GuildWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Warwick (6)

Votes

 * I mostly agree with what she wrote as her rationale. I trust her to not abuse admin powers if given nowadays. However, I feel I am biased, thus cast my vote on the Neutral side. Besides, too many > too few. Perhaps keep in the back of your head for when the need for a new admin is needed. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  16:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we are doing just fine for admins right now. Nevertheless I also agree that Warwick has mostly settled down by now. So if there was a sudden need for a new admin, maybe I'd start looking here...Warwick's biggest argument in her favor is longevity and experience of various forms. I would say the biggest thing against would be that this is the 6th RfA, so Warwick has a rocky history... [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 16:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, now if I'm a terrible admin, Entropy/Auron/Jedi can just demote me outright Simply saying: "If I screw up it can be fixed anyway" isn't exactly a good argument. You'll have to do better than that. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 17:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I support your RFA - although someone has changed the RFA system - so I don't know how to Random Time  11:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Blurb
The nomination blurb seems to be about "Why it's ok for Warwick to be an admin", as opposed to "Why Warwick should be promoted to be an admin"... -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 18:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"I see quite a few things that could do with deleting that other people (Mainly Viper tbh) don't get to deleting for about 20-40 mins or so" are those stuff that needs to be immediately deleted? o_O -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not. I did state that I wasn't sure if it was a reason. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 19:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "You can never have too many admins" - I partially agree, in the sense that if at one point we needed 40 admins to maintain order and so we got a total of 40, and later things calmed down so we only need 10, we don't need to find 30 to demote, we can keep all 40. On the other hand, my inclination is to not promote ppl to adminship just because it's ok.  If we do that, then in the long run a new user who comes here will see that this is a wiki consisting only of trouble makers vs sysops, no regular users; and I think that would be a bad long-term image to portray.   -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 19:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Ishmael's Addition
I'm not certain about the new format, so I dunno if the "Qualities" count as peoples votes, but anyway;
 * Tendency to make quick decisions without community discussion leading to brash actions that are widely opposed by the community.
 * I don't feel that I do that any more, I've outgrown it. It's been like, 5 months since I last did somthing like that. I think. So it's not really a tendancy, is it? &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 19:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why I put it as a sub-item under "Rocky history". &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 20:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didnt note that. :> &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

History of unilateral actions
Yes, I'm bringing this up again, but it's really the only argument I have against Warwick. Most of Warwick's activity between when I really got involved with the wiki in March and when her activity dropped off a month or so ago could easily be summarized by "Warwick decides something needs to be done, edits/creates 100(+) pages, community objects, wikidrama and delete/revert-fests ensue." Her activity over the past couple months has been too low for me to get a good characterization of her current wiki-personality, so I can't really say whether she has improved her attitude/mentality about this or not. While she hasn't undertaken any unilateral action during that time, she also hasn't participated in much community discussion. (Please point out any discussions where she did participate, I don't watch everything that happens around here (just most of it) and I have no clue what happens on other wikis.) It would be great if her attitude really has changed, I just can't make a judgment either way on that right now. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 20:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the way I've acted has changed, personally, but thats just me. I'm bias. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing how you say you've stopped trolling and your userpage mentions your "trolling partners". Anyway, I think you'd make an OK admin, but I think the "boy who cried wolf" factor is probably going to hurt you (srsly, RFA 6?), as well as the whole don't really need another admin thing.
 * No, no real insights there. Just random thoughts that popped into my head.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]] Entrea   [Talk]  21:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That was from a while ago! Honest! >.>. No, but seriously, the SSBBwiki trolling was intended to help more than it was to harm. I (along with Felix and DE) were trying to change the fact that.. the admins over there sucked. We failed. Shame. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 21:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The last unilateral (read, uncoordinated with the people actively working on the same pages) action I can recall was on August 2nd, and Dr ishmael summed it up here. Not that big of a deal, and it's been a while ago. --◄mendel► 22:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My intention on SSBBwiki was purely that of humor. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, I can't be the only one who was actually trying to get them to stop failing.. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 15:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion style
See here. I don't want to commit to an opinion whether that is tolerable discussion style for an admin weighing in on an important discussion, mainly because I've got an open RfA myself. I think that is about the worst I can remember of Warwick in recent history, though. --◄mendel► 22:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * D:. That was smashwiki, though! And that guy was really irritating me.. And it was for a good cause, too!.. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 22:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion you can't judge people based on what they say/do ingame or on other sites. For all you know Warwick is a total bitch on Facebook or something, and if you'd find that out she'd suddenly make a bad GuildWiki admin? Come on. GuildWiki admins are (or should be) chosen based on what they say and do here on GuildWiki, nothing else. I know calling someone a dipshit or whatever isn't really the best way to give people a positive idea of who you are but that doesn't make you any less an admin on THIS wiki. I know it's a thin line really, because if someone is a known vandal of other wiki's, I'd have second thoughts too (not that I'm saying you're a vandal WW, neither am I sticking my head out for you - It's just that I have a strong opinion about this). Back on topic - I have no doubts Warwick will make a good admin, but is it really necessary? Does the wiki need another admin? Putting up another RFA because 'you can't have enough admins' isn't really an argument. Putting up an RFA because you think you can do something for the wiki is more like a step in the right direction, but I haven't read anything along those lines yet (if I'm wrong, please point me to it). Anyway that's my €0,02 and if it'd really come down to it, I'd probably vote neutral again because I don't think it is necessary Warwick would become admin, but neither do I think she'd make a bad one. --[[Image:Progger.png]] - talk 22:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. Progr made a WoT... Still, it's true. I'm quite a dick on PvX when it comes to someone posting a horrible-beyond-repair build. Does that make me any worse here? --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  08:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering certain members of the administration team are here solely because of what they've done outside this wiki, I'm afraid plenty of people will disagree with you, Progr (though whether I do or not is a different story). [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 08:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean, but that doesn't mean it should happen again. --[[Image:Progger.png]] - talk 11:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Progger is relatively right. afaik there isnt really much of a reason anymore why not, its just that there isn't much of a reason why so. I feel I could do better for this wiki with admin powers, but I'm really quite bias, so can't give a judge of how well I'd do. :\ &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 15:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What someone does outside of GuildWiki is not relevant unless it is someplace tied to GuildWiki. For example, Facebook is totally irrelevant. But #IRC, GWW, GW2W, PvX, in-game, and to a much lesser extent other Wikias, do count for something. How one acts on GuildWiki is the most important factor to consider, but if you are a very good/bad person in those other places that could also be a deciding factor. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Adminship would increase activity
So are you saying that you are inactive - and you need a perk (adminship) to peak your activity again, adminship should be a tool - not blackmail (you will make me an admin or I shall stop contributing) Random Time  10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. It's just the fact that a lot of the contributions I might make is somthing that Viper would have already done/will do in the next 10-20 mins. Tagging somthing for deletion that is about to be deleted is a bit pointless imo. Tagging somthing for banning that is about to be banned is a bit pointless too. I'm not saying I need a perk to peak my activity, I'm saying that I'd be able to do the stuff I can't do now. Which should probably be evident. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 11:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I read that as a promise, rather than threat. --◄mendel► 11:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I support your RFA - although someone has changed the RFA system - so I don't know how to Random Time  11:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You do that by thinking of points in Warwick's favor (look at User:M.mendel/Admin_Criteria if you need ideas) and adding them to the summary. --◄mendel► 12:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't supposed to be a threat.. I don't really see how it could be interpruted as a threat, tbh. "If I'm not given admin powers I'll leave" is a threat, but "My activity would probably increase" isn't really a threat at all- as mendel says, more of a promise. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 15:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * *cough* >.> (see the last sentence in the part I struck out) &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 16:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol. I sat there wondering what the heck you were talking about, 'till I realised it was a link. /fail. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 16:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

nova's opinion
In my opinion, the qualities you listed for nomination are too... "okay to be an admin" as you stated yourself, as opposed to why you should be an admin. In your first paragraph (calm down, I'll get to your second one later) almost every statement you make can be made by any decent user on this wiki. Any decent user, if promoted to admin, would be a lot more active and would not abuse tools. Wasting far too much time sitting around camping IRC and RC doesn't make you any better of a potential admin, other than the fact that you obviously have lots of time on your hands. OrgX and PanSola make some pretty good points. You lack the confidence and professionalism needed to be an admin. Saying "if I just screw up it can be fixed" makes it seem that RfA is a very... lenient thing. RfA is about awesome, not just decent, users that have clearly helped the wiki and can be judged to almost definitely be a huge improvement to the wiki if they were promoted. Promotion is about giving good users new tools; it's about amplifying the good work they've already done. It's not "here, let's try you out with this mop." You current adminship request looks like "okay I know that I've been bad, but I think I'm ready to behave now, I want to be an admin so try me out, you can demote me if I screw up anyways." Again, the statements that you made in your first paragraph are almost laughable. GuildWiki would be damned if someone who wouldn't revert vandalism at first sight tried out for adminship. Ditto if the bcrats wouldn't demote a bad admin.

