Auron has been a consistent contributor in GuildWiki. He's been vigorously working on the site policies, and has been an excellent contributor for our growing builds section. Not only does Auron know his way around the Wiki, but he is also experienced in-game, which is a quality that admins should have. He is also able to keep cool over different situations of Wiki-drama that occurs. There's no one else right now who I could even think about recommending. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 02:23, 27 December 2006 (CST)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Yea, I'm cool with it. It'd definitely speed up armor page editing, what with clearing out the unwanted images speedily. I'd also be able to help the Build section more with more tools available :) -Auron 03:59, 27 December 2006 (CST)
I quote (from Lania):
1). "There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots. 2). After explaining a concept and a person doesn't get it after 10 times, it gets old. 3). Not everyone is created equal, some people are smarter than others, and some people really are just better than others... no really :-). 4). People who are really smart tend to live a less social life because they can't deal with the average idiot. So yeah, none of these people won't win popularity contests, but guess what? Life isn't a popularity contest and Guildwars isn't life no matter how much as you wish it to be."
That sums it up. I never expected to win a popularity contest (i.e. a "vote" for adminship)... Rapta told me in-game he didn't expect lots of support because I piss people off; I agreed with him. I don't go out of my way to please people. It's not my job. If I offend someone simply by acting like I always act, they can QQ, kthx. Hypersensitivity isn't my fault, or my problem.
Furthermore, for all who don't understand (there are quite a few of you, so listen carefully); there are some Wiki-wide policies that fail when applied to the Build section. GW:YOU, for example (hell, sometimes GW:YOU works *against* the Build section). Don't use GW:YOU to justify your stance against "elitists" unless you want to come across as ignorant.
Am I elitist? Yes and no. If someone takes the time to professionally put forth their points in an argument, I respect them (and give them my time, if requested). If someone is new (a "newbie"), I have no problem explaining my position/arguments or helping them out in any other way. If someone is generally stupid/ignorant/unwilling to learn (a "noob") my patience with them disappears quickly; if I explain something to you once and you still don't get it, chances are you either aren't trying or are too thick to understand in the first place.
My opinion remains unwavering; contrary to GW:AGF, I assume nothing about a user until I've seen them act/post. If, in several instances, I see evidence of a user's stupidity/ignorance/noobness, I will assume they have no idea what they're talking about; to avoid this assumption, don't post in ignorance. My stance on this matter flies in the face of this administrator policy.
For these reasons, I change my "acceptance of nomination" to No.
Seen his sig in too many places to think of it as a coincidence. And I can't remember ANY place where he has been negative or acted in any negative way. Conclusion: A great wiki user. Judging fom his contributions I support the nomination. -- (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2006 (CST)
what gem said, the nazi thing is probably taken the wrong way >.< — Skuld 07:45, 27 December 2006 (CST)
Iv seen auron all over the builds section and some people really need to vote for him to outweigh these non-swastika-using Nazis down there. really, grow up, its only a symbol and only has meaning if you give it meaning.--Coloneh RIP 01:41, 28 December 2006 (CST)
People need to grow up. Auron's knowledge of Guild wars is undeniable. We need more people like him. Nazism is long past and gone... the people who still take it seriously are laughing stocks of society even in the racist south east. Having the symbol as a taboo just gives those racist bastards that use that symbol more power... --Lania Elderfire 23:57, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Er, I'm sry, I couldn't resist adding a quick comment here. First, enough with the insults ok? At least pretend you respect other wiki users ("need to grow up"). Thank you. You might make the point that you can do whatever you want, and that you don't need to respect such and such, but let me remind you that two or more people can play this insult game and then the wiki becomes an idiotic flame war, is that what you really want? Second, this is not a debate on the swastika issue, which is resolved and has run its course. It's a debate on his merits as an administrator. NightAngel 07:43, 6 January 2007 (CST)
