GuildWiki talk:Requests for adminship/M.mendel

Clarfication
Auron is indicating in the irc channel topic (Mendel - Did you accept that rfa or not? -Auron) that my candidate statement lacks clarity. That is because it attempts to answer two questions diferently that are usually rolled into one and answered the same. As usual, Auron doesn't tip his hand indicating what he's planning that makes the answer to his question relevant at this time, considering that RfAs can be open for months. --◄mendel► 09:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can I see myself as an admin? Yes.
 * 2) Do I think that I should be promoted today? No.
 * 3) Well, when is the time to promote me? My crystal ball is a bit cloudy on that.
 * We didn't have an active 'crat at that time Random Time  10:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I was not 100% clear what you meant with your statement(s) until you wrote an explanation here. So maybe you are reading into it a bit too much. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing
I'm in favor of closing this RfA as not accepted. The points made in oppose outweigh the points made in support, and indeed, many of the oppose votes shed light on what I don't want to see in sysop activities. He's done some weird things in the past (anonymous pages, for example) and his being a sysop would not only condone that type of project, but make it harder to challenge. I don't trust his judgment. Reading his arguments across the wiki, and most recently on my talk page, I don't feel comfortable putting someone that thinks Felix was justified in unblocking himself (an action that, combined with his posts/attitude problem, got him demoted) in a position of power. He also holds very odd views on blocking and deletion, and since we trust admins to go with what is generally accepted, I don't believe he would be able to live up to the currently accepted standards for sysop tool use since he doesn't agree with them in the first place. The benefits he he can bring to the wiki can still be brought as a non-sysop user, and indeed are probably better pitched from that position (a la Dirigible). Pan/Jedi, comments? - Auron 14:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do *not* think Felix was justified in unblocking himself. I pretty much agree with what PanSola wrote to both of you. You have a hard time understanding what I'm getting at, Auron, and I can't even begin to speculate why that is. --◄mendel► 03:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On this topic, mendel, I find there has been quite a number of occasions where your articulation failed to convey your ideas until 5~7 replies later to finally get things clarified. You kind of stood out amongst the GuildWiki users in that aspect.  -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 22:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to find out why that is. On some discussions, my position shifts as a result of the discussion (it's called "learning", I believe), and on others, people take issues with things I write that weren't the core thrust of my original statement (maybe because I don't realise that these details are important to you), so of course I hadn't originally spent any energy clarifying that, and in these cases there's usually a bit of confusion until I notice that the discussion isn't about what I intended to say.
 * But perhaps you can clarify for me how this implies that I think Felix was justified in unbanning himself. --◄mendel► 23:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, I think examining that specific single edit does not paint the full picture of how someone can arrive at an incorrect conclusion regarding what your stance is. Note that I do not actually support Auron's impression of your stance on this subject, it's just that Auron's comments and your response happened to remind me of a general observation I've made before.  I really haven't been paying much attention to user talk pages during August, and without going through the whole conversation/incident I can't really judge whether or not Auron's misled impression of your stance comes about as a (relative) natural implication from what you wrote.