Now that I've got it down pat as to why you're just a decent user but not an outstanding potential admin (or have qualities worth being considered for adminship either), let's move on to the second paragraph. Your second paragraph is probably one of the most disgusting things I've read in a serious RfA ever, and it's so disgusting I might actually not classify it as serious. Let me quote some statements:
 * "I feel, as I always have, that I could use admin tools well. As well as that, it'd probably increase my activity by quite a lot. I can't really think of many reasons why I should, to be truthful, though I can think of quite a few as to why its okay."

The majority of that statement was countered in the first paragraph I wrote, why being okay definitely doesn't make you a potential good admin, but seriously. I doubt gwiki is currently in a state that we are so desperate for admins we need to promote every single decent user to administration. You're not superior to some of the other people I've seen, and if you got promoted, the "if you got promoted why don't we promote others too" argument would reign supreme. But I'm going to stop camping that argument because I've said enough already.


 * "So meh. That's just a response to Pan's comment, really."

... You listed possible reasons why you should be an admin just to respond to someone's comment? This, combined with the fact that you said (in game, I think) that you tried out for RfA because you were bored, is scary. At the moment it looks like you are hardly taking RfA seriously and as a result, I doubt we should take you seriously either. Five previous RfAs don't help that image either, and neither does trolling in other wikis.

Other people can say what they want about activities elsewhere not affecting gwiki, but I believe it is all about professional image. For instance, why is Auron respected? Why is he bcrat on all three guild-wars related wikis? He's reached a level of maturity and professionalism that is definitely not seen in Warwick. Trolling on SSBB just because it's a piece of Wikia shit that no one cares about (which it is) still affects Warwick's image. What if one day Warwick decided gwiki was a piece of wikia shit (and considering her rocky background, I can't guarantee her opinions won't change in the future) and played immature again? Hardware companies won't hire a person who has a criminal background relating to theft as long as they know about that background. Like, come on. This isn't a rehab centre for off-the-track bums, where we forget people's pasts and start anew. This is GuildWiki, and if we are to make it a pinnacle of community achievement, then we really need to be selective about our administration. At any rate, Warwick needs to calm down, get some patience, and start working like an admin for at least a while before we should seriously consider giving her the mop. Spamming adminship requests every x months doesn't help her image in terms of seriousness and professionalism.

Oh, and tag this on at the end: http://guildwars.wikia.com/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Warwick&namespace=0&year=&month=-1

50 of her most recent mainspace edits dates back to... almost three months back, with hardly any project involvement?! Obviously she's too busy on talk pages/GuildWiki project pages to actually *do something in the namespace*.

Well, that's my two cents. Wow, what a huge wall of text. &mdash; Nova   &mdash;  (contribs) 18:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And before people start torching me, I don't have a grudge against Warwick - she has the skills, she just needs to be a lot more mature and take things a bit more seriously and professionally.

And before people start shouting at my contribs; this wall of text is just my opinion, I'm not the one trying out for RfA, I just want to give my opinion as I know Warwick personally. &mdash; Nova   &mdash;  (contribs) 18:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Five previous RfAs don't help that image either - 3 of those 5 were self-nominations, the 1st and 5th were not. See Warwick's correction below. Noting that for reference.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 19:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC) [edited 19:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)]
 * Actually, 2 of those 5 were self-nominations. 1, 4 and 5 were not. :P &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 19:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Two RfA's before this is not something to overlook, actually. Either way, I don't think naming your topic: "nova's invaluable opinion" is the smartest thing to do though. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 19:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, there is not a whole bunch to do in the mainspace these days unless you want to get involved in a project. Which isn't that many people at all. There is minor vandalism every now and then to revert, and maybe something interesting or an innovative strategy for a quest/mission that no one discovered yet. But still. Moreover, I have promoted a number of people who are "just decent users" before, and no one seemed to have a problem with that...I don't see any demotion requests around. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 19:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Somehow this is totally out of context. Anyway, have you actually seen recent Changes? 500 changes in main gets you 3 days; even discounting Dr ishmael, I can't fathom how you can conclude that "there is not a whole bunch to do" in the light of a whole lot of people actually doing something. --◄mendel► 21:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If I take you and Ishmael out of the picture, then where do all the edits come from? (500 edits used to be like 1-1.5 day, btw) Two people isn't a lot. Randomly attributing images or adding cats and such isn't a terribly important thing in any case. I think we differ on what we define as "mainspace edits". I am talking about the hard things like improving and updating documentation, testing strategies, finding bugs and anomalies, et cetera. Most of this has already been done in the past so it's hard to make any of these sorts of edits anymore...especially after Quizzical went through all the missions. Adding PvP stuff is good; adding dungeon and elite area guides is good. Now, if you want a mainspace edit to be anything that isn't in a User: or User talk: then there is a lot to do. You can take part in a project like to categorize all X, or attribute all Y, or comb for (nonexistant) redirects, check grammar and spelling...etc. But I think these are of a lesser quality than hard mainspace edits. They don't (directly) improve the content, which is the crux of the Wiki. They improve the form/presentation, which should come secondary. That's what most work seems to be about these days. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 10:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We have created over the last week a completely new article that documents the game interface and is part of lore by defining regions better. We still need 2% of our monster images; those mostly depend on having quests to get to them. Improving and checking on strategy advice is always good and much work, even if the resulting edits look small. There is information about the wiki itself waiting to be written down. Wolfie tells me he's not even half finished with going over the quest articles and touching them up. The article Improvement project has unfinished business, and Category:Stubs has over 100 entries even if you don't count it subcategories. Many projects in Projects aim at adding hard info, not the least the armor crafting project that still isn't finished. Then there's a huge amount of Lore on the gwguru (and elsewhere?) that deserves to be written up into wiki articles for future reference (GW2 anyone?). For most of these you don't have to commit to a project.
 * I am seeing a lot of people working in Main (my categorization effort mostly takes place in Image:, I excluded Ishy because he's been mass-renaming images), I haven't judged the quality of the edits. The number of edits per day exceeds 2005 levels and is about half of 2006 and 2007 levels; see http://wikistats.wikia.com/EN/ChartsWikiaGWGUILD.htm#3 . I could give more detailed stats if I found a way to work with the full page dump.
 * Should we move the contents of this box to Guildwiki talk:Community Portal?--◄mendel► 13:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Vanquished by WoT and logic. I yield. Still, that's the impression that I get for when I am on Wiki - all I ever really see is you and the Doc in RC and mainspace watchlist. How does this relate to Community Portal? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a strike through the "in" part. &mdash; Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] &mdash;  (contribs) 19:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Still, you leave an impression that your opinion is more valuable than that of others. Which isn't the most professional thing to do. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 19:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying out for administration, and I doubt this is scarcely a constructive thing to be discussing right now. But since we should get onto the real topic, I have changed the title. &mdash; Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] &mdash;  (contribs) 19:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The new title is much better. Besides, if I didn't bring it up, it could have been used against you. :P --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Spamming adminship requests every x months doesn't help her image in terms of seriousness and professionalism. -- Error. Have not rfa'd since April. I have way too many rfa's, but only 3 of them were actually made by me (including this one). 1 was made by an anon, which was declined, 1 was made by Zulu, and another was made by Hellbringer, which was also declined. Another one was made by my brother. That gives me, on my own a grand totatl of 2 rfa's. Including this one. With a 6~ month seperation in between.
 * 50 of her most recent mainspace edits dates back to... almost three months back, with hardly any project involvement?! Obviously she's too busy on talk pages/GuildWiki project pages to actually *do something in the namespace*. - I've never had many namespace edits. Quite a lot of people don't have very many mainspace. Gem once said something along the lines of "Most of the things in this wiki were completed when they came along, so they didn't have much oppertunity to edit much namespace for anything other than reverts" on an rfa (I remember reading it). I've reverted any vandalism I've seen, and I've moved several pages into userspace. I don't bother tagging for delete/ban anymore, because I know that somone will be along soon to do it anyway.
 * This, combined with the fact that you said (in game, I think) that you tried out for RfA because you were bored, is scary. - I said that I was considering trying out for rfa for lulz about 3 months ago, and I was joking.
 * For instance, why is Auron respected? Why is he bcrat on all three guild-wars related wikis? He's reached a level of maturity and professionalism that is definitely not seen in Warwick. - Erm.. Auron is respected because he WoT's anyone who disagrees with him to death, and everyone thinks he's right. He's elitist, and his attitude is hard for quite a lot of people to stomach. He's disliked by Quite a lot of people, but I digress- that has nothing to do with myself. Could you elaborate on what you said about my lacking maturity? I like to think that I've matured quite a lot, wiki-wise, in the past 6 months or so.
 * ... You listed possible reasons why you should be an admin just to respond to someone's comment? - No, I added some onto the end of the previous paragraph. Admittedly, I added quite a few reasons more than I originally had, but I'd only thought of/realised them. Mendel said in IRC "It's actually pretty easy to think of reasons why", it's just that I'm quite critical in my mind. It's not that I don't think they're good reasons, it's just that I think that other people will think that they arn't.
 * I doubt gwiki is currently in a state that we are so desperate for admins we need to promote every single decent user to administration. - Never said it was. I said it was about 9 months ago, back when we had no active bcrats, and 2 active sysops, but I havn't said it anywhere in this rfa. Quite a few people have raised that point. I've countered it with Entropy's quote that "You can never have too many admins", but that's not really a basis for a counter. I've seen several people promoted "Just for being good users"
 * You lack the confidence and professionalism needed to be an admin. - When I put my mind to it, I can be quite professional. And since when have I lacked confidence? I've stopped rolling with my wacky ideas because I know that most people think they're dumb and pointless, but when I don't think I've ever lacked confidence. If anything, I have/had too much confidence.
 * RfA is about awesome, not just decent, users that have clearly helped the wiki and can be judged to almost definitely be a huge improvement to the wiki if they were promoted. - Perhaps on Wikipedia, but this is guildwiki. As I've already stated, several users have just been promoted because they've been "decent editors".
 * Saying "if I just screw up it can be fixed" makes it seem that RfA is a very... lenient thing. - I did not, in fact, say that. I've never supported the idea of "if I screw up it can be fixed". I never will. I think it's a stupid thing, personally.
 * Trolling on SSBB just because it's a piece of Wikia shit that no one cares about (which it is) still affects Warwick's image. What if one day Warwick decided gwiki was a piece of wikia shit (and considering her rocky background, I can't guarantee her opinions won't change in the future) and played immature again? - Because I won't. I don't think gwiki is a Wikia piece of shit. I don't think that SSBBWiki is a wikia peice of shit. I don't even think wikia is a piece of shit. I've already explained that the reason I was trolling on SSBBWiki was to try to get them to get some decent sysops, rather than running a dictatorship of sysops. Tyrant syosps are bad :<. Wikia tries their best. Entropy has said that things were worse before wikia took over, and the site went down quite frequently (iirc). I'm not an idiot. I wouldn't deliberately "hurt" a site that I use frequently, and that I've contributed to for near a year now.
 * I respect the fact that you think that I'd make a bad sysop, but I think that you're wrong. I think that perhaps back when I rfa'd in March, I would have made a bad sysop, but I think that now, after I've learnt what it actually is to be a good sysop, I would make a good one. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 19:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Me not listing enough reasons as to your immaturity and lack of seriousness? For goodness sakes I went on at least like 2kb on that. Anyways... In terms of seriousness, saying "meh" when it comes to reasons why you should be admin doesn't appear very committed. I mean, you're a decent user, but there are quite a few other decent users. And it doesn't hurt to have too many good admins but it is your "try-me-out" attitude that makes it appear not very professional. I never stated anywhere that you said exact things but your attitude really gives it away. I mean, seriously. What decent user on gwiki wouldn't revert vandalism if they came across it? Yes you're decent but so are a dozen other users on this wiki and I see no reason to promote you above the others.