Ok, so sometimes he is an elitist just like a lot of other Pvp heavy admins... so what? Yeah it's true that he is sometimes rude and surly against people who are obviously new to the game or havn't learned the more advanced concepts... But there are so many PvE junkies with no concept of PvP posting builds, making comments about PvP builds it really is tiring to keep civil sometimes, and some of the admins are also tired of it. Just look at the number of builds in unfavored... there are over 650 builds there. Also there are builds in the tested section that shouldn't be there at all... which historically many that were vetted eventually were removed and moved to unfavored. So what's my point? There are many wiki contributors that probally shouldn't be making new builds or be voting at all.... but that's not the way wiki works, and it is really grating on many people and admins who want a wiki with a higher quality builds section. When Auron says it is stupid, then it's probally past discussion and it really is just stupid. Skuld does the same thing too and he's an admin that many people respect. When I first started contributing I thought Auron was an ass, but after a while I realized he is right most of the time anyway, and his opinion does have a lot of influence on many people. --Lania Elderfire 13:12, 6 January 2007 (CST)
1)I certainaly do not respect skuld. 2)My problem with auron is that he puts his oppionion ahead of everyone eleses it seems in the builds section. A elitist admin has no place on a wiki, where the opinions of everyone is supposed to matter, that is the reason he has so many unfavoured votes.--Sefre 14:22, 6 January 2007 (CST)
Yeah skuld does have quite the reputation on Guildwiki because he doesn't always play nice. Neither does Auron, Warskull, Rapta... and others. So what? A lot of professors I know don't play nice with people who know less than them... and there is a reason for that. 1). There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots. 2). After explaining a concept and a person doesn't get it after 10 times, it gets old. 3). Not everyone is created equal, some people are smarter than others, and some people really are just better than others... no really :-). 4). People who are really smart tend to live a less social life because they can't deal with the average idiot. So yeah, none of these people won't win popularity contests, but guess what? Life isn't a popularity contest and Guildwars isn't life no matter how much as you wish it to be. --Lania Elderfire 01:13, 7 January 2007 (CST)
While we may disagree on various points, this isn't about anything to do with you and another user. It's about Auron's merits as an admin. Personally, I felt your comments in your vote about the "people need to grow up" were un-needed. This isn't an avenue for you to express your personal opinion about any other GuildWiki users other than Auron. If you want to do something like that, take it to your user space because I know I speak for at least most of the people that are looking at this page when I say we could care less how much better you think you are than some people or how many inquisitive idiots you think there are in the world. We only care whether or not you honestly think he would make a good GuildWiki admin. And you need to be prepared for others to not share your sentiments, not attack them because they don't agree with you. Please, any further discussions on this topic please go to a user's talk page. — Jyro X 01:20, 7 January 2007 (CST)
(your vote here)
Someone using a Nazi symbol in his user page is hardly a good choice for administratorship. To gem, one example: "the R/D scythe users are retarded as well". It's a pity that nazism is a laughing matter to you Skuld. My grandmother fled Germany while her family was imprisoned, tortured and killed. You know, I don't mind if you laugh your ass off about builds, guild wars, crappy skills, or whatever. Laughing at nazism is offensive and I will at least be heard, regardless of how little you and your buddies think of me. Got it? Edit: I undestand now that Skuld was laughing at ME, not the Nazi issue. That's fine with me.NightAngel 07:37, 27 December 2006 (CST)
Please use his talk page to discuss disagreements with him, but while I'm here, I'll reply. The Nazi symbol on my userpage is a joke; in the text, it states "This user is an HA Nazi." I, for one, don't take that to mean "This user persecutes all Jews that try to do Heroes' Ascent," but rather, "This user shows the qualities commonly associated with the Soup Nazi on a popular soap/comedy, and as such, is labeled something similar." I'm probably every bit as Jewish as you are (you should see me in person) but I don't let it interfere with my everyday life. After all, I only have one life to live on this earth, and running around complaining about people/things is not how I'm going to spend it. (Also, the "R/D scythe users are retarded as well" was a joke, as I stated on your talk page, a long time ago). -Auron 08:13, 27 December 2006 (CST)
I'm sorry, but there are jokes and there are jokes. You know, I belong to a minority and I don't really mind when there's a joke at its expense (life would be unbearable otherwise). And I'm not even a practicing Jew. But something still rubs me the wrong way when you treat Nazism as anything less serious than it should. I realize that the fact that I complain about so many things makes me look less qualified to talk about this, but make no mistake. As I said to Skuld, symbols are powerful carriers of meaning, regardless of intention. NightAngel 08:18, 27 December 2006 (CST)
There are jokes, but there are people that can't take them. I refer you to "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist," a song from the Broadway Musical, Avenue Q.
