GuildWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Warwick (7)

=Meta= Here we go again Random Time  21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe the set in stone impressions of her have changed in the last 4 months.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]] Entrea   [Talk]  21:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They have. Not like I know of said impressions, but because I said so, they have changed. Slurry 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hearing you talk on irc, they sure haven't. Prejudice, here we come. --◄mendel► 23:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If that was directed at me, I'd have to laugh. Slurry 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow. :\ I'm not sure what to think about this... (T/C) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Time scale
I have a hunch this nomination has a frivolous component to it, not caused by Warwick. If Warwick doesn't decline teh nomination outright, I'd really love to see it closed within 7 days if possible, and for discussion to not turn personal for once. It's not a good thing to have an RfA open all the time. --◄mendel► 23:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much my thoughts - it's barely been 2 months since Warwick's last RfA was closed, and we haven't had any drastic changes to the general situation at GuildWiki in that time. I can't think of anything that would make this RfA have a different outcome than that one did (unless this one were left open for another 2 months).  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that a much quicker resolution will occur this time around. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I am still of the mentality that:
 * We currently don't need additional admins
 * We don't need to process RfA's when we don't need additional admins
 * It's ok to keep RfA's open until we do need more adins.
 * So to get me as a Bcrat to do anything about this RfA, you gotta change my mentality on at least one of the bullet points above. Otherwise it'd be up to Entropy (or any other Bcrat) to either accept or reject. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keeping the RfA open means that a decision is still pending, that people will from time to time add their input to it, and that it is unclear when a promotion is actually considered. It means that the candidate remains under scrutiny.
 * Closing the RfA with a clearly explained rationale of "we currently don't need you, please apply again when we do" makes it clear that though the RfA has been closed, it hasn't "failed"; and to re-nominate someone whose RfA would have been kept open in this way is quickly done if the need arises. The situation is, as far as I'm aware, hypothetical: if this RfA would suggest that Warwick would merit the promotion if there was a need, a bureaucrat could promote even if there wasn't a new, open RfA; of course I would expect to see a pressing need demonstrated that precluded taking the week or so to run a new RfA. As I said, as far as I know this hasn't happened and isn't likely to. --◄mendel► 10:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course RfAs don't have to be started a new; I should think a RfA closed with "no need at this time" could simply be reopened if a need arises. --◄mendel► 10:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ^lol.
 * I thought the whole idea of an rfa was a joke, but hey.
 * Obama said (Parphrasing): "That's dumb. It should be based on whether or not the admin would be a good one rather than whether or not you need any".
 * Mendel said that I should close this. Why not? The whole thing started from a joke. I srsbsns pro.
 * In short: No u. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 16:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether you're accepting or declining (I think you're saying that you're declining there), please say so on the RfA itself. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As the candidate has the ability to withdraw the acceptance of the nomination, the candidate holds the power to decide when s/he no longer wants to be scrutinized, thus I still don't particularly see a problem with that. If we accept both your ideology that "keeping RfA indefinitely open is harmful" and my ideology of "only promote admins when we need them", then a (seemingly) natural conclusion may be to scratch the entire RfA process and change it into a "Call for nominations" process that happens when we do need additional admins.  -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 18:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "much quicker" is a very relative term when you are taking about an RfA that was open for over a month (iirc). (T/C) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Qualities"?
Why are these "qualities" and not "arguments" for and against? --◄mendel► 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And why do we still add signatures on the page itself? I thought the new model did away with that vote-type thing? --◄mendel► 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The person who nominates always signs, as does the nominee when he/she accepts or declines. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the instructions section, it says to sign the bullet points. --  Shadowcrest  00:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that and you edit-conflicted my correction. :P That probably just hasn't been properly updated on the template, same as the self-reference link hadn't been.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 00:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is still a mess... it's on my todo-list. Afaik only Pan and myself have tried to change it, since no one else seemed much interested. So I apologize. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like the new format. Return the pseudo-vote plz, it's much more revealing. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the purpose is to reveal stuff about the candidate, not about the (non-)supporters. =:-P --◄mendel► 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need to see useless +1 votes of "^jo dudes, prowick is pro". But this new format still has that. Looks like another thing that will need an extensive rewrite... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But here they're easier to ignore/separate from the stuff that also counts. You can't tell people to not show support on a wiki that everyone can edit, you can only hope to channel it. As far as that goes, it seems to be working. --◄mendel► 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would rather stick it under an "Obligatory Voting Section" [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

=Supporting qualities=

Long standing member of the community
Please discuss this quality here.


