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


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

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)

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)