User talk:Auron of Neon

congrats
on bcrat ;) &mdash; Warw/Wick 10:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Bureaucrat on 3 wikis ownzzz. Lord of all tyria 11:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeh, congrats from me as well. This is the least exciting b.crat promotion ever, since for some reason, I had already thought of you and Pan as b.crats from a while ago... :D --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> .cнаt^  14:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Grats Auron. Cress Arvein [[Image:Cress sig.JPG]] 17:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Two appointments. Hmmm. Shouldn't one of you have been appointed Autocrat instead of Bureaucrat? Not only does it fit your proclaimed management style better, you could be the Acrat to PanSola's Bcrat. Auroncrat, even. Happy ´cratting and all the best for the future! mendel 22:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * lol @ Auroncrat. Congrats!  &not; Wizårdbõÿ777  ( talk ) 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * :P - Auron 08:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Aha, bow to my presience!--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (Talk /Contribs ) 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah... Entropy promoting Auron? Who could've predicted that?  [[Image:Banjulhu icon.png|50x19px]]  Banjthulu  is better than you 20:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just about everyone on this wiki? -- Dr R. Phalange 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, i also roughly predicted the timing! Don't dis my powers - i can see into the future, remember! (Also, answering rhetorical questions ftw, yes?) --[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (Talk /Contribs ) 13:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Dr R. Phalange 14:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. [[Image:Banjulhu icon.png|50x19px]]  Banjthulu  is better than you 16:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * /agree--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (Talk </B>/<font color="Green">Contribs</B> ) 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * /disagree. [[Image:Banjulhu icon.png|50x19px]]  Banjthulu  is better than you 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * /Stab--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (<font color="Blue">Talk </B>/<font color="Green">Contribs</B> ) 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC
For the Mozilla FF users. Somehow, I can't go to the English version of the site, keeps redirecting me back to the Dutch site... --- -- (s)talkpage  14:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Chatzilla owns, by the way. I personally find it easier to use then mIRC. Works in FF3 as well, which is always good. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I fixed the link. Your link went to /nl/, when the english version's on /en-US/. Not sure if that's the redirect problem you had or not... --[[image:GEO-logo.png]]<font color="#237d00"> Jïörüjï Ðērākō.> <font color="#237d00">.cнаt^  14:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If I go to Mozilla.com, I get the Dutch site. Probably cause my FF is Dutch too :) --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  15:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI - I have been running irc://freenode/GuildWiki for a while, (a year?) - with occasional activity - i'm on it most days - and don't realy want to change networks - perhaps we can have a talk about what network we should use (I'm happy to give you op on #guildwiki) - I suggest freenode as that's what Wikia use for their support channel <font color="Orange">Random Time 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to open both, but tbh I'd given up on freenode as there was rarely anybody on. --mendel 13:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, This channel requires that you have registered and identified yourself with the network's nickname registration services doesn't sound all that welcoming. Could someone set up a java client so people interested in irc can just guest it from their browser? --mendel 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're looking to get onto gamesurge, go to Gamesurge chat. And it looks like freenode has java set up also, Freenode chat. --JonTheMon 13:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

THIS JERK...
...IS TAKING OVER! RUN! Also, stop IMing me when I'm trying to sleep. Also, if you want to join my guild, you have to pay me and publicly acknowledge that I pwn you. <3 &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 16:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * laf. <font color="#FF44AA">♥ <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="turquoise">Mis <font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="orange">fate <font color="#FF44AA">♥ 16:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

gz
nub. :] 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, gg telling me to 'stop being offline,' and then being offline yourself all day... jerkface. ): [[Image:Maui_sig.png]] 06:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Section header
'Coz I can <font color="Orange">Random Time 18:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

yo
see train and the talk page. you could probably fix it better than me. <3&mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