 * "Wiki age" alone means very little; what was done with that time is far more important.

Knowledgeable about policy/precedent/etc
Please discuss this quality here.


 * ...but may not always share the correct/general interpretations of such things.

Knows the general code of conduct for adminship, and what is involved in being an Admin
Please discuss this quality here.


 * Would take the job seriously.
 * Also was temporarily an admin during December and did not "abuse" the powers besides one small and relatively harmless mistake.

Friendly to the newer people, has patience with people whilst they're testing out
Please discuss this quality here.


 * Adminship is not about/is not a reward for being friendly; this is a side benefit at best.

Energetic and enthusiastic
Please discuss this quality here.


 * True, but candidate is also easily discouraged at times.

concerned about the state of the wiki
Please discuss this quality here.

This quality was added by Nova, then removed. While it seems plausible to me, I have not looked for evidence. --◄mendel► 05:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

more supporting qualities
Please suggest and discuss more qualities here.

=Opposing qualities=

Recent inactivity
Please discuss this quality here.


 * It's the holidays, what do you expect?
 * Activity alone is not a measure of one's worthiness for the admin position.

Rocky history
Please discuss this quality here.

(T/C) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some users will be (permanently?) biased for or against the candidate because of events that occurred in the past. While it is true that one can never totally dismiss one's history, RfAs should be considered primarily on how the candidate acts now, not months/years ago.
 * Recurring issue of what "James" did and what "May" did; loss of trust/faith despite GW:AGF will always plague this candidate.


 * James appeared on the wiki since the last RfA, and the issue was resolved without drama this time around. --◄mendel► 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Without wikidrama, anyway. --  Shadowcrest  01:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The point was that that's one of the primary/central reasons some mistrust lingers. (Some people still don't believe it anyway.) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Known to make rash decisions
Please discuss this quality here.


 * Example: Made edits to the sitewide .css to test potential Wintersday decorations; while it lasted for less than two hours, some users were annoyed, and it shows a lack of consideration/complete thought for the consequences.
 * Still improved upon in this regard compared to previous times; often asks for input/permissions/approval to do things now.

A bit of a drama/attention magnet
Please discuss this quality here.


 * See.
 * Not necessarily an opposing quality; being a visible editor only magnifies one's importance/actions, it does not make them inherently better or worse.


 * I think this no longer holds true; could you please provide recent (i.e. within the last two months) evidence for that? Warwick did announce her leave of the wiki as a reaction to Entropy, but a) this is a special circumstance and b) it attracted very little attention and was quickly reversed, so I'm inclined to disregard that here. --◄mendel► 05:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree insofar as "this is less of a case than it used to be". [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

more opposing qualities
Please suggest and discuss more qualities here.


 * Repeated failed RfAs (7th edition now) are at best a minor detriment to current candidacy. Less than 2 months since last RfA closed; by most wiki standards, this is a very short time.


 * Two months and a few days, actually. And it's not a self-nomination, so I don't see why it counts against Warwick. The nominator is known on our irc channel, announced his intent there, and created the account for that (past posts have been as anon), so I can attest that this is not a sock puppet of Warwick. --◄mendel► 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If infidel was Warwick's sock, I would lol myself to death &mdash; Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] &mdash;  (contribs) 21:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While we can never be sure, I would bet money they are not one and the same. -- Shadowcrest  21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Even questioning if I'm a sock is stupid. I've made at least 100 contribs as an anon under around 50 different IPs over the last 2 years. While a good 25-35% were comments on skill talk pages concerning synergy, and 5-10% were on user talk pages, the remaining edits were helpful edits. Slurry 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the point. Regardless of who started what RfA, it isn't anything but negative to have 6 failed RfA behind you. (unless they all failed for reasons completely irrelevant to the qualifications of the candidate, e.g. a technicality, and that does not apply on this wiki) It would be a different matter, also, if they were not failed RfA's but declined/withdrawn RfA's. Iirc some are, but not all. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

=Neutral/Double-edged qualities=

No need for admins at present
Please discuss this quality here.