 * And please get your definition of trolling right. You don't troll to be constructive. If you really intended to be constructive, you wouldn't have been trolling. You also wouldn't have been lol'ing to me on MSN and then giving me links to show how epic lulz of a troll you are. As I see it, you are twisting the window through which we see your actions in an attempt to make them look positive.


 * Even if you had completely improved, never did any trolling, and all that shit, I still see no reason to promote you to admin. Yes there can always be room for new admins but that doesn't mean we should just promote every user that reverts vandalism and spends far too much time camping IRC and RC. You'll need better reasons before you get my support. Furthermore, I'd like to see you take the whole RfA thing a bit more seriously. Start acting like a sysop before you ask for sysop tools. Do everything that you would as a sysop, save for the tools. Right now I see you as "okay I think I've grown up now and I would make a good sysop, so I'm trying out for RfA" but seriously. The last time you seriously RfA'd (whenever it was) you personally thought you'd make a good sysop too. We can't just believe you on the spot. We need to see better and a more thorough explanation of your reasons, but even more so, we need to see your actions. &mdash; Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] &mdash;  (contribs) 20:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I suppose you're right that that's a definition of trolling that's used by most people. I'd better change my use of the word. How about Insulting? Anyway, I was trying to be constructive, it's just that I was finding it rather amusing the kinds of responses I was getting. I think you're blowing my responses out of proportion.
 * I didn't see many reasons as to my immaturity and lack of seriousness, but hey. I overly use the word "meh", I think you'd hear it in just about every conversation that you had with me. I'm committed to this wiki- if I wasn't, I would have left quite a long time ago. Probably around christmas or so. I like to think I'm rather experienced at wiki-ing, template usage, coding, etc. In actuality, I realised about halfway through the last time I rfa'd that I wasn't really suitible for adminship at the time. When User:Cress Arvein was promoted, he wasn't, (and, no offense Cress, still isn't) really much of a "Exceptional User", imo. He was more of a "decent user". The same goes for User:Vipermagi. He's moved up quite a lot in his seriousness, and his actual user-ness(:p). I don't really think that I have a what you call "try me out attitude", it's more of a "''for christ's sake, people, I really have changed" attitude, to be honest :p.
 * I don't really spend too much time camping IRC and RC :<. I'm semi-afk quite a lot, and idle in irc a lot. I am taking "the whole rfa thing" seriously, it's just that you can't seem to see that. I'm acting pretty much like I would, except I'm not deleting/banning vandals.. because I can't. I'm being serious on-wiki, just not in game. Which, tbh, isn't wiki. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Entropy has said that things were worse before wikia took over, and the site went down quite frequently (iirc)." Err... There have been times before Wikia when the site was actually down, or the lag was so bad that you would get a timeout, and since Wikia has done the server handling the problems haven't ever gotten quite that bad. But you put me in an overly supportive light.
 * @Nova - trolling for good intentions is different than trolling for lulz, though people seem to disagree about the nature of Warw's SSBB Wikia trolling. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I never disputed that; who did? [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 21:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did I imply that I was referring to you? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 12:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Felix is referring to that no-one has stated that. :p &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 13:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh noes, Nova is Felix's sockpuppet! :-P --◄mendel► 13:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nova says: Trolling is bad, you were being dums on SSBB Wikia. Warw says: I was just try to get them to think about sysops change, it wasn't for lulz. So there is a disagreement. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Shit, I've been revealed.
 * But anyways. In terms of "trolling," it's generally accepted that trolling means being a troll. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling definitions 1-4. They all include some implication of malicious intent. I don't see anywhere that being a dick is meant to help anyone. If Warwick wanted to help a wiki I am sure there are better ways than "trolling." However, she could have possibly done it in good intentions, in which case it really wouldn't be trolling. As the nature of her trolling is known by her and only her (unless she started pm'ing people lols about it) and we really can't find out if she's telling the truth or not, that makes the whole SSBB thing a cold case, but yet another controversial thing for Warwick.
 * At any rate, I've gone on for far too long about this. I'll summarize my main opposing points against Warwick and what she needs to do to get a support from me. She's a decent user and all, but Warwick seems to misuse what PanSola said. This is the second half: "On the other hand, my inclination is to not promote ppl to adminship just because it's ok. If we do that, then in the long run a new user who comes here will see that this is a wiki consisting only of trouble makers vs sysops, no regular users; and I think that would be a bad long-term image to portray." I am sure that there are a dozen regulars on this wiki that fulfill what Warwick listed as her qualities for nomination; yet I doubt those dozen users are eligible for promotion to administration. We can't promote people just because they won't screw up at the job. I'll say it again; Warwick needs to take the RfA more seriously. And when I say seriously I don't mean Warwick is making a joke out of it, but her current attitude seems to show that she should be an admin just because she'd be okay for an admin. She even admits she "can't really think of many reasons why I should, to be truthful" and her current rationale for the "should" part is that she would make an okay admin and we can never have too many admins... which of course is flawed.
 * Actually, at this point I wouldn't support Warwick right now no matter what she said. I don't think that adminship should be granted to people that say they would be better users if they were given these tools. Which decent user wouldn't be better if they were given admin status? I think that Warwick should start acting like an admin - this means in terms of edits and behavior - without the actual administrator tools, for at least two months starting from now. If she can demonstrate qualities that make her not just okay to be an admin, but qualities that make her distinctly above the crowd, then I'll reconsider.
 * &mdash; Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] &mdash;  (contribs) 13:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that "it would make me better user" argument has been used often in the past for RfA's. Some of those were even successful. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 14:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, it's not really a strong argument. After all, adminship should not be a perk to get activity up. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 14:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a bad argument, but I wanted more to convey how "I don't think that adminship should be granted to people that say they would be better users if they were given these tools" is bit silly sentiment to apply retroactively. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 14:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason why that argument is flawed is because any decent user would be a better user if granted admin tools. Any decent user. &mdash; Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] &mdash;  (contribs) 14:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nova, you're not using the full context of my sentance. Most of my reasons for being a admin don't get off the drawing board because I'm overly critical as to what the opinions of people will be. You say that we can't promote people just because they won't screw up at the job; We can, and we have in the past. I'm already acting like I would as an admin. You don't think that I've changed, because you are still seeing what I mostly am ingame- relatively unserious. I'm usually pretty serious on the wiki, reverting, dealing with vandals, etc. On talkpages of people like Viper, Prog, Shadow, I'm informal because of the fact that I don't consider it a serious matter.
 * I feel that I would make a good admin, as I've stated because I have Longevity / Experience of various forms, I help and support other users, I have fair knowledge of wikicode and template. Taken from the rfa page itself. Also, some reasons that didn't get off the drawing board:
 * I can do at least as much good as Viper does (Discarded because it could be seen as offense to viper, Nova would probably put forward that as "because just as good as other people", though that could be countered because Viper is an admin.)
 * Almost everyone knows who I am on this wiki, and I like to think that people would trust me (discarded because it sounds bigheaded, and could probably be countered as "only my own thought, untrue")
 * I've been here for a long time, and I have quite good knowledge as to how things work (discarded because it sounds bigheaded again, could be countered as untrue, although it's been put up by Mendel)
 * Still, you didn't ask for reasons. You still oppose, and you said that you'd never support me right now (dispite what you said in msn about if I managed to get a decent rebuttle together >.>), and I still think that you're wrong about your assumption about me. I still think that I am taking this rfa seriously. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 17:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good that predicting my responses to some of your statements prevented you from posting them because it would save me a lot of time countering them. But a pre-emptively countered statement is just as useless as no statement. &mdash; Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] &mdash;  (contribs) 00:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone
Else got anything to say? &mdash; Warw/Wick 15:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, in fact I do. If I understand your argument, you say "I'm as good as some other admins that've been promoted". You could then bolster your case by examining past RfAs and look for admins who you feel were just as suited for the job as you now are; just show that you can match the points that were going in their favor, and they can mathc the ones going against you.
 * I can't find now who told me that this wiki is a meritocracy (Auron??), but if it is and you can show the above, you ought to be promoted. --◄mendel► 18:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't understand about Cress' Rfa :P. I feel that I have just about all of the qualifications that Cress does
 * Imo I've got all of the qualifications Felix did
 * I feel that I'm probably about as qualified as Shadowcrest is
 * I'm just about as qualified as Marco is, and when he was made an admin he still had that silly-streak that a lot of us had for a time
 * More qualified than RT is imo. At least I wouldn't randomly kick people just because they're there! :<
 * Viper I have probably about the same qualifications as, too
 * That's that. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would you mention my RfA? It was dumb. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 21:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * RT randomly kicks people now? When did that happen? --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 21:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an IRC issue, so it doesn't really affect this debate. RT likes to kick Warwick every few minutes and then say "test" or use his automated bot to kick people for typing in caps and saying damn. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 21:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I saw that. Then again, it's #gwiki, not the wiki itself.. So Warwick's argument is flawed. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes - and I only kick warwick, and the bot was a mistake, forgive me? Random Time  20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You've kicked me before too. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Entropy has promoted... and Re: match points
Discussion getting too long to keep it in the original section. Anyways, this is a response to Entropy's:
 * "I have promoted a number of people who are "just decent users" before, and no one seemed to have a problem with that...I don't see any demotion requests around."