I have incredible pride in being both German and Jewish - both cultures have incredibly rich history (including musical history, which I am particularly interested in, being a musician). But I've always thought that being so prideful that I was wholeheartedly offended by any one person is stupid; why would you want to wear you pride on your sleeve, as it were? In your righteous anger, consider that your argument is about my sense of humor; one which you disagree with, most obviously. I understand that some people are easily offended by this subject; I also understand that the majority of those people have never logically reasoned it through. They are generally the same people that think Hitler was, indeed, the most evil man on earth; mostly because they never did enough reading to be knowledgeable about, say, Stalin - who killed twice as many people (at the very least), many of them Jewish. So... why, again, are you so ate up about Nazism? -Auron 08:40, 27 December 2006 (CST)
I'm sorry Auron, but I didn't think your userbox was funny. I also have to see it remembering your comment that deleting votes = Nazi Germany. Also not funny. It didn't strike me as an attempt at being funny. I was not offended by, say "The Producers". I am offended by Iran's cartoon contest to debunk the "Holocaust myth". It's very hard to judge intent, so forgive me for not seeing the humor. Ps: I also dislike your argument. So, if there are serial killers who torture their victims, shooting people in the foot is more okay?NightAngel 08:54, 27 December 2006 (CST)
This is just a joke and anyone with some common sense understands the point. This is just a "good reason" to vote negatively on someone who the voter dislikes for personal reasons. (= different opinnions in the builds section) -- (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2006 (CST)
Just, QQ more NightAngel.. - Cracko 09:02, 27 December 2006 (CST)
Yes , I knew that comment was coming. You know what, strike my vote. Make him an administrator. Elect him god on earth. But don't say using nazi symbols and handling the subject lightly (with no humor, I might add) is ok. A simple : "I'm sorry, I'll delete that now" would suffice and make me look overzealous. But that's not the reaction. Does it matter? Is it important to keep it up? NightAngel 09:04, 27 December 2006 (CST)
I've asked on the talk page for NightAngel to lodge his/her complaints against me, and say why I'd make a horrible admin. So far, I've only heard him/her bash the defending of my userspace freedom and my sense of humor, but nothing that would make me a bad choice as an admin. -Auron 10:01, 27 December 2006 (CST)
I'm not bashing anything. I'm voicing my opinions, speaking of "freedom". NightAngel 10:59, 27 December 2006 (CST)
I'm german and totally second NightAngel's argumentation. --Ineluki 08:09, 27 December 2006 (CST)
Thirded. The Nazi thing is a bit tasteless in my eyes as well (there's a huge difference between making a "Soup nazi" reference and using an actual swastika, which changes the context completely). Most importantly though, the answer to NightAngel on the talk page of this RFA also seems as the exactly wrong reaction to a user's concerns ("I'm right, you're wrong, and if you don't like that, go away"). If you can't show a bit more tact even on an issue which is as sensitive as this, then I don't think you are appropriate for this position. Lastly, just because a user is active on the wiki, doesn't mean that an adminship is deserved. There's dozen of users regularly active, so that alone isn't a sufficient reason to give adminship. Maybe sometime in the future such title is deserved, but that time is not yet here, I think. --Dirigible 09:02, 27 December 2006 (CST)
As the discussion has further expanded above, between NightAngel and Auron, I'm even more convinced on my negative vote. I couldn't care less about whether that nazi reference on his page was a joke or not, or whether NightAngel is taking it too seriously or not. Auron's handling of this situation is pitiful. "I understand that some people are easily offended by this subject; I also understand that the majority of those people have never logically reasoned it through." Translation: "I understand that some people are easily offended by this subject, but those people are also wrong and stupid. So let them be offended, I couldn't care less. The end." My stance on this RFA is "Strongly opposed". --Dirigible 09:13, 27 December 2006 (CST)