 * On a general note, I do find it peculiar that I noticed more issues with articulation of ideas between you and various other GW users than anyone else. In general, people do take issues with different details or shift their positions as discussions go on, but in general they don't have this type of issue as often (or at least as noticeable by me) compared to when you are involved.  It could be a subtly non-common (relative with respect to other GW users) style of rhetoric structure that many others you discourse with (including me) are not used to.  It could be that you are a relatively much better learner than others, such that your shifts in positions without explanation go beyond the scale most people expect and thus cause confusion.  It could be quite a number of other things that an English major would be thrilled to explore (I can't do it, I majored in Physics & Computer Science, or so I claim on the internet).  But regardless of what the cause is, I would advocate that you pay extra attention and care to watch where past misconceptions or confusions has occurred, and strive to pre-emptively prevent confusion by taking extra pains to clarify and re-summarize your thoughts.  A post that takes 10 extra minutes to polish might save 8 hours of unnecessary disagreements when actually the people you are discoursing with agree with you on the particular points involved. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 00:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I've taken to adding "executive summaries" to some posts I feel are long and hard to understand, after some people helped my by asking for clarifications on these types of posts. I'm going to try to state my position shifts more clearly. I am happy that you clarified that your comment above was intended to be read in a general sense, and does not mean that you think I actually wrote what Auron took me to have written. I know that you like to post well thought-out positions on topics of import, and take your time arriving at them, and while I agree that if I adopted this style of discussion, less confusion would occur, I am unsure whether this discussion style would really suit me. We'll see what develops. --◄mendel► 01:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Imho it's because when you write, you write in a structured and logical manner, shall we say "real writing". Not a whole lot of people do, and so using the typical casual Wiki glance-through it's easy to misunderstand or misconstrue you. I do that a lot actually - I have to stop, think, and read your posts fully to get the true meaning from them, and even then I still sometimes fail. Now I'm not saying that's a flaw on your part, more like me being too lazy...but considering how most discussion on Wiki, especially talkpages is of <epic nature that's what you come to expect after being here for a while... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. If what you write is true, then I'm trying to shoehorn too many thoughts in too little text. The problem is, to change that means either writing a WoT (or more of one), or simplifying my positions, both has serious drawbacks. Or to write less of what I think. Hmm. --◄mendel► 03:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You could also try to think less when you write. But that would violate the Golden Wiki Rule, which as LoaT puts it: "Think first, then post." :) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 03:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So PanSola says, think more, you say, think less. Seems the compromise is going to be really easy to do. :-P --◄mendel► 04:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "I think, therefore I am uncertain." Compromise is the spirit of the Wiki. Also, I was being sarcastic. :p In a tone of seriousness, the biggest reason I see in favor of promoting you is that you actually "do stuff" on a daily basis, therefore "lead by example". The biggest reason I see against promoting you is the numerous disagreements (such as brought up here) that tend to follow you for many issues. Well, maybe not disagreements, but extra confusion/drama/etc. Sometimes you help to end situations, sometimes you help to inflame them or lead them astray...but on the other hand at least you try to get involved. Too many the sysops won't do that, or restrict themselves when it involves certain users. Meh. Still, it's up to Auron, Jedi, and Pan to decide, since I have absolved myself from these sorts of duties. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 05:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, put more thoughts toward how to better represent your ideas, but don't compress your ideas ("thoughts") into too few words. My "think more" and Entropy's "think less" deal with two different types of "thoughts" q-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Back to the original point, I disagree with "the points made in oppose outweigh the points made in support". In fact, right now I personally feel the supporting points weakly outweigh the opposing points.  I feel when it comes to Ban/Del/Prot, mendel's going to make less controversial (relative to other admins and the general community) judgment calls compared to, say, Auron.  The main thing I'd worry about on that subject is the potential of mendel unbanning/undeleting when a controversial ban/del is performed, resulting in mendel butting heads against the admin who originally performed the action.
 * I do mostly agree with Auron that much of the benefits mendel would bring forth as a sysop can "can still be brought as a non-sysop user, and indeed are probably better pitched from that position". I hold a similar mentality about myself, which is why in the (ancient) past I had on multiple occasions offered to my resignation as an option in a number of policy/behavior discussions. However, I think the tradeoff of the good that mendel can do as a regular user vs as a sysop should be a choice for mendel himself.  We should not reject promoting him on the basis that we think he can do more good as a normal user.
 * My other concern is regarding articulation, which is extensively covered in earlier so will not repeat here.
 * Finally, I don't think right now we have a shortage of admins (feel free to disagree and let me know), so whether any candidate is qualified or not would not result in promotion (at least from me). I'm weakly opposed to closing the RfA, and instead, I suggest keeping it open and examine it again when we do need to promote somebody.  -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 18:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your weak support. ;-) Two comments:
 * a) Even if I'd be "butting heads against an admin", you've all seen me butt heads before, and it's never been an edit war or similar, I usually discuss until consensus (or a compromise) is achieved once I run into opposition (and often I avoid running into opposition by rasing the issue before it happens). --◄mendel► 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * b) There are times (not often) when waiting for an admin impedes my workflow, so having sysop powers would make me more effective as an editor, though not drastically so. It might become be more of an issue once we start working on CSS more, or I get asked more to help in MediaWiki: namespace.
