and behaviour is acceptable? --Xasxas256 11:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're on some paladin spree, be sure to include the rest of the evidence, Xas. You wouldn't want to appear biased, eh? His contributions can also be found here, and evidence of his ability to deal with people diplomatically can be found here, and his sysop log is here. Since the promotion was made with that information in mind, it would be foolish to pretend that I promoted him based on some troll edits followed by a block.
 * I'm mostly annoyed that you've ignored the vast majority of my posts. You're re-hashing arguments that have already been de-bunked. His trolling posts have been explained - take it or leave it, but please stop bringing it up unless you have something to add. His ban has been explained, and he's also detailed how it made him focus on his original goal. If you want to ignore those posts and act as if they didn't happen, go ahead, but please do so on someone else's talk page, as they're really just making this a circular argument.
 * "Whether people like it or not we have certain processes here for a reason and it's not to placate the masses, these things do matter." If you have a specific argument concerning any of the processes I skipped, feel free to voice it. I haven't heard anything yet, except for a chorus of "RfA's aren't just to placate the masses," which haven't been supported by... y'know, anything. Like I've said a hundred times - their purpose is to give Bureaucrats community feedback on the candidates. If the community feedback is nothing more than stuff bureaucrats can tell in two seconds anyway (we can check special:editcount too, you know), then the process isn't worth it - IMO. Like I've also said, however, I have no wish to stop using them now, and will continue to watch the next few RfA's to see how they happen before I will begin to think about nixing the idea. Although I guess you tl;dr'd that bit, because you seem to think I'm ditching the idea entirely. Are you even reading this? :/
 * "Having one person at the top calling all the shots while chainsawing through red tape may sound like a wonderfully romantic idea but the reality is different..." Oh, man, that would be cool indeed. Yes, reality is different - if I had that proverbial chainsaw, I'd have deleted AGF/1RV/YAV/NPA and made one big "don't be a dick" policy. What a way to maximize efficiency, eh? However, I have no interest in fixing what isn't broken.
 * "You cannot help a community who's rules you don't care for and don't listen to." I disagree, but this is mostly a matter of belief. Can't argue very far either way without falling into the depthless ocean of opinion.
 * "Look what's your main role as a bureaucrat? It's promoting and demoting sysops and bureaucrats." Right. I did that.
 * "If Auron doesn't back down then I will ask for his demotion and that becomes a decision for the remaining bureaucrats. If they made their decision and said the arguments for the community were largely worthless and handed down their verdict without explanation then I would be much aggrieved, particularly if the decision was unfavourable I suppose." I think you need to fit more fallacious logic here. More appeals to emotion would finish that paragraph right off.
 * Xas - I still respect your opinion, but it seems like you haven't read half of this discussion, because you're making absolutely outrageous, and even absolutely false, claims. I would at least ask you to finish reading before you request my resignation :/ - Auron 12:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Strategy
"This wiki needs help. In case you didn't notice, it is dying. If nothing ever changes, it will die." How do you figure that? Number of active Wikians dwindling? Number of mainspace edits falling off? How are pvxwiki and gww doing compared to us?

Let's face it, in 10 years this wiki will be dead, so it has to die at some point between now and then, as does the GW community (except for some die-hards). If you can keep this wiki growing in spite of the GW community dying, you're a miracle worker.

If you have a strategy then why not put that up for discussion so the community can buy into it? So far, your strategy looks like a) getting into the guild pages market, b) getting sysops from GWW, c) alienating your best editors by promoting a sysop over their heads, d) getting editors from other wikia communities. a) and b) look like "imitating our best competitor" - and he has advantages we can't match. d) I don't see working - I think the wikia move made sense to wikia because they were getting editors from us; I doubt there are wikia editors who play GW and don't know our wiki.

In short, I'm not buying. --mendel 07:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So you suggest... giving up? Playing Mafia until Wikia decides we're more of a liability than an asset? Sorry, not interested.
 * I have two ideas in my head without brainstorming with Wikia staff/the wiki. Firstly, some kind of contest; maybe with in-game prizes, maybe with real-life prizes. Something to get outside people interested in joining the community (or at least creating an account, with the hopes that a few will stick around). PvX had a few, and they all got a fair amount of entries; I'm fairly certain this wiki will get more entries. The contests can be anything from guild wars-themed baked cakes for GW birthday events, holiday themed screenshot contests, poems written about bosses/missions/characters, etc. I'm sure Shadowphoenix could brainstorm more than a few entertaining contest ideas - the hard part would just be providing an incentive for people to participate.
 * The other is ads. We make ads to put on GWGuru and we put some of their ads up on this wiki (in place of a few of the existing ads, not in addition to them). If wikia can make that happen, it's an option I'd like to try.
 * Wikia probably stood to gain more users from us than they gave to us. However, we're tied at the waist, so I intend to make as much use of their staff as I can :P - Auron 11:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We have RfAs for a reason
The reason is that they show community trust. You always harp on Bcrats having discretionary power to appoint admins, but it is implied that the admins have community support. "GuildWiki admins are recommended by the community." You might not have held with any individual users' arguments on the RfA,but as a whole the RfA demonstrates that R.Phalange has bugger all community support, and that counts as a strong argument against R.Phalange with anyone - but you.

You had clear supoprt for R.Phalange in your mind, and you had arguments for it, too. Why didn't you post them to the RfA? Are you planning to keep on discussing your decisions only after you've put them into action? --mendel 07:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * RfA's, as most people see them, are a decent tool to give an exact number of community supporters - a vote, basically. They don't show consensus, which is closer to actual community support than any vote could be. If more emphasis was placed on discussion, and less on vote counts, RfA's would be a real depictor of community support. Either way, a vote can only tell so much when it comes to an abstract concept like "community support." Unless, of course, every voter wrote a well-phrased and well-reasoned argument for or against... but I digress :p
 * "as a whole the RfA demonstrates that R.Phalange has bugger all community support, and that counts as a strong argument against R.Phalange with anyone - but you." If they had all the information, they would support. Because they didn't have all the information, I had to take into consideration that they weren't making educated comments. A few people would still have reservations (along the lines of "well, he's apparently worthy of sysop on GWW, but since I don't trust their community to pick good sysops, let him spend months editing here to prove the same to us"), but those few people wouldn't be the norm of consensus. Although the lack of information was ultimately my fault, it was still a factor in making this RfA patently useless in determining actual community support.
 * For a normal user submitting a normal RfA, no hidden aliases or whatnot, the RfA still wouldn't be that useful of a tool. Again, it would give a vote count, but lacking any real discussion (as the majority of them do), it would remain too shallow to be a real gauge (and honestly, if I wanted a poll, I'd use that wikia poll maker doohicky; a "yes/no" box is much easier than reading an entire page of people restating opinions and giving unsupported arguments).
 * In fact... that's genius! I think I'll start putting those on RfA talk pages or something. Man I rock.
 * "Are you planning to keep on discussing your decisions only after you've put them into action" <- no, too many walloftexts. - Auron 11:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

oh auron
what am i going to do with you? 69.122.146.84 09:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * sex me tbh. - Auron 11:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
How is your timeline for reviving the wiki laid out such that you had to fast-track Brains12 to a sysop? Is it so close that waiting a month would have been detrimental to the plan? 'Cause a month is a long time in terms of wiki-drama. --JonTheMon 13:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)