 * We don't need any more at the moment (vandalism etc. continues to be negligible), so that's opposing, but we could train some for the theoretical time we do, so that's supporting.
 * There is no intrinsic limit on the number of sysops. At the same time, the number of admins alone should never be the sole rationale for promoting someone.


 * Does this even need to be on the RfA? It should be more about whether Warwick is fit to be an admin than do we need Warwick as an admin. --  Shadowcrest  01:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with SC. This is a moot point, because as others have said (Off the top of my head, I believe it was Entropy) that said there is no limit on the number of admins/sysops/whatever. This point shouldn't even be included. If the general consensus agrees, I'll see to it that it is removed. Slurry 22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This point was discussed at length on Warwick's last RfA and, in my eye, was one of the main reasons why it failed. That's why it needs to be discussed on this RfA, in my opinion; and it is an opposing point, that's why it got listed in that section. The point should not be removed; this discussion right here should indicate how valid it is. So if you can come up with more arguments why it is a bad point, that'd be good. :-) --◄mendel► 05:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My stance is the one in bold and italics (I added most of these bullets). Basically, I believe "number of admins" should never be the sole reason for accepting or declining a candidacy. It is at best a tertiary or even lower concern. The only exception to this is when you have a Wiki which is being, quite frankly, owned by vandals. This was the case when I "came to office" as bcrat; I quickly promoted a number of sysops primarily because we had a great need for admins - if I had waited around and been picky looking for truly amazing people, GuildWiki would probably be dead right now from vandals. :\ (Please note that I'm not saying anything of the current sysops - I like all of you and would keep y'all on the team still if it ever came to a "reconfirmation". Sysoption is for life.) At the time my "criteria" were basically, 1) Is the user reasonably active? and 2) Can we trust them to battle the vandals? - these are pretty easy to meet and so there were lots of promotions. And it worked, since vandalism is pretty much negligible today. (One could argue this is because the wiki itself is dead and thus a much less popular target, but having more "cops" undeniably helped curb it too.)
 * The problem arises today because we no longer have this special circumstances. Thus, a "why not?" candidacy (see last Warwick RfA) is bound to fail. The tables are turned now, where "we have enough sysops, so one more is pointless, oppose" is the mentality. I do not share this mentality, but I can understand why some may have it. The primary consideration for an admin, outside of dire times, should always be about their qualities for the position... not if we have too few/too many admins already. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Entropy on some details of the principle, though my own principle would also lead to the same "a 'why not?' candidacy is bound to fail" conclusion. "There is no limit on the number of sysops" does not contradict "Promotion on a need-basis", when the "limit" is interpreted as a cold hard number.  If there is a need, I will promote as many as necessary (who meet the basic admin requirements) to meet the need, and thus there is no hard limit.  The problem with this wiki right now is, we have a shortage of non-admin users to set "peer examples" to new comers not familiar with our culture.  Thus, unnecessarily shifting users from the non-admin category to the admin category hurts how new comers understand the power structure of this community.  If new comers end up only seeing admins making big or semi-major changes to the wiki, only seeing admins welcoming other new users, only seeing admins stepping in an argument to keep both sides level-headed, only seeing admins discuss about policy, then many of them will end up thinking that those are the jobs of the admins and not something for them "regular users" to meddle with.  That hurts our wiki, it makes it harder to preach YAV, and it makes it harder to get newcomers involved with the wiki.  I disagree with the "we have enough sysops, so one more is pointless" mentality.  I have the "unnecessarily promoting active users is harmful when we don't need more admins" mentality. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, you're saying that promoting Warwick would make it seem to new users that on admins do certain things? I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of other non-admin people that do said things as well. Regardless, however, I highly doubt that all of these active people will be promoted to sysop. If/when they are, then some would need to be demoted to prevent that exact thing you were talking about. But let's be serious--it'll never get to that point. Slurry 20:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Close but not quite. I am concerned about the general situation/principle/mentality.  Warwick's single case may or may not push us to that point.  If we start promoting ppl simply based on "Why not?", then I seriously believe we will end up there in no time.  A promotion system based on "Why not" will start to create a perception that those who are not admins are less worthy (otherwise why not promote them?), and anything of any value is done by the admins.  Newcomers are not admins.
 * I am not about to go around picking and choosing active admins to demote just to "repopulate the active regular user pool" when the problem comes up -- by then it'd be too late, and it is far simpler and less dramatic to not unnecessarily promote people in the first place. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be opposed to any demotions at the moment. We have already compromised "Sysoption is for life" by removing 99.5% never coming back people - that was a fairly good reason and I still think that was OK. But "demoting because you give a bad impression to new users" just seems silly. Like Pan says, better to never promote than try that mess... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you both are getting at here, but this is more than just a "why not?" RfA. Look at the supporting qualities vs. the opposing qualities. Not to speak for you all, but the supporting clearly outweigh the opposing. [To me] the only opposing point that /might/ be troublesome (and probably /won't/ be) is "Known to make rash decisions"--but everyone makes a rash decision every now and then. Slurry 22:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is where Entropy and I probably differ. In our current circumstances, I believe that no matter how good the quality of the candidate is, we shouldn't promote if we don't need more human-power to do the admin-only stuff.  I believe promotion of good users is in fact harmful to the wiki if we are not short-staffed to do admin stuff.  If you manage to convince Entropy, I'll respect her judgment.  But you need to change your approach to convince me because it is possible for me to fully agree with you about how great Warwick is and still decide not to promote her right now. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 22:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) We have quite a few "power users". What we lack (and that is exemplified by the the discussion on Entropy's talk) is admin role models. tfwiki.net is run by a 4 admin team, and their RC is as active as ours. The people who are admins have the job because some can administer the server and others are trusted to decide when nobody else can, and they also work well as a team.

