Auric

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (4/1/2); Scheduled to end 18:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Auric (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Auric for adminship. He has been in Wikipedia since 2003, and has wrote 318 articles. He also has the reviewer and autopatrolled rights, and has just over 43,000 edits, with 82.5% in the article namespace. I think with stats like that, and just how friendly he is overall, he would easily net positive for us. Overall, he is a great Wikipedian who should have been given the mop a long time ago. buffbills7701 12:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Thank you.--Auric talk 15:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Basically the same sort, involving tidying and reverting vandals. More will come.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I value all my contributions equally.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Some. Generally I deal with stress by taking a break.

Additional question from Cindamuse

4. Would you mind elaborating on your answers to Q1–3? These questions are asked in order to provide us with a starting point to evaluate your contributions and understanding of policies and guidelines, along with your problem-solving skills and process for resolving conflict. That said, your answers really don't offer us much to go on. For example, I tend to value quality of contributions over quantity. While I think it's great that you value your contributions, could you help us out by providing links to some of your contributions which you consider to be of higher quality? Further, you haven't actually referred to administrative work in Q1, so I would be interested in some clarification.

A:

General comments

• Links for Auric: Auric (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Auric can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting. Perhaps Q4 should be moved here since it is not actually a question, though I would like to see more details in Q1-3. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to RfA talk page. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support as Nominator buffbills7701 18:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support seems like a clueful candidate. I do agree that the answers should be a little more in depth and you might want to change that before it torpedoes your RfA. Automatic 19:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Just kidding, I support you because you were here for a long time, and you are active. KinHikhari (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Looks pretty solid to me, good luck mate ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 19:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose I think Auric is completely unsuited to be an administrator as he doesn't seem fully aware of how our guidelines and policies work. He makes comments that either are irrational or unresponsive to the situation behind it. [1], really? He has a wrong interpretation of notability, and BLP and that's all within the past month or so. Combined with the nearly non-responsive answers to the questions, I'll pass. Secret ^account 20:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. I would like to see more comprehensive answers to the standard three questions before supporting or opposing. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral Agree with Hahc, I would like more thorough answers before supporting or opposing. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]