as well as mendel's:
 * "You could then bolster your case by examining past RfAs and look for admins who you feel were just as suited for the job as you now are; just show that you can match the points that were going in their favor, and they can mathc the ones going against you."

for which my response is just a pointer back to my previous opinion stated in the third post of the "Re: Blurb" section. Summary: I personally feel there is a difference between being qualified to be an admin, vs whether we actually need to promote admins or not.

Other Bcrats may feel differently and act differently, but I feel adminship should not be just about "I'm no worse that that other guy who got the job". If we actively need more admins to Ban/Del/Prot, I'll take as many qualified ppl as necessary to match the workload. If we don't, then it's not about minimum qualifications, but about what this candidate adds to the active admin team. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 19:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * /signed. Also, I was probably distorting the perspective, since many of my promotions were to respond to the "GuildWiki doesn't have enough admins" problem. After adding a bunch, then we were good to go, so we got more selective again. That's where we are today. (I'd like to add a random note that I am happy about the current state of vandalism and such - doesn't happen anymore, promptly dealt with always. <3 ) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pan on this. Adminship isn't a question of "why not," it's a question of "why?"
 * From looking at the nomination page and the candidate's responses on this talk, I haven't seen much in the way of "why" the candidate would make a good admin or "why" he or she needs the tools to benefit the wiki. All I've seen is rants about how the candidate is somehow "better" than current sysops, with absolutely nothing in the way of evidence. - Auron 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All I've seen is rants about how the candidate is somehow "better" than current sysops, with absolutely nothing in the way of evidence. - When the hell did I say that? I havn't done any ranting whatsoever. I didn't say I'm better than anyone, just that I'm equal if anything. I already know, however, that it's doomed to a no because Auron says so. Everyone else will just fall in line with Auron, I predict. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Auron falls in line with me!!!!! d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 17:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. How much does the bribe cost for you, Pan? I know that Auron's is extortionate, apparently it's something like 500k+ (Or, according to viper, you have to go !down on him :P). No, but really, D:. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 18:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The bribe would require you to come to know my real identity, which would, in turn, require me to silence you forever. And that'd make your adminship moot, so there's no real point in bribing in this particular situation. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 18:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I guess pointing out your real name would be pointless then, eh? I still disagree with Auron's "Rants", since I totally disagree. I havn't been ranting, I've just been doing what mendel told me to do. Anyway, so you'll be bribed, here your real name is: Your real name is.. *gak* &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 18:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggested to you that you could show that you can match the points that were going in their favor. That means more than just writing that you see it; it means that you have to think about the qualities that led to the promotion of the other admins, name them, and then demonstrate to everybody else that you possess them. In other words, WoT moar (well, not really; you also need to think more). And please don't overlook that you might still have more negatives going against you than they. Disclaimer: I haven't actually looked at these other RfAs, so I do not know if what I suggest can even succeed or not. --◄mendel► 18:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We, therefore, the Decent Sysops of GuildWiki, were, in the name & by the Authority of the good people of GuildWiki...
 * But in all seriousness, we "the decent sysops" (RT, Viper, me, Cress, etc...) were promoted because the very few admins of GuildWiki (like 5 in total with 2 semi-active or something) couldn't handle the near-every-day vandalism attacks. They just didn't have the time. Thus, Entropy took the best we had available at the time, and these are now referred to as the decent sysops. However, vandalism has decreased over time and admin numbers and time spent have increased over time. Therefore, the need for more admins has decreased over time, and- like Entropy (?) said above- we now have the time to be selective and promote the great users that really should have it, not the good ones that could use it.
 * Nova's words ring most true for me. Additionally, quite a few of your supports are nonsensical or, like Auron said, not valid supports. "Can be a 'Mover and Shaker' "- the most moving and shaking I've seen you do is taking unilateral (or- forgive me- just plain stupid) actions that riled everybody, like creating GuildWiki2 or creating oodles of build pages that somebody else had to go back and delete. "Almost constantly patrolling Recent Changes for vandals"- you yourself just said you idle and /afk most of the time in an above section. I'd remove that outright if it weren't for the ongoing discussion on points/rebuttals. "Helps and supports other users/Friendly to the newer people, has patience with people whilst they're testing"- and which of our admins (looks away from Auron... just kidding :P) don't? Which of our ("our" being "the decent sysop's") RfA's don't have "he's a nice guy support +1" on them? (note: I haven't actually looked at them again, but I assume they all have it. vague remembrance.) "Knows the general code of conduct for adminship, and what is involved in being an Admin"- likely nobody that would ever be seriously considered doesn't. Even if they don't support out current general code of conduct (Mendel), they at least know it. Oh, and the whole "I've changed" argument- if you have changed, that's certainly good. But consider my position, for example; at the beginning of my RfA, I had been an active, solid (define solid :P) contributor for 6 months, and I got a neutral from "lack of experience". It took until 2 months later that Entropy promoted me anyway. You've been here for 11 months and spent multiple trolling/drama-causing/etc. and a few more with very low activity. Looking through the past 100 contribs, I could spot 2 instances of being an ass.. just using edit summaries. You "left the wiki" as recently as june, perhaps again since then. And then claim you've had 5 months of just good contributions; there just isn't anything to back that with.
 * I do trust that you would delete spam/vandalism pages promptly and ban and vandals. I do not trust you to have good judgment in controversial situations; I do not trust you to act appropriately when you're riled up; I do not trust you to not make some huge stupid unilateral decision that would take ages to undo and is harder to argue with because you're a sysop (with the possibly of angering a number of people). I don't think you'd make anything more than just another decent sysop... if that. --Shadowcrest  20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't trust me to make good judgment in controversial situations? I do. That's just me, but I do, regardless. I wouldn't make "Some huge stupid unlateral (unliteral?) decision that would take ages to undo simply because I know that you guys almost never agree with my ideas. Bad history will always be there. I was planning on writing some WoT or somthing, but still, fact is, bad history will always be there. Either get over it and accept that I've changed, or don't.
 * Creating GuildWiki2 had nothing to do with any of you. It's still up, so who cares about it anyway. Oodles of build pages that soeone else had to go back and delete was, as I have said above, bad history. Get over it or leave it. I idle IRC, but I refresh RC every 2 minutes or so when I'm there. Several people don't have patience with newer users, they just say "Don't vandalise" or "Don't create spam pages", regardless of GW:AGF and GW:QDV. I doubt I left the wiki in June, though I probably did some time before that. I'd been under quite a lot of stress from around May -> June, but hey, thats none of your business.
 * Mkay? &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Either get over it and accept that I've changed, or don't." If you don't see the irony there, then just epic lulz.
 * AGF'ing has nothing to do whatsoever with spam pages and vandalism...since by definition those are acts made in bad faith/malicious intent. QDV says please don't say anything to vandals unless necessary. No warnings unless you are really sure they just made a silly mistake. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Because I know that you guys almost never agree with my ideas." AGF more. Don't accuse us of shooting down ideas you haven't suggested. Nobody says you shouldn't suggest your ideas. What I (we) have a problem with is when you do exactly what I said: make a huge stupid unilateral action without waiting (or even asking) for consensus.
 * "Creating GuildWiki2 had nothing to do with any of you." Creating GuildWiki2 had very much to do with us. You knew it was already disapproved of and that GW2W was almost assuredly going to be the standard wiki, but you went ahead and did it anyway, without the support of the community you named it after. And angered many people and caused a ton of drama.
 * "I idle IRC, but I refresh RC every 2 minutes or so when I'm there." Really? Your own post begs to differ. You did only say you idle on IRC, but you said "I don't really spend too much time camping IRC and RC :<" and "I'm semi-afk quite a lot." Need more evidence that you're here please.
 * You're right, you left in May that I can find with a quick history check. (this). I mistook the "this user is insane, later" as a leaving the wiki. That you were under stress is too bad, but it isn't an excuse to troll and/or raqequit. It is my (our) business when you start to troll. A simple message like "this user is having a hard time etc. etc., will be taking a break from the wiki" would have been fine, even good. Writing "omgfuckthisQQ" all over your page is just... no. Not to mention that this obviously doesn't confirm the 5 months you argue you've got.
