Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Auron/Archive 4/Archive 1

Note: This RFA has been resolved. Please do not add further support/oppose opinions.

Auron

This request is for the sysophood of User:Auron (talk • contribs).
Created by Auron 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

Status

Failed. --07:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) (No sufficient support at this point in time.)

Candidate statement

I serve as a sysop on GuildWiki and as a sysop/Bureaucrat on PvXwiki, and thus am quite familiar with each of the tools available to sysops in their janitorial duty to the wiki.
I'm blunt, but I don't hold grudges; I won't block users unfairly or abuse any of the other sysop tools. That said, if you're looking for another person that knows the ropes of sysophood as it were, here I am :P -Auron 16:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I feel that Auron has always done whatever possible to improve whatever he can. ‽-(eronth) I give up 16:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. I really like Auron and think he would make a good sysop here. LordBiro 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. Auron has shown that he is a good sysop. I feel that just because he is not very active here is not a strong-enough reason to oppose. -- ab.er.rant 03:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
4. SUPPORT! Utter win, Auron is. BLASTEDT 15:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Throwing a few Fs around does not a bad admin make. Necessarily... --Snograt 06:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Support, if not just to neutralise M'vy's vote. Having a 'plain' userpage does NOT make you a bad admin. --Santax (talk · contribs) 09:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
7. ...

Oppose

1. Oppose. Even if experienced with other wikis, he only did ~250 edits on GWW.. poke | talk 16:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. There are many other people that I've seen more on recent changes and of which I think I know more about what they want to do here. Experience is only one thing... - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 17:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Well if you're already a Sysop on 2 other wikis, then you won't have the time/effort to put your entire effort into it.--§ Eloc § 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 01:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Seems not to have a good contribution on this wiki; Even his own page look plain and content-less. -- M'vy | user | talk | -- 09:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Same as reasons above. File:Hanksgotcha.pngHanks Gotcha (talk · contributions) 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I feel Auron's edits are too often too aggressive in style from what I consider appropriate for a sysop. --Xeeron 10:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I feel that being sysop on two other large wikis may limit your time here, but not enough to give a negative vote. --Lemming64 22:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Lemming summed it up nicely. -- Scourge 01:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral.Lemming64 summed it best for the reason why Auron may not deserve a negative or positive vote.--Bane of Worlds (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I believe Auron would do an admirable job, but I dislike setting the precedent of appointing a sysop based upon positive experiences off-site. —Tanaric 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral. My concern with Auron has always been civility. He finds it necessary to use cuss words every now and then and I don't think that's conducive to resolving issues. He has the right mindset and skill to administrate though, undoubtedly. --Karlos 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)