GuildWiki talk:Requests for adminship/RoseOfKali (2)

Now is not a good time to start this imo, as it is uncertain when she'll return. If she does though, she'll get my full support (tbh, I was kinda surprised she wasn't a sysop yet, I always seemed to think she was).--El_Nazgir 20:28, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * My thinking was that she could accept or decline the nomination upon return; this way we can get a head start on rationale and the like. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 20:30, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, I jumped online at another person's house and decided to see how things are going on the wiki. I was surprised to see the notice, and I feel flattered, as this is the second time I've been nominated.  The first time the idea was abandoned as most people, including myself, didn't really see enough need for my promotion.  I'm posting here, since there is a notice about my absence on the main page, and I'm still working on getting internet at my house in Ukraine.  I should have it either by the end of the current week or sometime next week, as my phone line is extremely old and unfit for internet connection, so we're working on getting things up to date.  I will accept this request for adminship once I'm able to post regularly again, if you guys still think that it will benefit the wiki, but for now let's leave it how it is.  Feel free to "discuss me behind my back" as it will not offend me at all, I'm curious to hear what people think.  I know I've gotten into some heated debates in the past, but if I become an admin, I will certainly be more careful, as I will be in a position of authority.  As you may know, it was not because of something personal, but because I was trying to get my point across or expecting to be reasonably convinced otherwise.  We're all human and make mistakes, I try to learn from them and do things better next time.  I will reply to any further comments once I can post from home, and we'll figure things out from there.  For now, I miss you guys and I hope I can get back online soon.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 13:58, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no new discussion happened since I posted the above, but I am posting from home, FINALLY, so I will be available from now on. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 08:23, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * For some reason I didn't have this page on my watchlist D:
 * I don't have any issues with Rose, and would not object to a promotion. We have other, ah, "tenacious" sysops which have done just fine. Being able to take care of the deletion of armor images would be nice; in addition, Rose knows how things work around here and I have confidence in her ability to both battle vandalism (whatever little bit of that we still get) and just generally help out. Finally, it's always good to have sysops covering different timezones; while the USA and UK are covered, Europe isn't quite so much, and Herr Mendel keeps strange hours in any case. ;) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:42, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the last thing I would need to clarify is exactly what duties I will get with this and what's generally expected. Let me know what is needed of me, and I will accept this position gladly.  But for now, I think I will go satisfy my 3-week long GW withdrawals. :P Just in time for some grog! :) RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 09:14, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Prospective admin can't find GW:ADMIN, so noted. ;-) -- ◄mendel► 10:13, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Blame it on severe internet deprivation and withdrawal symptoms. :P Oh, and holy crap my feet are killing me... I have to walk everywhere. :( RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 10:38, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Next steps?
What are the next steps in progressing the RFA? How can I help? &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:41, October 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I can be more clear: I strongly support this RFA. I think RoK is a passionate defender and supporter of this wiki, trusts-but-verifies appropriately, and I am certain that she will use her powers to support the forces of Niceness and Good against those of Badness and Evil. Like any admin, I hope that RoK will carefully notice when she's acting in her sysop capacity vs. her capacity as a mere mortal contributor, especially during conflicts when she does not share the views of others.


 * Despite the obliquely referenced items under Opposing..., I have confidence that Rose will be able to sort through any such situations; she has shown that her passion for the good of the wiki is stronger than any particular opinion she might have on an individual issue.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:37, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Opposing factors
I would like to ask Warwick to please define "drama magnet" and elaborate about the conflicts. RoseOfKali 18:58, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of them are views mendel expressed to me previously, but I had noted were not there. So, I added them. I'd ask mendel to elaborate, not I. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 20:24, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * something something kanji on necro scar pattern something, other than that I'd have to dig. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 09:06, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Failure to identify a purposely bolded letter is a sign of vision loss. :P RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 09:43, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Couple of conflicts with Darksyde Never Again and AFK When Needed, neither of whom are the easiest people to get along with. Nothing recent. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 21:43, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, @Warwick: if you can't support your opinions, don't bother voicing them. Someone else will do so, but much better. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 16:05, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * You're stirring the pot yourself. Jennalee 16:15, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a professional. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 16:23, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

intermediate mind dump
No, I haven't decided.

Rose of Kali is a loyal, diligent editor who has contributed much to this wiki. Admin or not, GuildWiki will always be in her debt. We all recognize that the armor gallery is a distinguishing feature of GuildWiki, and its current excellent state is owed to no small extent to the effort Rose Of Kali has put into it, both adding to it herself, and in guiding others to achieve the high standards she herself set.