 * I'm not sure if I'm allowed to add points to my own RfA, so I'd ask whoever agrees with these two points to put them on the summary. --◄mendel► 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh! I've just been cursing to myself again because I ran into page protections on GuildWiki:Copyright and GuildWiki:About after passing the page move of GW:Copyrights off to an admin (which promptly ec'd me). Excellent case in point for admin rights being useful for good editors. --◄mendel► 07:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

General discussion
The following was moved from Requests for adminship/M.mendel because the new format is that the RfA page is for summaries and the talk page is for discussion. --◄mendel► 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Supporting arguments

 * I had been mulling this over for the last day or so trying to figure out exactly my position on this. I love your diplomacy and the fact that you are very personable, and on top of that, you're extremely knowledgeable of the way things work. You can go in and fix the code, and then later explain with excellent eloquence why the change was made and what exactly was done. You generally do the right thing and make the choice for the betterment of the the unrepresented and timid voices over (occasionally) the majority of the wiki's opinion. It is for these reasons that I support this RfA. However, I feel I must point out the problems I do have with this, and why it took me so long to decide exactly whether or not I would support Mendel. The main reason is that I feel that he point out that policies should be changed by abrasive example. Rather than logically stating his case, he will occasionally seek out the embodiment of the problem and then put up a mock argument (which is by all means believable and might, in fact, be genuine) using points taken from current policies on why the rational decision should be made. The only real example I can think of is the Acorns fiasco. But, as I said, he may have had an entirely different reason for doing such. &mdash; Powersurge360 Violencia   07:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't feel that policies should be changed by "abrasive example", and I would like to hear what was "abrasive" about my writings on the Acorns issue or elsewhere.
 * If you look very closely at the Talk: Acorns and the attendant Admin page archive and take note of what I've actually written, I doubt you can uphold the notion that it was I who "blew things out of proportion". I requested that the page be given a chance for a deletion discussion after it was immediately deleted, based on the discussion at the time which had not come to a consensus, the request was honored, and the discussion was had. There was never any intent to blow things out of proportion, but it is my feeling that some community members who wanted this page to be immediately deleted took issue with my request and it was they who blew it out of proportion; and unfortunately it led to people mistaking my intent and my opinions. I have defended myself against this elsewhere, though I can't recall where. The idea to change GW:DID to reflect the opinions many people voiced during this discussion came later, the Acorns discussion was never a means to that end. --◄mendel► 07:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm supporting Mendel for adminship, although I can understand the reasons why others are a bit opposed to it. First of all, his contributions are good, well thought, helpfull and well explained. I dare to say that there is no other contributer that is that helpfull to newcomers, respectfull of pointing out mistakes and are always willing to explain his actions in a decent, well-thought way. Although others might disagree, I like the way he points to things that might contradict, the use of policies and other things that nobody actually was considering, until Mendel pointed it out to them. Wikidrama ? maybe, but a good way to think about what we are doing here, what the role of an admin is, the role of policies in order to get a better understanding and agreement how to deal with this ever changing wiki and users. Good discussion doesn't break communities, it only makes them stronger. In the past months, I couldn't help getting the feeling that a lot of 'old' wiki users/admins/contributers/whatever do have some 'elitist' way of work. Rejecting changes without explaination, not helping newcomers but scaring them off, making bold statements in discussions in line off 'this is what we always do, I don't want to discuss it'. By choosing Mendel as admin, I think we have a good counterweight for this behavior. All admins being Mendel like would be a disaster (or change Mendels name with any other Admin), but one will be good for at least reflection, conscience and objectivity to all that matters here.-- [[Image:merty_sign.gif]]-- ( talk ) 09:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since mendel has already turned down the nomination, I won't waste my time with a lengthy comment, but I will say that he certainly fulfills Auron's desire for "movers and shakers" on the wiki (even though he may not move/shake in the direction Auron wants...). Like others, I am a little concerned about how often he would reverse the decisions of other admins (un-banning and un-deleting), but I feel that's a minor issue that could be worked through as/if it happens.