you know...
I was running, so I typed /stuck at the start. And I started to talk to you. And I got stuck. And talking to you fucked me. One more reason that you suck. Also... 5 minute timer = masturbation time. amirite?&mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 04:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I always get 5 minute timers followed by 12 minute timers :< - Auron 04:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Splooge? &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

guild namespace
You should talk to Shadowphoenix about that - if I recall correctly she was considering starting up a similar project. As to my personal thoughts - what the hell, historic guild information has been markedly absent from both Wikis since the dawn of time. Though it's late in coming, if we were to do something with guilds I think it would be a fitting salute to start it off with vD and such. (T/C) 04:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Shadowphoenix actually did create a separate wiki solely for Guild Wars guilds, it can be found here. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 04:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We'd be making a namespace on this wiki for it, though. - Auron 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Article retention specifically states that we retain no info on guilds, and while that can obviously be changed, I'd like to at least point out what I can find about the precedents for that policy. The best example of past discussion on guild pages that I can find is here.  The main issues seemed to be:
 * Guild information isn't really important, compared to the other encyclopedic content of the wiki.
 * Potential for vandalism by sore losers.
 * Inherent volatility of guilds/guild membership leading to RC spam.
 * Looking back on this from 21⁄2 years later, and considering the significant reduction in the size of the GW playerbase since then, I don't think any of those issues would be especially problematic anymore. If your intent is to restrict it to a "historical content" perspective, then the issues are pretty much nonexistent.  I have no objections to this.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 05:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to create a guild namespace. My position can only be labeled "indifference." [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 05:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at GWW, Ish. The vandalism by sore losers never happens. RC spam is a very very weak argument, it happens more from mafia spam and general retardation (which doesn't benefit the wiki in any way, as opposed to even a minor improvement via providing information on guilds).
 * Lastly; I disagree on your first point. Guild information is very important in a game called guild wars. Guilds have paved the path for both PvE and PvP; early on, [Rare], [SMS] and a slew of PvP guilds set the standard for farming builds (the original warrior solo farm for UW was made by Racthoh, future leader of SMS - he was also the first noted person to beat DoA hardmode). PvP guilds have had a loooooong and rich history, dating all the way back to guilds like Eternum Pariah and Bring Back The Rifts.
 * Part of the section would be devoted to historical guilds; ones like Rebel Rising, Idiot Savants and Servants of Fortuna, that have directly influenced the game and community. The other use would be more recreational; used for people looking for guilds, or guilds looking for people.
 * Like I said earlier, we assumed flaming was going to be a big problem. Well... it wasn't, at least not on GWW. People aren't going to be at each other's throats, and if they are, we have an admin noticeboard to help take care of any issues that arise. - Auron 05:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what potential benefit a guild namespace would bring. It already exists at GWW and is fairly meaningless there in my opinion. Who's going to write these guild namespace articles on historical PvP guilds? Creating an article on notable guilds could be worthwhile, I'm not convinced that creating a new namespace is though. --Xasxas256 05:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a Guild wars guilds wikia <font color="Orange">Random Time 05:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh god no. I can't stand looking at all that guild junk in RC on GWW please don't bring it here. Except in few cases when the guild is very old and well know (like the spearmen), the guildnamespace tells you nothing and is full of fail. Its hard to standardize quality content and it.... the only arguement I can think of in favor of it is that it would give me more sysop work to do which amuses me. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 06:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of historic guilds liek the ones you mentioned, I could be persuaded. If we can make some system for deciding which guilds are worth having pages for and which guilds we dont care about cause its just 5 guys who like to pve. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 06:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if the guild has a) a certain GvG rating, and/or b) has been featured in the Guild of the Week article? [[Image:Maui_sig.png]] 06:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It might do well to consider Wikipedia's policies on deciding whether or not something is notable enough to deserve an article.&mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 06:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno about GotW tbh. A bunch of those have really been trash guilds (especially in the last year), anet just picks the least trash one because they had to pick someone. They've missed some of the earliest PvP guilds, and they missed Idiot Savants entirely.
 * I think for a historical section we'd have to play it by ear. Plenty of high-ranked guilds (current and past) have done nothing to actually affect gameplay; they didn't introduce new build ideas that changed metas (iQ with the touch ranger, KGYU/QQ with thumpers, etc) or host semi-official tournaments (like rawr's cup).
 * We'd also need a way to recognize influential PvE guilds without setting the bar too low. Ones like Scars Meadows and SoF are obvious, but what about newer guilds like The Arctic Marauders [TAM]? They've got excellent players, they coordinate some in-game events, are active (as a guild) on forums... where do we set the bar?
 * I'll look at what wikipedia has. - Auron 06:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dammit, Auron its 3AM here. I need to sleep. Stop posting new things when I'm about to go to bed. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 06:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you didn't even read my comment, beyond the numbered list. Those weren't my points, those were the points that Fyren/Rainith brought up back in 2005 as their arguments against guild pages.  My position is exactly the same as yours - those arguments are no longer valid (if they ever were in the first place).  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 14:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Makes no sense. PvX was split off because it was recognized that this a separate subject matter that needed to be kept separate from the article base and that needs a slightly different community style. Keeping the guilds here means they want to link from articles mentioning them; it means RC gets more traffic. Use guildwarsguilds.wikia.com as our Guild namespace; it's just an interwiki link away (could some admin set this up right away?), every user here is already registered there, and it'd have a separate RC. Only the watchlists are separate, that's the drawback. --mendel 08:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the admins. We might want to see some admins/Bureaucrats from here be admins there, too, for better integration. ;-) --mendel 09:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC 2
I have downloaded the mIRC.. but i dont think it is working. I have the program, but i cant type/do anything.. any ideas? 10:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to connect to a server first. Enter irc.gamesurge.net as the server name, wait for some text to scroll by in the status box, then type "/join #gwiki" (without the quotes). - Auron 10:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * are there many ppl in the server there? [[Image:ShadyGuy.jpg]] 12:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thousands of people on the server, only a handful in the channel. We definitely need more publicity :P - Auron 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh - again, join #Guildwiki on freenode - as it's more active - and the one that KyleH goes on <font color="Orange">Random Time 10:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * KyleH goes on gamesurge as well. You must have missed him yesterday :) - Auron 10:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