As we have added the ability to move/rename images to the rollback group, housekeeping the gallery has already become somewhat easier for her.

I have no doubt that Rose could recognise and ban vandals easily. She knows a lot about Guild Wars. Her technical Wiki skills are ok, but not great. [] []

However, I don't have faith in her ability to encourage new users and projects, and resolve conflicts. Some links:
 * the biggest recent drama, about a single line in an article about a Necromancer scar pattern, in February, has her talking in caps User:RoseOfKali/talk/Archive4
 * In April, she denounces the Zaishen Quest totals as "too much work" (we still have them, and they helped find a problem with Coin values that weren't updated): Talk:Zaishen_Challenge_QuestTalk:Zaishen_Challenge_Quest
 * reverts are very sensitive with me, because they the easiest way to discourage and enrage people, and when she reverted a simple sandbox edit, I bluntly stated my opinion (plus the previous issue rolled into this) User:RoseOfKali/talk/Archive5

I will admit that since that last occasion, I haven't noticed anything but exemplary conduct from Rose Of Kali. (But then I don't notice much). If that is a sign that she has improved, and if she would keep her hands off the admin tools in any conflict where she is personally involved (good advice for any admin), then I might be willing to promote her if the need arose. -- ◄mendel► 22:18, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have stated before, I treat mistakes as a learning process, and that's why I try to not repeat them, as you may see.
 * The Zaishen totals was stating an opinion of a regular user, not trying to impose anything or force anyone into anything (even suggested making it automated, because that would solve all the problems with it). Part of the problem may have been because I've noticed that many people have thought I was an admin for whatever reason, when I wasn't one, so they could have taken my words for more than they were.
 * The Sandbox revert was just an ignorant mistake, as I simply "cleaned" a what I saw to be a random edit a while after it was made (I think it was 45 minutes), and again, I don't think any other user would have been yelled at for doing this. It was the first time I've done anything with the Sandbox, and turns out I didn't know the "rules," and as Mendel said, it was influenced by previous events.
 * The scar pattern thing was a provocation and there is no excuse for it, other than it won't happen again, and that's what made me the "drama magnet" by drawing attention to every littlest thing I do, where before I was the "random person that does crap with armor galleries."
 * Also, I would not try to use admin tools in a discussion that I am impartial to. It's one thing to defend an opinion verbally on equal grounds, and another to use unfair advantage to preclude someone from taking part in the discussion.  Part of the reason why multiple admins are needed is because then there's always someone un-involved to resolve heated issues before things get out of hand.  I'm always looking at other people on this wiki to set me straight if I'm doing something wrong.  Plus, being an admin would likely make me watch my mouth a lot more, if that makes any sense. ^_^ RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 06:10, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * The Zaishen totals was stating an opinion of a regular user -- it came across to me as more than that. There are some people doing work on the wiki, and you say (not being one of those that do it), "what you do is useless, just drop it". This attitude (if I read it right) expresses a disrespect for those people, and what they want the wiki to be for them. It is important to me that everybody can make the wiki into what they want as long as there is space for them to do so, i.e. as long as others can still have the things on the wiki that they want. This means that "it's useless" can never be an argument, because it is always useful to the people doing it; the counterargument has to be "it damages what I want", and then a balance of interests needs to be found. As a sysop, you will be asked by others to support them, and it would serve us ill if you were to refuse your support because you were not ready to accept that what the user wants deserves recognition.
 * It's a bit hard to write this down properly because you still are expected to exercise your judgment, and that doesn't mean doing everything anyone asks you to; it means that I want to trust the people exercising their judgement that they see beyond their own preconceptions and perceive what the other editor is on about. The incident in question demonstrates to me that in this instance, you were not able to do that; you reply that as a user, you would not have been required to, but we don't really have different standards for admins and editors. Your past difficulties in extracting yourself from conflicts, or your failure to perceive that the sanbox is precisely the place for random edits (yes, I would have shot a "wtf?" to anyone who did that, but because of the other issue you got more than just that) indicate to me that this is an area where you still have room to learn.
 * As a consequence, I would not endorse you because we need another admin to "administrate users", as I believe you would not fit that role well. I have no doubt that you wouldn't abuse the admin tools if given them; I have no doubt you would be more than up to doing the administrative tasks of deleting tagged pages and blocking rampant vandals; I have no doubt that you are extremely loyal to this wiki and would not cause undue upset through the application of your admin powers (a certainty I'm sure Entropy didn't have about me at the time of my sysoption).
 * I would value the opinion of our admins and other editors who watch RecentChanges on whether another admin who does what I think you capable of doing would be welcome; I have a feeling that we're doing fine at the moment and that we don't really need to have you be admin, but I'm the first to admit that I am not well informed in these matters. -- ◄mendel► 10:02, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, are you saying then mendel, that what you are really seeking is a user(s) to act as a pedestrian bureaucrat/mediator? My understanding of the sysop role is it is mainly policing (when rules have clearly been broken) and housekeeping and that having their views given more weight would be more from being a proven long-time contributor with a properly screwed on and functioning brain. Jennalee 05:59, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: your bureaucrat/mediator comment, you're thinking of Guild Wars Wiki, aren't you? On GuildWiki, the Bureaucrat's only written tasks are to do with managing sysops; we expect everyone to help with moderating/mediating, but since in difficult cases sometimes blocks have to be used, it is also one of the admin roles here. It is a bit like everyone can help out by tagging pages to be d, but it's the admins who are supposed to do it. Or everyone can help "policing" by explaining to other users what they did wrong, and how to do it better.