Not saying anything about the nazi symbol in my reasons: I personaly do not like his attitude and agreement on the issue or the unexperianced build section. From what I can tell from his posts on the matter he thinks that the majority of guild wiki users are inferior to members of other fansites in experiance. He seems to think that the user base of the wiki is unexperianced as far as builds go, and this is based off his and others opinnions that some builds submitted by users are bad. And a admin should not think that about the website that he/she would be poilceing, that woudl lead to what im sure would be a abuse of power in the builds section. Now as far as the nazi symbol goes, if some find it offensive its reasonable to remove it, especialy if you are trying for adminship.--Sefre 14:57, 27 December 2006 (CST)
Oppose. "I've never contributed a build to GuildWiki, and I never will. I find the entire section of the wiki an embarassment, and I'm in favor of its complete removal." What happened to Guildwiki:You are valuable? If something is flawed, Wiki philosophy is that you should work to improve it, not just scrap it. Reading that along with his statement here, "I'd also be able to help the Build section more with more tools available" just makes me cringe. (For the record, I've never contributed to the Builds namespace either, so I'm not saying these things from a conflict of interest; I just see too much evidence of our own twisted version of Academic Standards Disease for comfort) --Dtremenak 17:49, 27 December 2006 (CST)
Also, If you are so bemused by the build section, why bother submitting your comments to that section, I admit, after some practice I optained a good reccomendation from you, but picking at a PvE build, and stating "Its PvE 101" when you state your primarily a PvP player, seems rather unprofessional. Match 21:40, 16 January 2007 (CST)
Oppose. I respect Auron, but I don't think there's much to elevate him above a dozen other wiki regulars, so I don't think he should be an administrator at this time. — 130.58 (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Oppose. 130.58 pretty much said what I was thinking. — Jyro X 03:24, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Oppose. Dtremenak sums it up very nicely. --NieA7 07:24, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Oppose. Well even if the accident was a total lack of judgement and don't see him policing the other users. For the moment he should stay a normal user.—├ Aratak ┤ 21:06, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Opposed. While he may have done many good things for the wiki and is a knowledgable user, his actions during certain recent incidents have convinced me that Auron is unfit for adminship, at least at this time and with his current mentality about the Wiki. Entropy 00:57, 31 December 2006 (CST)
Opposed. He's active, sure, and sometimes well-spoken. But many of his contributions haven't been helpful, and looking at histories and contribs, it seems to me they're getting worse. I feel right now he's a negative influence on the wiki, and certainly not a good admin candidate. In the future, if he cleaned up his act? Maybe. But now... definitely not. — HarshLanguage 01:32, 31 December 2006 (CST)
Oppose. I do not count the Swastika at all. But I have to second the thoughts of Dtremenak, giving him extra powers would not be good for him or others. --Long 19:17, 5 January 2007 (CST)
He hasn't handled the discussion like an admin should and even admitted having no respect for some wiki policies. Definitely not ready to be an admin yet. -- (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2007 (CST)
I originally was not going to make a count against this, but I feel I must. I have recieved objective critisism, rather than constructive critisism from this member, and I feel he is unfit to perform duties as an administrator. His continuous critisism of my [Build:Mo/any_Spike_Healer|build] have not so much assisted me, as crippled and discouraged me. His bias views and opinions are not appreciated, and his obvious dislike of the builds section, but continious objective reviews in that section seem suspicious and hypocritical. All-in-all, I do not see this member as administrator material as of yet. -Match 01:21, 17 January 2007 (CST)
On principle, people banned, even temporarily, for policy violations shouldn't be given the responsibility and tools to enforce those policies. --Imbril Shadowfire 14:51, 18 January 2007 (CST)
A great user an dcontibutor but not 100% worthy of adminship.--- ~Edo Dodo~ (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2007 (CST)
Agreed, you are a fine GWiki user, but you haven't got the schwung. --Sigm@ (talk|contribs) 15:03, 18 January 2007 (CST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Community content is available under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.