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 13:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * --[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 17:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you've done a good job, I can see the reasons, but choose to support you on your good actions that you have done so far! Random Time  10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now, i understand that it is considered bad form to bet on the outcomes of rfas, but i really want to. I predict that mendel won't get in. Now that the violation of acceptable protocol is out of the way, i support Mendel for admin because, although i disagree with his approach to many things, he is always willing to explain his points and debate opposing arguments without the whole thing degenerating into a flame war. This suggests mendel is able to use an Admins right of arbitration in a content dispute appropiately. Secondly, mendel seems to have vast technical knowledge of wiki code and everything else code and thus can perform the admins role of advising other users and acting in coding related matters effectively. That leaves the admins powers of ban/del/prot. Personally, i don't see mendel using delete much (acorns, anyone?) - but we have other admins for that and he can continue his weird page-adoption schemes. Protect is hardly ever used anyway and its fairly obvious when its needed, i don't think any special qualities are required before we trust someone with that tool. As for banning, pfft, banning vandal's isn't particularly complicated and mendel's willingness to debate matters of disagreement suggest he wouldn't go around banning his personal enemies (does he have any?) or whatever. Therefore, going by the "an admin is just a user with extra tools" tack taken by our esteemed bureaucrats in various arguments, mendel is perfectly qualified for adminship. --[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (Talk /Contribs ) 18:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User:M.mendel/Procrastination --◄mendel► 07:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Opposing arguments

 * Strongly opposed. While mendel has undoubtedly been extremely helpful and motivated in such mundane and necessary wikitasks as categorizing, cleaning up and formatting, these are not tasks which require admin tools to complete. Glancing over User:M.mendel/Admin_Criteria, I can move quickly through the criteria that he himself urges existing administrators to consider, and find that nearly every one reflects unfavorably upon him.  Deleting?  While mendel deleting pages is not likely to be an issue, undeleting pages that ought not to exist is an easily foreseeable event.  Banning?  Again, mendel is not somebody who seems banhappy.  In fact, he doesn't seem like he would ban errant IP addresses at all, despite necessity.  It is more likely he would unban IPs that have been blocked for disruption or nonsensical edits.  This is not a tool that is necessary in his wiki tenure.  Conflict moderation?  Two words:  Wiki Drama.  Three, if you want to add "Acorns."  Rule enforcement?  In a 1984 sort of way.  Rules that support his arguments are flaunted and rigidly adhered to, and others are ignored.  Community trust and Ability to compromise?  While mendel is willing to compromise, the situations in which he is willing to do so usually should not have become an issue at all, and are blown out of proportion due solely to his GuildWiki Crusades, which makes community trust an issue.  While the breed of wikidrama mendel creates is rarely, if ever, malicious, and is simply time-consuming and pointless, it is wikidrama nonetheless.
 * In closing: Wall of text.  While perhaps in the future a skilled and capable administrator, mendel has within the last few weeks shown many traits that are not benefiting an admin of this wiki. [[Image:Maui_sig.png]] 09:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Which rules "are ignored" by me ? --◄mendel► 07:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Opposed. I like the work that Mendel does - he embodies that go-getter spirit which fails to blossom in many users until much later in their Wiki career. Always willing to shake things up, challenge the norm, work on new and experimental things, argue policy...that's great. However, that being said, I have to say that I would not personally trust Mendel as an admin. All inferences of personal bias aside ("what bias?"), I do not like the way he views bans and deletions; while it is true that admins may freely counteract each other, it is highly encouraged that they discuss the issue and at least agree to disagree before taking an action. To give a worst-case picture, I could see Mendel constantly arguing with other admins about retroactively shortening bans and undeleting all sorts of pages just to move them to "Anonymous pages". Now, I'm not saying that is what would happen - but the fact that I even consider it a possibility means that I don't think Mendel is ready yet for this position; and he seems to agree, if for different reasons. To sum up: I think Mendel is a great user with many excellent traits that others could model themselves after; I think he has the potential for sysoption some day, but not right now. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, "Potential of butting heads with some other admins on a too-frequent basis?" in the summary refers your argument here. I find it unfair to judge me based on unproven possibilities. Please provide examples of me "constantly arguing" an issue. Itis my opinion that I argue an issue as much to the point as I can until an understanding, consensus or at least a compromise is reached, and that I keep to it when the argument is thus settled. So even if you think that my promotion might raise some issues that lead to argument, I don't see how this argument can be expected to be "constant". --◄mendel► 07:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are selectively reading my post. I said that I could maybe possibly envision you being argumentative. I didn't say I had ever particularly seen it before. Therefore I cannot give you any examples of something which may happen in the future. Also, I am merely voicing my own personal thoughts and opinions of you. They may not be fair but they are what I go by. That's what most people are like...