 * The ideal admin can do all of this: housekeeping, policing, and moderating. This is useful because (extensive) housekeeping and policing are by their nature potentially disruptive tasks (I've learned that well enough from my own mistakes the first few months on this wiki), and of course it makes my own job (sysop management) a lot easier when our sysops can recognize potential conflicts and act accordingly. It might be interesting to examine whether my theory actually holds when observing GWW. We've last year seen a sysop on smashwiki with mod skills so poor that his policing caused great upset on that wiki, and had many users leaving. However, nobody's perfect, so I'm prepared to settle for a team of sysops whose mutual strengths combine to complement each other: if you get to know our sysops, you'll find we all have different strengths, and on difficult issues there's usually more than one involving themselves. Yes, I'm very proud of them. What's more, admins often grow "with the job".
 * For me, the purpose of any RfA is to assess what the strengths of a sysop may be, and what areas could see further improvement (ideally we'd find that improvement is ongoing). I can empathize with the sentiment expressed [ here], this procedure is quite trying.
 * Properly screwed on and functioning brain means as much as "I like the way you think", and if you want to discuss it, it needs to be broken down - but that's hard. User:M.mendel/Admin Criteria is my attempt; additions and criticism is welcome. -- ◄mendel► 11:06, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * No mendel, I'm not thinking of GWW - if anything, I think that the role of mediator has totally gone out of the window as an unwritten requirement of sysopship there, given that certain sysops seem to think that they are above and beyond the law, consistently ignoring NPA and AGF. When I mentioned a bureaucrat role, I used the descriptor of pedestrian bureaucrat, given my understanding is that bona fide bureaucrats are also expected to mediate in more extreme circumstances when all other options have been exhausted, as opposed to day-to-day moderation tasks, as you seemed to want. By the comment of properly screwed on and functioning brain, I mean to act impartially to things which happen here and informed by logic and reasoning, as opposed to being guided purely by feelings and emotions. As well, to act in a consistent way should similar situations arise. Somewhere, my thoughts seem to run that the role is described in such a utilitarian way to prevent any perceived rank discrimination, that sysophood means that you're somehow much better than ordinary users rather than extra powers given to assist you in contributing to the wiki. Jennalee 10:37, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, I understand you much better now. I believe I agree with everything you wrote (but I am not sure of much of what you seem to imply or hint at).
 * out of the window -- [ Auron agrees] with you (the talkpage is enlightening). Many people supporting Rose and nobody really opposing my estimation that she'd not excel as mediator just proves that point.
 * If sysops are to be impartial and consistent, that would already make them good arbiters, if not mediators (I'd expect a mediator to be also guided by intuition, i.e. a "feeling" for the parties involved that is not entirely founded on logic), so I'm not quite clear what your stance on that issue is.
 * My problem right now is, should I follow my own head that, I hope, is screwed on properly enough, which tells me that it's good for the wiki when sysops can mediate, or should I follow the supporters who seem to imply they don't care, or am I wrong in thinking that Rose would be bad at it? -- ◄mendel► 12:44, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean the GWW comment, with regards to the administrators, this is my personal view of some certain administrators there and does not pertain at all to this wiki and the admins here. With regards to your definition of wanting 'intuition,' I agree that any mediator should have a good understanding of the parties involved, their motivations, arguments etc and act with respect for their views, empathy and without undue bias. I personally think it is good if sysops could mediate, but as I feel you are hinting at, other people's views on what constitutes good enough reasons to award the powers will be different. Jennalee 13:06, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * I overlooked your use of "there" two posts back, and took your comments to refer to our Wiki; it is all clear now (thanks for contacting me on irc, too!). -- ◄mendel► 14:02, October 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Just wondering; am I? --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  13:04, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Short answer: you are patrolling RecentChanges, correcting everybody, yet somehow never get into any conflicts, as far as I know. That implies you do a good enough job for yourself, either making your changes in a polite enough manner, or recognizing potential trouble well enough to stay away from it (I suspect that's why you stay rather quiet here ;).
 * If you want a long answer, with examining links and instances of where you may have assumed a mediator role, you'd have to wait until I can dedicate time (I'm busy with wiki theory right now, obviously) - or maybe somebody else can? I vaguely remember you came in with excellent compromise suggestions at least twice in issues where I was involved, doing as much or more with your short post than we did with the long discussion. -- ◄mendel► 14:02, October 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm the one that got AFK to leave, though, simply because I was in a bad mood. No conflicts, hmm.
 * And yes, I stay out of everything. Does that make me good at mediating, or good at shielding the fan next to me from falling shit? --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  14:11, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me, anyway. ;) Also, it wasn't just you, it was I who got AFK to leave by telling him you were more important to me than he was, I think; I'd have to look it up, and by and by I am starting to suspect this line of talk should move over to your talkpage. -- ◄mendel► 19:38, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