thank you
for doing your job and being yourself :) (T/C) 18:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Legendary Sword revert war
I appreciate that you didn't have time to investigate the matter fully this morning. I believe the 1-day ban was warranted, but the reason should have been GW:1RV, and the other participants should be warned. I don't think it is "obvious" that the banned editor was acting in bad faith; there is room for doubt. The course of action open to the other editors would have been to take the matter to the article's talk page, maybe adding a link "(see talk page)" to the information in question so that readers of the article may be made aware of the dissens. --mendel 11:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mendel, a message was left on the IP's talkpage telling him, kindly, to cease and desist. He persisted for another ten minutes before I spoke to Auron. [[Image:Maui_sig.png]] 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like I said: persisting to revert = breaks GW:1RV = good reason, but Auron cited no other and the others who broke GW:1RV didn't even get a warning. Put a tag up that the page needs protecting for a few days = problem solved, good faith remains assumed. --mendel 20:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing to consider before protection is this: "If I am going to remove the protection in a few days, then it doesn't need to be protected in the first place." --Entropy, source. Protting to end a revert war is overkill.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He was re-adding information that didn't belong in the article. He'd been warned. I could have put "bananas" as the ban reason, the effect is the same. - Auron 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Auron, don't forget that the ban reason shows up on the banned party's pages when they attempt to edit. It says taht they have been banned, who banned them and the listed reason. &mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 22:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. If he didn't see the "you have new messages" box, I doubt he'll see the "you have been blocked because bananas" box. It isn't even a different color. - Auron 23:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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)