 * "Several people don't have patience with newer users, they just say "Don't vandalise" or "Don't create spam pages", regardless of GW:AGF and GW:QDV." So you'd prefer we ban them outright? The fact that we bother to warn them that what they're doing isn't constructive and could result in a ban shows that we're patient enough with them to give them another chance. QDV allows a warning; we don't have to assume that vandals are contributing in good faith. Thus, your policy quotations are moot.
 * "Bad history will always be there." It will indeed. That's why it's called history. However, "either get over it and accept that I've changed, or don't.[...] mkay?" is a terribad statement (Also see #2 of things I don't trust you with). GuildWiki doesn't have to recognize change in you that may or may not be there. "We don't. We won't." (spot the reference, win points.) You seem like the same person who earned all the opposes (and sarcastic support) back in May, when your last RfA was; why should we say yes now? --Shadowcrest  22:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got a feeling Warwick is just obsessed with being an admin. She has constantly been trying to get adminship no matter who opposes you for what reason. I've only got one piece of advice for you: Be happy being nothing more than average. Adminship isn't a prestigious position we must all strive to obtain. Instead, we should focus on being good people. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 14:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was in a bad mood last night. I'd just recieved a phone call complete with bad news, and I was pretty tired. My last rfa, and I'm quoting it: "User:Warwick refused the nomination.". Zulus nomination was just a joke as well. When I'm online, I'm practically always here. Post on my talkpage and I'll nearly always respond. And the reason you should say yes now is because.. It's not the same person? Its the same person with a different attitude. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 18:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is just more proof that you can't be trusted to act appropriately when your emotions are involved. Having a sysop go troll some user who made a mistake (or even ban them outright) would be epic anti-lulz (eg., epic dramafests). I'm sorry that you recieved bad news (whatever it may have been), but it doesn't excuse you. I also feel you overplay the "bad mood" card... but that could just be me.
 * The fact that you refused #5 matters... how? It doesn't make any of the things written there less valid. Additionally, you refused after all those opposes were added, though I guess that doesn't matter... if you couldn't recognize that that one was doomed to fail anyway, "then just epic lulz". (Btw Entropy, thank you for giving me a way to finish sentences that would otherwise have been finished with a '...')
 * Zulu's nomination was a joke? Orly? "So I decided to re-nominate, to [...] support Warwick in becoming an admin." Sounds pretty serious to me. Besides, I thought you said Zulu was a srsbsns good thinker?
 * "When I'm online, I'm practically always here." ...well? Which is it? Do you camp RC like you say you do, or not camp RC like you say you do?
 * "Post on my talkpage and I'll nearly always respond." ...Who doesn't?
 * "And the reason you should say yes now is because.. It's not the same person? Its the same person with a different attitude." I've already stated that you don't seem to have changed, and to me it seems that some other users agree with me. However, I can find evidence to the contrary by using your contribs... all we have is your word for it. --Shadowcrest  21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "...Who doesn't? " I sometimes leave a comment unreplied. Syarco does it all the time. Quite a few new people do not. So, yeah >.>" *ahem* --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  12:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hardly trolling you. I was just putting my points a little less covered than I would usually. Zulu's nomination was a joke because it was closed like, instantaneously. I was afk when Hellbringer nominated me, and stop twisting my phrases. Post on my talkpage and I'll nearly always responsd instantly is what I meant, I do, in fact, camp RC. Whatever. Call me a nolife. I don't really care anymore, since so many people are evidently remaining bias against me. Evidently this is doomed to failure. "General lack of confidence from some vocal members of the community, partly due to rocky history mentioned above, and partly due to the ongoing discussion on the talkpage". I really doubt that any of it is caused by the "discussion going on in the talkpage", just that from the rocky history bias. No-one wants, evidently, to believe that I've changed, which I have, but oh well. All thats happening here are that the same points are being raised again and again. Anyone is likely to snap back at people if they're in a bad mood, and anyone is likely to be in a bad mood after they've recieved bad news. I'm feeling stressed right now, not just because of this, because hey, the internet doesn't really cause stress to everyone, but because I feel ill, and I've generally had a terribad day today. And I'm not trolling you, I'm not ranting at you, and I'm not letting my emotions get the better of me. Ofc, you're probably now going to say that I'm lying. I'm not, but what can I do to prove that? Nothing. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 14:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question, why would lack of confidence from vocal members of the community be a negative? More to the point, why is it "vocal" members of the community as opposed to "trusted" or "well-known" or "historically beneficial"? --JonTheMon 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because on Wiki, the "vocal" members tend to be the ones who get their way. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 15:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case I think that the comment should be corrected/removed. --JonTheMon 16:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Reset indent) At Viper: If it's something non-relevant to wiki, then nobody would really care if you responded or not, and that's ok. Like ==hai== /wave doesn't really need a response. Syarco isn't a candidate for adminship, either. Also, for the lulz. I'd expect all admins to respond to a relevant question if it's asked of them.
 * At Jon: It's valid, whether the adjetive is "vocal" or "well known/trusted/historically beneficial". Think about R.Phalange's sysoption and how much drama that caused because of the lack of community support. I expect this would be just as bad, if not worse. Thus, I do not agree it should be removed. Also, Entropy is rather correct. Furthermore, "vocal" and "well known" are generally synonymous, as far as GuildWiki is concerned. And I'd like to think Nova and I (the primary WoT'ers against Warw) are considered trusted and/or historically beneficial.
 * Now, onto Warwick. I agree that that's more mild than general trolling, but it was still snappy and rude. And I'm one of your friends; I'd rather not think about what might have been said if I weren't. Zulu's nomination was serious, no matter how quickly it closed. I don't care if it closed the day it started (which it might have, but I cba to check). It was a serious nomination, and once again all the things written there are still valid. "stop twisting my phrases." ...excuse me? I'm posting- quite literally- what you just said yourself. I'm not twisting anything you said, merely restating it. And also trying to figure out what you mean by those statements, as they are very plainly contradictory. "No-one wants, evidently, to believe that I've changed, which I have, but oh well." I will once again reiterate that I don't believe you've changed. Apparently, others agree with me. This supposed change seems to be evident only to you. "Anyone is likely to snap back at people if they're in a bad mood, and anyone is likely to be in a bad mood after they've recieved bad news." I never denied that you're entitled to be in a bad mood. But no, not anyone is likely to snap at people when they're in a bad mood. Even Auron has to feel things. But do you see his posts reflecting his anger? No, you don't. I trust Auron to make unbiased decisions regardless of his mood, and I can't do that with you.  --Shadowcrest  20:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My point was, not everyone always responds to stuff on the Wiki. Not even if it is relevant (say, getting someone to change their images (user:Xlautjj?), a sig that's too large...) to the Wiki. Using Xlautjj as an example: First, several people explained in English what Xlaut should do. Then, Mendel asked me to translate it into Dutch, because he figured Xlaut might not have understood. That 2,200-something edit has gone nowhere, has it? It's fine proof that not everyone responds to the Wiki matters, or even cares. Disregarding it because I brought up Syarco as an example is just... ignorant, imo. Wether they're sysopcandidates does not matter, at all. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  09:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded to all the points I could; if I had disregarded it, I wouldn't have responded at all. It does matter for the sake of this discussion whether or not they're a sysop candidate. Should we just promote every user to sysop regardless of their behavior, then? After all, we're all equally valuable; shouldn't everyone be trusted with sysop powers? I'm sure you can agree the answer is no. Your comment about my ignorance was unnecessary; I didn't disregard it because you brought up Syarco (I have no idea who s/he is), I disproved it the best I could. --Shadowcrest  23:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First you stated everyone responds to posts on their talk page (""Post on my talkpage and I'll nearly always respond." ...Who doesn't? "). Then, I give an example of who doesn't respond to everything on his talk page. You "invalidate" (lack of better word, sorry) it by bringing up his contributions, and wether or not he's an admin-candidate. What. The. Peanutbutter? My point is, "Who doesn't?" does not state "Which admin(-candidate) doesn't?" but "Which user doesn't?", thus also implying Syarco, thus it is valid to bring up Syarco.
 * Still, it's no reason why someone should be an admin. I can't disagree with that. --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  17:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Gigathrash's opinion
--AAARRRğá†ħŕášħ 00:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Could be a Mover and Shaker should be removed or moved to double edged arguments because being able to change the wiki drastically can be used for good or evil, sometimes unintentionally.  Also many people can be movers and shakers without being admins.
 * 2) Warwick is Ralph Nader.
 * 3) The above statement is only partial true.
 * 4) Deleting first can be good in some cases.
 * 5) She is certainly more qualified then I am.
 * 6) The above statement means nothing to anyone besides me.
 * 7) I'm done.