We have departed from that model. Our admins do work well as a team, but it's not as closely knit. To me, it is questionable if we can go back (because we aren't there!) to the model of "special quality admins" -- and no matter what Pan said, these would be the "best" users of the wiki because we'd then "hire" them based on a need, selecting the best applicants available.

The "why not" approach is quite democratic. It means that we give everybody prot/del/ban who can be trusted to handle them if they want it. That sends a message to every non-admin that if you prove yourself, you can be an admin as well; that, in fact, admins are guys like you who just have been at it longer and/or spent more of their time on the wiki than you did. That is nothing magical that sets them apart. (That is actually the way the American Dream works - everbody likes a millionaire because, hey, I or my kids could be one, too, you know?)

Of course that's controversial. I don't know any wiki that does things like this (how about Wikipedia?). It means that our admins don't need to be "uber heroes" (or "co-leaders" ;-), they just need to not abuse the tools we gave them and that's that. Because admin position does not automatically confer leadership, it becomes clear that admins are actually regular users with extra powers. They don't know everything of course all of MY wtf edits are intentional to illustrate that principle :-9, nor do they have to. But the consequence then is that we'd have to promote everybody who wants to if we can say "eh, (s)he'll do ok".

In terms of day-to-day operations, I don't think the wiki would suffer. If anything, it'd improve vandalism response times. What we're arguing here are the hypothetical effects of this change on the community. ''Have there been observed effects of our big hiring round? How has the community changed because of that?''

This "promote everybody who can be trusted" idea is the opposite extreme of PanSola's ideal. We're somewhere in the middle right now. I think both directions that we can go are viable, and I also think there is a lot of guesswork involved how the users will be affected one way or the other (yes, feel free to link to actual wikis to illustrate your points). It just ain't that simple. And that's my move'n'shake contribution for today. --◄mendel► 06:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mendel brought up a great point that totally slipped my mind. Is there any proof that your idea will actually happen if there are a bunch of admins? Really, without solid proof, your theory is a maybe/maybe not situation. And because you can't speak for new users (you're a long-time user and not a normal user at that), you can't justify it by yourself. I'd like to see some concrete proof of what you're getting at, PanSola. Slurry 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Still in the middle of my response to mendel (don't expect it to be done within the next few hours). But as a quick response, "having a bunch of admins" has nothing directly to do with my ideas/claims/believes.  If you don't get understand the difference, you can either wait for my longer response, or re-read stuff I've typed above.  It was never about how many admins there are (I'll promote as many as necessary to handle the administrative needs of the wiki).  It's about who will and who won't be admins depending on the system with which we choose admins. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 23:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Summary - caution: may omit fuller context
 * I support a "need-based" admin selection criteria, as opposed to "special qualities" or "why not"
 * "Hiring a bunch of admins" is by itself neutral. Having a system where all "known to be good" users end up being hired is the issue.
 * A fully "Why Not" would assume trustworthiness of everybody until proven otherwise, and allow anyone to have adminship without past trackrecord. Only revoke when admin powers are abused.  The "why not" in earlier discussions, in contrast, is actually a "Prove your trustworthiness and you shall receive" system (I'm going to use lower case "why not" to distinguish it from the above "Why Not" for the rest of this discussion).
 * "why not" (of earlier discussions) is likely to make all the "good/decent users" of the wiki into admins, creating a divide that lumps "unproven users" with "problem users" on the other side of the line. I claim that such divide is harmful and hurts YAV, because the "why not" system essentially defines admins as being more trustworthy than non-admins (if you are worthy of trust, why have you not applied or why didn't you receive adminship?).