 * Let me try to rephrase my vote: "I would worry that Mendel might counteract a deletion/banning any time it is not a very clear, policy-backed case, or not performed in a satisfactory way, e.g. no discussion before deletion of something which may or may not be a hoax (Acorns). And I don't want to have to worry about such things in an admin." Again, promotion is out of my hands, but if I was still active Bcrat that's what my main concern would be. (yes, there are many cases where you having sysop status would improve work efficiency - I've seen them too...etc. But it's not a fair trade-off in my mind.) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 11:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Opposed Because I'm nasty and vindictive. On the basis of the argument "We can just undelete any screw-ups he makes", anyone is a good candidate for adminship. So Meh. Mendel seems to have an argumentative nature, and takes up policies like GW:YAV and GW:AGF waay too far. Heck, if somone returned with the podax vandal Mendel would probably call for their unbanning, as per GW:AGF. So there. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mega Oppose I'll have to cut this short because of time issues, so here goes. Mendel is too soft. He's a huge proponent of "can do no wrong" in some cases. In other cases, he'll get pretty argumentative taking it too far and not articulating much of anything other than "I feel that this ___". Feelings are bad. Arguing is bad. Excessive softness is bad. Mendel would be a bad sysop.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake 2.gif|19px]] 14:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that I must comment on "softness" - A so-called carebear sysop is not inherently a bad thing, and actually we don't currently really have any. If nothing else they help to make new users feel more welcome and provide more fodder for discussion and dissent. At their worst they can cripple a Wiki through inaction and beating around the bush on everything. The fact that Mendel does argue sometimes, shows that he's not totally one way or another - he will fight ferociously when motivated. So I'm not too concerned with that. Of course, compromise is always an ideal to aim towards... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 14:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a carebear sysop, and if you got a problem with that then SCREW YOU! --[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 17:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're a carebear, so am I. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither of you are, trust me. Also, this is what the talkpage is for. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 07:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose *sigh*, glancing over both the support and oppose lists i feel really bad transferring to here, and i would have remained supporting mendel if i didn't come to notice this comment "I'd be likely to retroadjust bans...". I had assumed that mendels opposition to banning would be limited to largely leaving it to other sysops, rather than actually directly interfering with the process. Really, if the wiki is to run properly, the admin's need to respect each others decisions in matters such as banning otherwise the whole process will just degenerate into some kind of sysop war. I don't think mendel would compromise his own principles just to get into the adminship, but as these conflict with the best interests of the wiki as a whole im afraid i have to oppose.--[[Image:Cobalt6.jpg|50x19px]] - (Talk /Contribs</B> ) 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral/Double-edged arguments

 * It's really hard to decide whether to support or oppose this. While Mendel is a good contributor, he tends to be fairly confrontational. He usually plays the devil's advocate in a conflict, which is probably a good thing to keep us in check, but also does create copious wiki-drama. It could either be a very good thing or a very bad thing if he got promoted, with no way of telling beforehand.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]] Entrea   [Talk]  04:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some prediction help: having admin tools available would impact my behaviour today in the following ways:
 * Unless there is a clear consensus expressed that we approve of punitive bans (to me, a laughable concept: punishing someone by telling them "you may not edit this wiki" works on very few people), I'd be likely to retroadjust bans that don't accomplish anything (besides "punishment"), so that's an issue that probably needs discussion before I can be trusted with that.
 * I'd undelete more pages to move them to Anonymous pages or the author's space. Probably not a problem.
 * I'd be able to work in MediaWiki namespace. I'm good enough at coordinating changes that it won't likely produce conflict.
 * I think you overestimate how often I play devil's advocate, though. --◄mendel► 07:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (rebuttals to above argument here)

Question about the new format
Apart from the fact that there can be bias in the way the summary reflects the discussion here, how would rebuttals be handled? Should they be added to the summary as well, and by whom? --◄mendel► 07:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)