May = energy
I don't know whether the bureaucrats will bestow official recognition on May's efforts. But even if they don't, I know that I myself would find the wiki a good deal poorer without May to liven things up and to prod me when I need to do things or explain things better or even for an unexpected bit of contrariness or support. Go May! Go Warwick! --◄mendel► 00:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The United States' presidential campaign fever is rather contagious, I see. &mdash; Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] &mdash;  (contribs) 18:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe.. I do try. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 18:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting arguments, but I do not see how being an admin connects with getting more users to be involved/help. GuildWiki is not a representative-based democracy, the voice of the admins are not supposed to represent any constituency/lobbyists/interest-groups or carry extra weight in most discussions, but rather should be treated no different than a regular users (sometimes we unfortunately fail, and in some extreme cases unfortunately the admins do need to pull their rank).  And in fact, because sometimes the admins' voice failed to be treated as equal as other users, and might be given undue weight, admins should/ought be extra careful and use extra discretion when taking part in an ongoing discussion/disagreement or proposing a new idea.  Thus, if anyone should be the representative, the advocate, for a group of marginalized users or for an outlandish (relative to GuildWiki culture) project/idea, the ideal candidate would be somebody who actually is NOT a sysop.
 * We need energy and creativity from the user level. We need newcomers to see energy coming from the user level, so that they won't be afraid to be bold themselves (ie, we want an environment that reinforce YAV to newcomers via action, not just talk).  Admins are only here for the upkeep of the wiki, keeping it clean/organized.  Admins are not the ones we rely on to create/add content or bring forth new ideas, we rely on all users (and hopefully with a majority of non-admin users) to do that.
 * Just my 2 cents. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 19:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur, there's no good reason in there why Warwick should be a sysop. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 19:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The ideal candidate would be somebody who actually is NOT a sysop - isn't that reverse non-YAV? If you want to reinforce energy and creativity, give energetic and creative users trusted positions within the community. How else does this community support them (in this case, May), other than tolerating them and editing their errors?
 * Admins have a conflict-resolution role on this wiki, and even though they don't get elected, they act as ombudsmen for any user concerns. I stand by Every editor should know an admin that they personally know and trust. Now it is hard to speculate on who trusts whom, and our present admins are certainly trustworthy in the general sense, but I still believe there are editors who would trust Warwick more than other admins.
 * OrgX, what are good reasons for someone to be a sysop? --◄mendel► 19:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Being calm, able to think things through, not making rash decisions. Also, why would everyone need a "personal administrator"? I'm fairly sure regular members could do that job better since they are closer to the people. Also, Warwick's argument of: "look at the current sysop's" falls flat since: a. They were promoted under different circumstances. b. Simply because they have some characteristics similar to Warwick's doesn't make them desirable. That's why I think you haven't given me any good reasons for Warwick to be an admin. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Closer to the people? How is a normal user "closer" than a sysop? Lord of all tyria 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Very simple. At first new users will think the sysop's are much more important than them (I know, I know, GW:YAV But then again, which new user reads those anyway?). Whereas they consider a regular user just like them which makes them less afraid of asking things. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 20:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OrgX, Warwick is able to make good decisions when she's not personally involved, and not so much when she is. This is human nature, and many other admins act the same, though it may not be as obvious. Maybe we need admins that are "closer to the people"? Actually, quite a few of our adins are, but not to all the people equally, and you can't demand that either - you can't proscribe the social circles an admin moves in. I asked you what would be a good reason to promote a sysop to make sure the standards youapply can humanly be met. From what you wrote, you take it that everybody who is calm and able to think things through should be an admin? --◄mendel► 21:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * isn't that reverse non-YAV? - Close, but not quite. In the absolutely ideal world, the ideal candidate is someone who speaks from the regular user perspective/voice, with the weight of the regular user.  Such a candidate can be a non-sysop user, and can be a sysop.  However, our failings of occasionally subconsciously giving the voice of sysops more weight adds complications and makes it harder/trickier for a sysop to fulfill such a role.  Therefore in our non-ideal world, the ideal candidate for such role would be a non-sysop user.  And even in the ideal world, being promoted as admin would not help the said user in fulfilling the role of the representative/advocate, so it would be a moot point.
 * If the sysop position becomes a simple reward system for "good" users (however we measure "good"), my fear is that it will subtlety destroy YAV, as people will start to feel that users who have not yet been promoted to being sysops are "not good enough".
 * I don't see how a lack of "energetic and creative users" in trusted positions would promote intolerance and inhibit the community to edit their errors.
 * "Admins have a conflict-resolution role on this wiki" - this view I fear is one of the illustration of the failure of our community, and I personally stand by "admins do NOT intrinsically have a conflict-resolution role on this wiki". If there is a conflict that does NOT go out of hand, then for however long the conflict drags on, there is nothing that is within the particular right/responsibility for any sysops to do.  Conflict should be resolved by reason, not by rank.  Now, if a conflict goes out of hand to the point of policy-breaking or other aspects of wiki-disruption, then whoever broke the policy or disrupted the wiki ought to be warned and/or reprimanded, no matter which side in the conflict (if any) is actually "right" on the original point.  Thus, admins have a "wiki-upkeep" role, but "conflict-resolution" on its own is a role that should no more belong to an admin than it belongs to other users.  If recent events have promoted such a view that "admins have a conflict-resolution role on this wiki", then that is most unfortunate (and it means the thing I fear about in an earlier point is already happening in a limited scope with respect to conflict resolution) and I would urge all admins who try to resolve conflicts henceforth to go out of their way to make sure people do not mistakenly get the impression that you can do it because you are an admin.  At least, that's my personal 2 cents from the perspective of a GuildWiki user.
 * I need go get more pennies. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can lend you three pennies. See what I did there, mendel? [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 21:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a 10p coin hanging around here - but seriously - that looks well presented and persuasive - but after another mood swing tonight on IRC (which still is a judge of your character) - i'm going to say no Random Time  21:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A 10p coin = a coin of dime. I need actual pennies, so whether you lend me that coin or not doesn't help d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, implied but not explicitly mentioned in my above post, is that I believe any user (including anons) have the right to partake in conflict resolution, and should be respected/listened-to as much as their reasoning and presentation of reasoning deserve. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * RT what I had on IRC wasn't really a mood swing. Tbh, it was more of a gtfo rt with your annoying decisions and kick Warwick for no reason marathons. Its seriously irritating. If its not autokb bot its imma kick you for no apparant reason. Totally unrelated to the rfa, but I felt I should explain my so~called mood swing. Pan, you're right that conflict resolution should be by everyone~its just that non sysops don't have the power to back them up. I'm only semi here since I'm on my iPod typing this :p. I'll be watching ;/ &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will vouch that the kicking of Warwick on irc was a bit more.... fierce than normal. And while every user can be a mediator, sysops are assumed to already possess the ability to reason and present their arguments correctly. So, why vet more people when you already have a pool to pick from? --JonTheMon 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing that needs to get backed up unless somebody starts disrupting the wiki, at which point the admin's action would not be trying to resolve a conflict, but to forestall further disruption of the wiki. My side can win a conflict by superior reasoning and still an admin may ban me for disrupting the wiki in the process of the conflict.  Just because an admin steps in and bans me for my actions does not mean the position I support lost or the position I oppose won. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 23:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Prot/Ban/Del. That's what an admin does. That's what they are trusted with. They have no responsibility to partake in mediation or conflict resolution. If they do so, it is with their "normal user" hats on; unless as Pan says they need to fall back on their /rank because things are getting out of hand. Unfortunately this also breeds an atmosphere of fear whenever a sysop enters a conflict since you think "hey, if I don't agree with them maybe they ban me or something". That is bad and against YAV. Therefore, I believe mediation is actually best performed by non-sysops. Also, being energetic is pretty irrelevant to sysoption. Activity, yes - that matters, because no one wants to promote an inactive person. Friendliness - admins are not expected to be the people who post "Welcome to GuildWiki!" on every new user's page. (aside: I see Lost-Blue do that more than May.) Sure, it is nice, but it is not and never was a precedent/prerequisite. I don't care how friendly you a candidate are is if I can't trust your their judgment for the admin's Triforce of tools. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * .. you don't trust me with the triforce of tools? :<. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 21:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that. Addendum: I don't think you would abuse the tools. If you want my thoughts (again), I think that you would not cause any harm as a sysop, but at the same time I disagree that you would bring a huge benefit to the Wiki with your "energy" (which I am skeptical about in any case). We don't have a current shortage of admins. So I am stuck between supporting promotion "because I see no downside" and not supporting promotion because "I don't see much benefit". While I am generally of the sentiment that "you can never have too many (decent ofc) admins", as some other users have pointed out this 1) cheapens the sysop status and 2) sets bad precedent. So I don't know. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 05:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't believe you: PanSola, "There's nothing that needs to get backed up unless somebody starts disrupting the wiki, at which point the admin's action would not be trying to resolve a conflict, but to forestall further disruption of the wiki" flies in the face of the discussion on block doctrine, where I've been told sometimes you need to ban to quell a long-running conflict (instead of resolving it), and Entropy, I've argued that before that as a non-sysop, I feel very powerless to guarantee that my mediation will have any staying power. I've mediated an insult to someone away from your heated talkpage back in June, wiki disruption was averted, and the user still got banned. I don't believe this wiki works as you describe it, and you describe it thus because you need it for your arguments, i.e. as a rationalization. --◄mendel► 21:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, I don't think it's a matter of believing or not, but rather agreeing or not. I was not attempting to describe the wiki as it currently works, but rather as how my interpretation of the GuildWiki values indicate how things should be.  If everyone is acting in a way contrary to GW:1RV, and I argue for something that is (to me) a natural consequence of respecting 1RV, there is nothing to disbelieve.  I believe this wiki ought to work as I described it, according to its existing stated policies and values.  I do not claim the wiki does work as I described it, and your case scenario is indeed a prime example where the action of a specific admin ended up undermining your efforts.  I still stand by the comment I made on June 19:
 * "On the subject of mediation, if you successfully mediated a conflict, and an admin comes in later to ban, as that admin does not represent you, there is no hypocrisy. It does, however, undermine your efforts and future ability to gain credibility with parties in conflict. Thus if you have mediated in a conflict, you felt the conflict has been successfully resolved, but an admin comes in and places bans which you find unnecessary due to the resolution, I highly encourage you to bring up the specific case on the admin noticeboard and also directly with the admin in question."
 * On the other hand, the goal of conflict resolution/mediation should be to get the two sides of the conflict to ... no longer be in conflict, to reach a point of understanding. It is not intrinsically tied to bans or the lack of.  A conflict might never get resolved yet as long as the parties involved keep things under a threshold, even Auron wouldn't ban them.  Getting the two parties to reach a peaceful understand should not be an automatic license to forgive everything they did prior to reaching the understanding (despite my inclination to not ban ppl if I feel they won't cause additional troubles in the future).  The goal of mediation shouldn't be for a free "get out of jail" card, shouldn't be for the prevention punishment.  The goal of mediation should be to reach a peaceful understanding, even if it means agreeing to disagree, and even if the parties still need to be responsible for their prior actions during the conflict.  Thus I believe that the role of mediator does not need to be backed up with sysop rights/authority.  Mediators aren't trying to get ppl to stand down with promise of forgiveness.  Mediators are trying to get ppl to calm down, see reasoning, and reach an understanding.
 * In conflicts where you have mediated and resolved where you do not feel ppl warrant a ban, but somebody still get banned, I urge you to bring the specific case up on the Admin noticeboard. The other admins may agree or disagree with the ban, but as long as you never promised any "get out of jail" card as a carrot, the mediator does not need to be backed up by the powers of the counter-enforcer.  The trigger-happy admin would still be able to ban regardless, and I would expect some discussion to take place before the counter-action of unbanning.  The powers of sysop does not thus grant direct protection to the parties being mediated by a sysop-mediator.
 * Those are my believes of how things should be, not necessarily how things are. Feel free to disagree with my 2 cents. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 22:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Re-reading my post, I didn't fully respond to all the points mendel brought up. Let me think about these. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 01:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "...flies in the face of the discussion on block doctrine, where I've been told sometimes you need to ban to quell a long-running conflict (instead of resolving it)" - You have been told the thoughts of another user on this wiki. My interpretations of what you have been told disagrees with your interpretation: I believe that the other person (or people) were telling you that sometimes you need to ban in response to a long-running behavioral problem that disrupts the wiki.  As far as I could tell, the "long-running"-ness being mentioned is not targeted at any particular conflict, but at the consistent attitude/behavioral issues that are found (by the person judging) to be disruptive to the wiki, across different conflicts.  Nothing I read on the admin noticeboard or Auron's talk page or other pages seem to suggest anyone supporting a ban over conflict-resolution (unless you assume ban and conflict-resolution cannot co-exist, which I challenge). Therefore, I believe what you quoted me typing does not actually contradicts with what another user has told you.  That's the point of this particular post.  While my interpretation of what you've been told does not contradict what what you quoted me typing, I still do not necessarily agree (or disagree) with that statement. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think most of the concerns that need a reply have been adressed in my earlier post below, especially my misreading of your statement of ideals for a statement of the status quo. The underlying problem with discussing the ideal role is that there is scant written consensus on admin roles (probably for the reason of keeping them flexible). GW:ADMIN is concerned with powers more than their intended use, and GW:AUNC seems out of date as it still casts admins in a conflict mediation role (and I believe that is what traditionally set GW admins apart from GWW admins). I, for one, believe it makes more sense to mediate when the mediator has the power to enforce whatever agreement has been reached. If we want to discuss admin rules, maybe you could pick out a pertinent page or section and move this there? --◄mendel► 13:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Mendel, what makes your personal understanding or interpretation of how the wiki works any more correct than mine? I would wish that you don't throw off my opinions as false "rationalization" which I need because my arguments have no basis in your mind. That makes me feel rather inferior trying to express myself. I am sure you know how that feels. (T/C) 05:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I came across as speaking ex cathedra; the sentence started with "I don't believe", and that "rationalization" bit was meant to be understood as a part of my (personal) beliefs, which may of course be misguided. PanSola has expressed it more clearly than I have: using "how things should work" to argue even when it is different than "how things are". I can't help but wonder whether arguing from written policy isn't the same thing. --◄mendel► 08:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think everyone is basing their arguments off their personal beliefs which makes this whole thing rather problematic in the sense of determining any sort of objective truth about the wiki. And yes, about those policies... -.- I'm all for running a Wiki based off more informal, implied understandings between users rather than the formal, explicit written rules. But these days the rifts do seem to be getting too wide sometimes. Maybe it's time we revisited (some of) our policies. Seriously and open-mindedly. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 08:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Policies that set iron rules on peoples behaviour is bad for creativity and social togetherness. It's a shame that why not isnt a good enough reason anymore. Ah well. I still feel that I could make a good syosp :<. I'mma gonna like, do somthing constructive now. :p. Entropy made me lol with her edits to her paragraph, though. :P. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 20:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Why not" was, from my reckoning, never a good enough reason for admin promotion.  -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * &lt;meta subject="role of belief in rational discussions"&gt; Interestingly, my argument that started with "I don't believe" cited evidence that is an excellent basis for discussion. Personal beliefs &mdash; you cannot keep them from not influencing discussions. You can minimize that influence by being open about them and letting them be discussed themselves. For example, nobody has stated that they believe May fulfils (in part) an underdog role in the community, yet such a (subconsciously held?) belief might actually give rise to rationalising, perhaps through coming up with ideals that would exclude May when evidence doesn't seem to suffice. Since I've laid that on the table, there's been considerable back-pedalling and golden-bridge-building, both by declaring statements that sounded factual to be statements of ideal (thus weakening them), and by strengthening the "need" argument and separating it from adminworthiness. In effect, an argument based on belief has actually strengthened what we objectively know about this discussion and the wiki. I wouldn't want to go without. &lt;/meta&gt; --◄mendel► 13:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, quite some coated potential accusations here, with bonus irony because the points you brought up as things that should matter throughout this talk page tend to strengthen your own RfA more than Warwicks (from my perspective, with the main exception that I don't view you as having an underdog role). Anyways, yes there are times when we shouldn't blindly stick to how we do things in the past. But when we do want to diverge from how things used to be done, I would advocate to at least examine the circumstances and rational that influenced the past precedents, and make a conscious effort to change our ways after taking these things into account.
 * Back when I was an active user, before GWW even launched, the general guiding principle is "promote admins only when we need the additional hands to do the administrative work". Quite a number of good/great candidates were left in the RfA pool for weeks, or even months (after nomination, and after discussion ceased due to not having much to discuss), before being promoted.  Currently I do not see the need to diverge from that principle.
 * After I became admin (I don't actually think there was RfA for me, Gravewit just promoted me silently IIRC), I remained very active for at least many months. However, during that time, I had found that I needed to watch myself more and more.  I was less able to be a "mover & shaker" of the wiki, due to the very fact that some people know I am an admin.  Some would resent some of the things I was trying to push for, and thought incorrectly that I'm describing something that was going into effect no matter what they argue, when the matter was totally open to discussion and further input.  Other users worried that certain stances I take on matters such as alpha-leaks might be mistakenly conceived as the decision of the GuildWiki admin team or is the official endorsed position of GuildWiki.  And even when those two types of concerns don't get in my way, and I do influence major changes on the wiki, the fact that I was an admin makes the changes feel like something that is brought forth top-down, whereas before my promotion I exemplify the spirit of grass-root bottom-up changes.  I've already lost count the number of times when I knew I could avoid more conflicts or make more changes happen had I not have the status of adminship.  I've brought up resignation multiple times, not as a threat (because whenever those times come up, we tend to have enough admins to keep things working), but as a solution.  While each of those times I was able to finally convince the other party that my actions/rational were independent of my adminship (and so my offer to resign becomes moot for that case), my admin status still was a speedbump and a shadow looming in the back of my mind.  This personal history (mostly public info scattered here and there on the wiki if you dig past before the days of GWW) strengthened the principle of "don't unnecessarily promote" that I inherited from the older admins, and formed my desire to see the more active, creative people remain as peers of the regular-user population and encourage boldness by example (although Auron seems to have a completely opposite mentality on this specific issue).
 * I claim that my past experience had shaped a consistent personal attitude on the "need" argument, and that the "admin-worthiness" has always been a separate and secondary concern, for me personally. Neither your RfA nor Warwick's led to a need to strengthen something that is already strong, or a separation for something that is already separate.  I cannot claim to know how it is with other people, but on this talk page, I am the main vocal proponent for this argument, and I cannot help when feeling any general criticism on the (potentially unconscious) influence behind it is more or less directed at me.
 * Feel free to disagree with me. Feel free to correct my memories.  Feel free to tell me the times are different now and my thinking is outdated.  You might be completely right.  But if you are interested in psychological correlations with people's reasoning/rationalization, then study my past first, study the period when I accumulated 90% of my contributions, the period that shaped my beliefs and values and characterized how I typically reason.
 * And whether you meant it to be or not, this discussion has already gone beyond being anything specifically about Warwick. The great majority of points apply to your RfA as well.  Therefore I'd advocate to come up with a better alternate location to move the conversation to. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA system
The discussion has turned to the question of "how things are" vs. "how things should be". Regarding admin promotions, let's examine the relevant phrases in Administrators as a starting point: The last promotion has called #1 into question, so the status quo is that bureaucrats promote whom they trust; and I add, if they see a need.
 * 1) GuildWiki admins are recommended by the community.
 * 2) Promotion to administrator is done solely at the discretion of the bureaucrats
 * 3) only extremely trusted users are granted administrator status