A more recent link re:discouragement is Talk:Armor: Rose's first reaction to the suggestion of adding "No helmet" pictures is "It's a bit too late for this", but she does get more conciliatory as she goes on, and turns to being her usual helpful self in her posts after that first one. -- ◄mendel► 22:14, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * I find that to be a somewhat dodgy example, mendel. In that instance, she was expressing her opinion in a perfectly reasonable manner. As everyone is aware, Rose has done a *ton* of work on the armor galleries, and it's perfectly natural that she might be leery of any proposed template changes unless there is a bulletproof reason for said changes. In that case, it seemed like there wasn't a real good reason for the changes (imo anyway), so there was nothing unreasonable about her initial distaste for the idea. Nor was there any rudeness or nastiness involved. Honestly, if you're expecting all future admin candidates to smile and nod at every proposal, I think you'll soon be short on (decent) admins. Jimbo321 09:44, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * As my comments show, I'm aware of the merits Rose has displayed there. I am still doubtful whether Rose would be also leery of any proposed changes and not openminded when other areas of the wiki are concerned; I have linked two issues where I think I saw that, but they're relatively old. If you think she's generally more openminded than I take her for, find me some posts where she demonstrates that.
 * Your last line, of course, is pure polemics; only a fool would require everyone to "smile and nod" at everything; to be openminded and somewhat impartial is what I am asking. (If you want to continue the polemics, shame me and link some posts where I was not. ;) -- ◄mendel► 13:00, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of the three candidates for admin so far, Rose is the one who I have the most experience with, and she's the one that I see editing most often with my crazy schedule. I also went through the links above to see if anything there would change my opinion, but thus far, I simply haven't seen enough to withdraw support.  Obviously, the kind of conflict seen in February is not something I'd like to see again, but I figure someone who can go 9-10 months without anything so significant is doing alright in that department.  Ideal, no, but I've yet to meet anyone perfect.
 * The primary concern seems to be that her expressions of concern may discourage edits. Well, I certainly agree that recognizing the need to balance interests is important, but it also seems to me that those interests do include those of the reader as well as the editor, and one of the most important of those interests in quality.  The concerns about the zcoin totals and the no-helmet images look to me like quality concerns, and I happen to think those interests are important enough to be considered and discussed.  (Doesn't look like zcoin totals have been updated for the last three days, so I also can't think she was really that far off base on that one.)  So, I don't know... I mean, like Jimbo asked, how open-minded are you really asking for?  If there are likely and foreseeable problems with something new, should an admin not discuss them?  (A rhetorical question, naturally.)
 * Now I'm not saying that I 100% disagree with you. I would say she comes off a little stronger than the situation calls for, but it seems like on this issue, you're nitpicking and trying to make it look like more than it is.  It's a matter of degree, and it's like you're seeing it as 20 degrees where I'm seeing it as more like 2 or 3.  It also seems like you're suggesting the occasional reality check and call to step back and consider what's being done is fundamentally a bad thing, and it's not.  It seems to me that is part of the process of improvement.  Nwash  [[Image:User-Nwash-Eyes.png|link=User talk:Nwash]] 20:01, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by the zcoin totals (and not on topic either) but if you mean totalling the whole day's zquest count including the combat quests, technically that's quite meaningless since combat quests can be repeated within the limits of the day of that zquest and the quest doer. If the counts here included the daily combat quest included once also in the monthly totals, those monthly totals are also quite meaningless. Jennalee 23:59, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems your opinion on the matter is quite similar to Rose's, then. It isn't really off topic as it is one of the examples mendel brought up.  I can agree that it isn't best to describe something as useless, but something like this does fall into the trap of constantly needing to be caught up, so there is a valid concern.  mendel seems to be putting a lot of weight on that and a couple of similar cases, though, and I simply don't think it's that much of an issue.  Nwash  [[Image:User-Nwash-Eyes.png|link=User talk:Nwash]] 05:35, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Back in May, the combat quests weren't repeatable yet. Keeping the totals helped us detect a problem here. When I am calling something somebody else does useless without understanding it, I am not assuming good faith properly, because the person who is doing the work or making a suggesting usually sees the benefits; if I can't see them, I need to learn first before I judge. It all comes with being impartial. ;) And like I said, I can see Rose has improved as evidenced by the latest link I gave. -- ◄mendel► 14:26, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...
This has nothing to do with RoseOfKali, but why is it I can only find new nominations via "Recent Changes" page ? Is "Active Nominations" part in Requests for adminship page not in use ? Is there a new way of doing this ? I could missed it totally but if not, isn't it better to let more people know about admin nominations then finding it via rc list ?