 * Full text - caution: long
 * Mendel, by "admin role models", do you mean "role models for other admins", or "role models (who have adminship) for everyone"? It is non-obvious to me from reading what you wrote plus my recollection of Entropy's talk page.  This is a point I might disagree with but need to understand what you meant better before really commenting on it.


 * IMHO, GuildWiki admins were never a "tightly knit" team (although I've only observed from late 2005 onward). Any closeness comradeship were also shared by other experienced contributors.  The only "teamwork" really involved was making sure the wiki had the admin coverage to handle vandal/spam attacks (and if not, find someone who can usually cover those hours to appoint to adminship).  I wouldn't consider our model as "Special quality admins", although a small number were appointed for specific abilities/expertise.  If we have a huge backlog of pages candidated for deletion (and more being added then being processed) and the current admins don't have time to go through them, I'm gonna pick somebody who has the time to do it (and enough sense to let the controversial ones have sufficient discussion), even if there are "better users" in the community that everyone loves and adores and is a super poweruser who knows everything about MediaWiki and javascript and CSS and bot-scripting.  If a series of spam bots like to mass-attack at 3:00 GMT and our current admins are usually not around/alert until 9:00 GMT, guess what type of candidate I am going to appoint?  The ones being appointed would meet a need, but I wouldn't consider this a "special quality admin" model.  The ones being picked may happen to be our "best" users, or they might just be average "good" users.


 * Yes, I have indeed considered the near-polar-opposite ("why not?") before. Ironically, both approaches are rooted from the exact same basic fundamental principles ("adminship is not a big deal", or something like that).
 * The American Dream / millionaire example is interesting. While it is democratic in the way that anybody potentially can reach that goal, the goal itself is something that is generally coveted by most people.  I think that is often a problem hidden in democratic/capitalistic systems. If you do become a millionaire, then there is often a social/economical superiority accompanying that achievement that makes it desirable.  That is something I do not wish to associate with adminship.  Not even the typical "civil servant" model of presidents or senators or city council representatives satisfy me, as they still hold too much political power compared to what GuildWiki admins used to have in relation to non-admin users.  I see GuildWiki admins as the fire fighters, the school teachers, and the street sweepers of the community.  Essential to the upkeep of our community, something a child may be proud for their parents, but not necessary something that requires our best and brightest nor are positions that everyone covets (no offense meant to anyone who wanted to be a fire fighter or teacher or street sweeper when they grow up, or anyone currently in those positions).  We just need the people who want and can get the job done.  Heck, half the people considered for adminship used to decline their nomination (this is before we set up a formal RfA system).  Why would somebody decline becoming a millionaire when they don't have to give up anything in return?


 * "Have there been observed effects of our big hiring round? How has the community changed because of that?" To which period of time are you referring as the "big hiring round" btw?  The community has been changing over time.  As a number of changes are gradual shifts or are subtle, it is hard to pin-point exact causes.  However, between the pre-GWW-Game-integration & pre-Grave-Wikia-transition era versus now, things have definitely changed.  Nowadays I feel people placing importance/significance in the position of adminship (Sysop/Bcrat) far more than in 2005/2006 (not 100% of the population, but relatively it has been more).  I do not claim "hiring a bunch of users" to be admins by itself is harmful.  Its effects needs to be examined with the rest of the community composition.  The issue isn't with how many we hire, but with how few are left.


 * Appointment based on who can meet the wiki's need means that our admins don't need to be better than the rest, they just need to not abuse the tools we gave them (and able to meet the need of the wiki) and that's that. The actual "co-leaders" of the wiki are as likely be non-admin users as admins.  Because admin position does not confer leadership, it becomes clear that admins are actually regular users with extra powers to deal with the needs of the wiki.  The consequences are that users who view adminship as some sort of holy grail or a symbol of importance or trophy may get disappointed when they apply during a time we don't need more staff to handle administrative matters, no matter how wonderful those valuable users' qualities are.