Let me repaint, then, the picture of GuildWiki: We are a volunteer organization, run by bureaucrats, who "hire" people to "management" based on their perceived abilities; the community contributes because they feel that the organization serves their ends. To affirm that, the community needs a measure of transparency.

Based on that picture, the RfA process could be much simplified: a candidate is nominated, each Bureaucrats posts "I think he/she is/isn't suitable for the job", preferably with an explanation, and the community is allowed to question these statements until a satisfactory amount of transparency has been achieved (but see below).

In absence of clear criteria what makes any candidate suitable for the job, the issue comes down to "I do/don't trust her/him". As it is, that is the ultimate touchstone in any case, because the qualifications of a candidate don't matter if you don't trust him/her, because then you won't trust the qualifications, either.

Then, if you have suitable and trusted candidate, it comes down to "do we need an admin like him/her"? If a candidate is either not suitable or not trusted, the RfA can be closed at that point (after a discussion period?); if he/she is suitable and trusted, but not needed, we can either keep it open indefinitely, or move it into some sort of "recruitment pool".

To recap, Bureaucrats decide on these issues:
 * 1) I think he/she is/isn't suitable for the job.
 * 2) I do/don't trust her/him.
 * 3) We do/don't need him/her to be an admin now.

Before these decisions are made, the community can provide argument to influence bureaucratic thought.
 * The issue of suitability is adressed (incompletely, I'm sure) in M.mendel/Admin Criteria, and that's what the summary we have now is geared towards, I believe.
 * To influence trust is rather difficult to do in a positive way, as it is far easier to raise distrust if evidence is at hand than to engender trust.
 * I can imagine that community discussion could uncover "needs" that a recommended admin could fulfil, but it seems far easier to demonstrate that a known need is unfulfilled than to convince people that the wiki has needs that have never been addressed, but should be. (Is it a good thing if bureaucrats are visionaries?)

Are we now at the point where we need clear statements from all "hiring" bureaucrats (going by Administrator information, Auron and JediRogue) on these points? And should the RfA process be "reformatted" along these three issues? --◄mendel► 09:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC) (small clarification 12:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC))


 * I'd like to advance the idea that it's not as much of a "do we need him/her?", but "do we need additional admins?". It's not as much of a matter of the Bcrats think they don't need any particular individual specifically, but rather a matter of the Bcrats think they need additional admins generally.  Generally speaking. (there are rare exceptions of certain candidates filling in a special role that uses the sysop tools, and are promoted for the special role). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been wanting to say something like that for a while now, but every time I sat down to write it, I thought it sounded stupid. Meh.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 21:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You've been wanting to say something like what I typed or what mendel typed? -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's indented under your message... what do you think? >.>  Yes, what you said, about it being a matter of "do we need another admin?" rather than "should this person be an admin?".  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well intuitively it should be referring to mine, but I put so little effort into that particular post, and mendel's obviously involved more thought and effort, (and not everybody is doing indentation right all the time) such that I wasn't sure anymore d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what I meant. Obvious precedent is when you need an admin to cover a certain "shift", i.e. be available at times that the wiki sometimes unattended by admins. You could need an admin generally for that, but some US-evening admin is not needed whereas a Europe-morning admin might be. And of course, "housekeeping". Some admin may be good at that and get promoted when other admins who would be good at RC patrol don't. To remain in the "job" metaphor, there must be an open position that the admin can fill (and some make their own positions). I am not afraid to sound stupid, because I know people know I'm not, and the same goes for you, Dr Ishmael! --◄mendel► 12:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)