Second, is there a need to have more admins ? When do you have too many or to less admins ?

Anyway, back to the nomination. I agree with all given points mentioned on page, except I wouldn't use the term "drama magnet" that harsh. I know a lot of regular users and even admins that would fit the term "drama magnet" more then RoseOfKali. In the past RoseOfKali proofed to be a very valuable contributor to this wiki, I don't think no-one will argue against that fact. She took a lot of time and effort to not only add or remove information, but to improve it to a higher standard. Yes, sometimes she looks a bit "hard-headed" and a bit too firm about the reasons why she wants/not wants changes on particular articles. In some cases I would advice, "well, count to 10, explain yourself with a few more lines, take it to the talk page" but I'm sure it is based on good will and intention, *not* on personal bias, arrogance or ego-boosting reasons. Therefore, it only a minor nuisance that can be improved when compared with the work she has done and respect she has earned. -- -- ( talk ) 09:14, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Rose reopened her RfA herself [], but did not put herself on the active list, and I failed to see she hadn't. Done, thank you for the heads up.
 * We don't make people admins for "the work [they have] done and respect [they have] earned" - we make people admins because we think they can do a job well that this wiki needs. It is the latter that the RfA is meant to demonstrate (and the former may well be part of that).
 * Thank you for speaking out! -- ◄mendel► 10:14, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * I opened the RfA, mendel. Never mind. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 20:10, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there was an RfA list. I thought people would notice anyway. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 08:57, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Warwick opposes
I have no problem with rose as a person, however I personally would not trust her with administrative tools. I've thought about it and I'm going to oppose this nomination.
 * Rose has conflicted with others in the past (including myself), and personally I would not (from what I know of her currently) trust her with administrative tools.
 * That said, I am one for always "giving someone a chance to prove themselves".
 * Whilst this is posted under oppose, I'd have to say it is an "oppose leaning to support, contradictory as the term may imply. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 15:49, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's about the admin tools, I've already mentioned that I would not use them in a situation where I am directly involved as one of personal interest, or if I'm simply unsure of what to do. I would not complain if I get demoted and denied all future RfA's after breaking this.  Deleting requested articles (when it makes sense to do so) or suspending obvious vandals would likely be my limit until I become absolutely positive about everything else.  When in doubt, I would ask other admins or trusted users for advice.  You can count on that.  Also, the way you put it, this sounds like an undecided.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 16:41, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * "Giving someone a chance to prove themselves" means supporting them; if you don't you're not really giving them a chance. -- ◄mendel► 22:22, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add...
It seems like my "reputation" was spotted by a single incident, we all know what it is. All I have to say is that discussing something passionately or whatever you want to call it should not in any way imply that I would use "overpowered" tools against the opposition just because I have them. You know that I voice my opinion freely, but I would not even think of using admin tools against someone who just happens to disagree with me. Also, it seems that what I do most on this wiki does not require having admin tools. Yes, it would be nice to have them, as there are occasions when they would have been useful to me, but if it is decided that no more admins are needed at this time, then I can continue doing things as I have before. Do not consider this as "oh, well she doesn't really want this anyway, problem solved." But, to avoid any more discussions like this, I will not accept any RfA's after this, unless we simply run out of active admins and I happen to still care about GW1. I don't like having to repeatedly defend myself against the same thing. That is all. RoseOfKali 17:10, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