 * In contrast, the "why not" approach is actually more likely to end up handing out adminships for all (or a great majority) the "co-leaders" of the wiki simply because anyone who failed to pass the "why not" test probably wouldn't be able to have enough personality/reputation/respect to be considered as a "co-leader". If you are worthy of trust, why have you not been nominated for adminship?  "why not" divides the people into "good/decent users" vs "problematic or unproven users", something I find detrimental to the YAV principles.  I believe that in order for "why not" to not hurt the practice of YAV principles, every single user (ideally including anons though that's not logistically handle-able) should have access to admin rights without having to prove anything, and only have it revoked upon abuse.  This would be a great departure from anything we've ever done with respect to adminship, and greatly weakens the power of protection and ban tools without Bcrat intervention (since admins can edit protected pages and can unban themselves).


 * Some people might have noticed that "Why Not" is pretty much exactly my philosophy with respect to rollbacks. I'll grant rollback to users when/if I feel like it, and anyone who asks shall receive it without going through any formal process whatsoever (unless they have abused it before).  I was one of the major proponents of having a completely informal process letting pretty much just about anyone to get rollback (technical restrictions require you to have a registered account to get it).  Rollback is a shortcut tool that is barely more powerful than normal user rights (and at the time we were forming the policy, I thought it was exactly as powerful as normal user rights), which is why I feel comfortable handing it out liberally.


 * Are you ready to trust people with sysop tools simply by Assume TrustWorthiness (similar to AGF), without them having to have any history on this wiki? Or do you want to establish a measure of trustworthiness so that the lack of adminship indicates a user has not yet managed to pass your test?   In either case, I am not sure if we are ready for the floodgate to open (not because of the numbers, but because of the degree of changes to the community structure/hierarchy).
 * I do want our admins to be people who at least pass a certain minimum set of criteria, but without implying those who aren't admins failed the test. Users not appointed to adminship simply means the wiki is handling the volume of administrative tasks fine, without implying the users are not trustworthy.  One user chosen over another to be admin means the chosen one probably meets the nature of the current administrative needs more (usually probably a time-related factor), which does not correspond to one user being better than another.