AFK's WoT (sorry)
Requested By Mendel On IRC.

I support this RfA. I know Rose, and we all know of her work. I think GuildWiki would benefit greatly from her being a Sysop. Perhaps most importantly, I don't know if she'd keep her cool magically just because she's an Admin - but I do not see her ever abusing her tools. And, unless I'm mising something, she's human like the rest of us. She has stated months ago that she is going to avoid drama from then on, and I see no reason not to believe her.

Since Mendel asked on IRC if I'd read this, I'll have a quick run through it.


 * Deleting - I'm rather confident that Rose, with her activity, would regularly delete things found in Category:Candidates for deletion, and I can also envisage her cleaning up various armor related pages / projects.


 * Protecting - Rose has stated that she now wishes to avoid drama as much as possible. I believe this would therefore lead her to protecting pages which require this precautionary measure.


 * Banning - I have faith that Rose would ban vandals she encounters in RC.


 * Conflict moderation - Again, Rose has stated her desire to avoid drama and simply act in the best interests of GuildWiki. While I admit I imagine she'd often leave this to other Administrators, I also think she has the right to be given the chance to grow into the Admin role as others have done before her.


 * Rule enforcement - I think this one should be renamed as it bumps heads with the above three, imo. Anyways, she is a helpful, friendly contributor who I'm sure would warn new (and old) contributors alike of the policies, etc., and act accordingly if this was not enough.


 * Help and support - I believe Rose would try to help anyone in need. I've never seen her turn away anyone who asked for her assistance. I would mention I've seen her help at least one contributor with user namespace stuff (monitoring their titles, etc.)


 * Community trust - At the time of this edit Rose has 10 Supports, 1 Against, 0 Neutral... 'nuff said?


 * Community Support - This one's a null, Mendel tends to help everyone :P With the knowledge, experience and activity of Rose in mind I don't readily see her needing a lot of help. However, I have full confidence that she could get help in projects of a large scale.


 * Speed vs Thoughtfulness - I believe Rose has a good balance of the two. This is largely opinion so I won't bother saying any more on it.


 * Initiative - Yes.


 * Ability to compromise - Rose is becoming better and better at this every day. If she could not see a way to compromise I'm sure she would simply allow others to reach consensus and accept their decision.


 * Technical knowledge - afaik Rose has knowledge equal to or suprassing that of the average GuildWiki sysop


 * Experience - I have absolutely no idea. But I believe she has enough experience from GuildWiki to preform the role in a very satisfactory manner.


 * "Coworkers" - Again, I don't predict her getting into disputes. She is a rather social contributor who I trust would get on well with the other Admins.


 * Seeking Input - Rose appears to be quite active on the Talk Page of the Community Portal (see archives) so I have faith in her to suggest projects there before starting them if she considered it appropriate.

A F K When Needed 17:19, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Warwick's Changes
Doubtless someone's going to doubt my obviously superior wisdom, so anyone who wants to QQ about my changes can do it below. &mdash; Warw/Wick 15:55, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not get to decide what is relevant and what is not, the Bureaucrats do, because RfAs are their job. I would, for example, find the point about Rose's level of template skills relevant; the fact that I added it myself might be a clue.
 * The outline structure with the indented subpoints helps me organize the argument in my mind; if the wiki population finds this impossible to work with, I'd need to do it on a separate page, which I'd rather avoid.
 * I'm happy that you kept the bullets I came up with. -- ◄mendel► 22:05, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * If the instructions bother you, have a look at Template:rfa1 and tell me if that's better. -- ◄mendel► 22:07, October 16, 2009 (UTC)