 * I hope I have conveyed a different facet of my concerns without going into armchair psychology... holy Lyssa, this came out three times longer than I thought it'd be o_O""" -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be worth mentioning that it hurts your case, Pan, that of the 4 people discussing this topic (I don't count myself here), only one is not an admin, and he disagrees that there is the potential for such a "worthiness divide." Indeed, if normal users do not perceive the situation in the same way that you do, then you are in a sticky spot. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 03:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You should've waited until you can get actually get that s in "normal users". I'd probably be more concerned by the fact that only one normal user (if you wish not to be included) has been discussing this topic so far.  My case would've been weakened quite a bit more if Entropy never appointed mendel (not that I'm calling for mendel's de-sysoption), see the irony? d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 05:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone who's qualified and wants to can join the voluntary fire fighters, but those who don't aren't bad people.
 * I don't agree with your conclusions about promoting anybody who wants to: that it degrades users who haven't been, and that we'd need to promote unknowns. It is quite clear to me that there will always be editors who haven't been on long enough, who don't want to spend the time or who don't want the responsibility; they are in every other respect just as valuable to the wiki as those in teh admin group. In fact, the way to refuse promoting somebody without impugning their worth is to say, "please apply again when you've been here longer, we don't know you enough". That is exactly what I mean by saying that we promote whom we trust - it takes time (not necessary measured in months, but also in activity) to build trust in a community, and not having that trust yet doesn't mean you aren't trustworthy, it just means people aren't sure yet that you are. (GW:AGF extends to edits, not to admin promotions.)
 * You can't have elitism when you don't have elites; to say "we don't want elitism, that's why we don't hand this position to everybody" strikes me as a contradiction in terms. There probably are good reasons to not promote everybody, but I don't think anti-elitism serves. I think I don't want to shoot down your "need-to-have" promotion doctrine, but I want to shoot down that way of justifying it and see what remains.
 * The admin role model argument, hmm, it is a bit fuzzy tbh because I haven't taken the time to research in detail how adminship on successful wikis with communities somewhat like ours work. One meaning is that admins may be set apart by a level of dedication and abilities that other users don't have, and thus you know that when you apply to be an admin, you know what standard to measure up to, and if that's to harsh for you, you decline the nomination. This is the type of admin role that you oppose, I suppose, PanSola, although you are one of those. We, on the contrary, have admins that are easier to measure up to. Both my example, tfwiki, and we ourselves have non-admin users that are role models for other users (including myself), so that is entirely not what I meant.
 * Self-unbanning: we have precedent such that we (?) now see self-unbanning as a breach of trust that can lead to immediate demotion. I don't think it's going to be an issue. What I'm more concerned about is that admins can self-ban and other users can't.
 * Encouraging users to participate in what seems an admin-only discussion: well, we don't go as far as protecting these kind of discussion pages, so our position is not too bad there. ;-) We could do that more strongly right now, put it on the new user FAQ, put it on GW:POLICY, put it in GW:YAV explicitly; I guess what I'm saying is why do indirectly if you can do it directly? I've always (?) told people that the reason why you see mostly admins in these kind of discussions is not "admins are people who do important discussions" but rather "people who do important discussions become admins", and of course if they don't I can't use that line any more. =:-P
 * We're discussing this very much in the abstract, but it's not the community portal (unless this thread got moved ;-) ; so I guess what you're implying is "May, adminship is nothing special, stop wanting it so hard", and May is saying "if it's nothing special, why can't I have it?", and the answer to that, is it "we don't need you right now"? Because that's sad. yay for appeals to emotion!
 * I believe that in the past many people would've honestly summed up their position as "oh noes, she's the drama queen, we can't promote ", and for me, these RfAs are in a way a measure of how that's changed. Of course that means I don't see acceptance or failure as reflections of May's intrinsic worth, but rather as indications of her public perception - and that means I don't trust the public to perceive May fairly. I fail GW:AGF now? --◄mendel► 05:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

more neutral qualities
Please suggest and discuss more qualities here.

= Individual users' thoughts =

Nova
I know I have been a longtime opponent of Warwick's candidacy, and I'm sure Warwick is surprised to see my support. But the thing is, things have changed. From what I've seen, Warwick has become more mellow, causing far less drama than before, and even though there is still some of that attention-magnetism there, she has greatly improved in that aspect.

Warwick has been more and more helpful to and involved with the wiki. Her long presence here is definitely a strong quality, and as she begins to mature away from her drama side, the effect of her contributions are becoming increasingly beneficial to the wiki.

One strong negative point, was how, when Entropy left the wiki, Warwick planned to follow suit. However, Entropy was seen by some as the factor that holds the wiki together, and Entropy's leaving definitely raised doubts about the future of the wiki. Either way, Warwick was not in a position of great responsibility to the wiki, so her leaving was more due to the gloom outlook of the wiki's future as opposed to having the effect of abandoning responsibilities in dire times. (Note that I am not accusing Entropy of anything here; she will continue to have my full support in whatever choice she makes. Also, I am not implying that other users are not valuable.)

At any rate, GuildWiki is becoming more lackluster every day, and Warwick's promotion to administration, with all her enthusiasm and concern for the wiki, would certainly be advantageous.

&mdash; Nova   &mdash;  (contribs) 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised as well. After reading over what you said with the last RfA, I was almost positive you'd be on the opposing side. Slurry 22:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised at how much energy people are already expending on this, given that the nominee hasn't even accepted yet. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 22:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true, but if there is an overwhelming number of people leaning towards support, chances are she'll accept the nomination. If not, this is all copypasta for the next nomination (should she decline). Slurry 22:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to argue that GuildWiki is not becoming more lackluster everyday. Rather, it is a matter of not becoming more lustrous. "Stagnation" comes to mind. In any case, could you elaborate how promoting Warwick would directly address this problem? Gusto alone won't be enough, I think, to combat everything; "we" (collectively meaning all teh "regulars" and others who lurk Wiki too often) already devote much time to the wiki, and we are full of concern, too. :\ [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

it's not a vote
~_~""" -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 19:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't care, it feels better this way. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was specifically targeting Warwick's use of words, not the actual act of show of support by the community. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 19:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * o okay [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)