Bitcoin Wiki:Administrator nominations - Revision history

Taras: Taras moved page Wiki admin nominations to Bitcoin:Administrator nominations without leaving a redirect

2014-09-30T20:28:11Z

Taras moved page Wiki admin nominations to Bitcoin:Administrator nominations without leaving a redirect

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:28, 30 September 2014
(No difference)

Gmaxwell: /* ThePiachu */ re

2013-04-16T16:24:17Z

ThePiachu: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 16 April 2013
Line 16:		Line 16:
	*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last recourse actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)		*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last recourse actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
	*::: ''Comment'': The [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=500 Recent Changes] page shows an astonishing amount of spam users registering on an ongoing basis. The payment system does prevent them from making edits, but with the falling value of Bitcoin, 0.01BTC is less than a dollar, and sock-puppetry is not prevented.		*::: ''Comment'': The [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=500 Recent Changes] page shows an astonishing amount of spam users registering on an ongoing basis. The payment system does prevent them from making edits, but with the falling value of Bitcoin, 0.01BTC is less than a dollar, and sock-puppetry is not prevented.
			*:::: And yet there is currently no evidence of sock-puppetry. Having admins does nothing for the spam user registration— changing to a captcha that they haven't cracked would. :) --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 16:24, 16 April 2013 (GMT)

	== Cryptal ==		== Cryptal ==

Cryptal: /* ThePiachu */ Comment

2013-04-16T02:51:17Z

ThePiachu: Comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:51, 16 April 2013
Line 15:		Line 15:
	*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)		*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)
	*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last recourse actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)		*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last recourse actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)
			*::: ''Comment'': The [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=500 Recent Changes] page shows an astonishing amount of spam users registering on an ongoing basis. The payment system does prevent them from making edits, but with the falling value of Bitcoin, 0.01BTC is less than a dollar, and sock-puppetry is not prevented.

	== Cryptal ==		== Cryptal ==

Cryptal: Nominating myself

2013-04-15T08:45:21Z

Nominating myself

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:45, 15 April 2013
Line 15:		Line 15:
	*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)		*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)
	*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last recourse actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)		*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last recourse actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)


			== Cryptal ==

			I would like to nominate myself for the limited role of moderator. I've recently come out of lurking to join the Bitcoin community, but I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2006, and I'm very familiar with MediaWiki markup, encyclopedic style, Wikipedia policies, and dispute resolution.

			Thank you,
			-- <br/>[[User:Cryptal\|Cryptal]] ([[User talk:Cryptal\|talk]]) 08:45, 15 April 2013 (GMT)

Gmaxwell: /* ThePiachu */ copyedit

2013-04-14T22:11:23Z

ThePiachu: copyedit

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, 14 April 2013
Line 14:		Line 14:
	* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)		* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)
	*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)		*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)
	*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last ~~resource~~ actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)		*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last recourse actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

Gmaxwell: /* ThePiachu */ rephrase my comment a little

2013-04-14T22:10:12Z

ThePiachu: rephrase my comment a little

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:10, 14 April 2013
Line 14:		Line 14:
	* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)		* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)
	*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)		*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)
	*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last resource actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to ~~be involved~~ enough to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)		*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last resource actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

Gmaxwell: re

2013-04-14T22:09:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:09, 14 April 2013
Line 13:		Line 13:

	* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)		* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)
	** I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)		*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)
			*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last resource actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to be involved enough to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

Ripper234 at 14:06, 13 April 2013

2013-04-13T14:06:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:06, 13 April 2013
Line 13:		Line 13:

	* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)		* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)
	** I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange.		** I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)

Ripper234 at 14:05, 13 April 2013

2013-04-13T14:05:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:05, 13 April 2013
Line 13:		Line 13:

	* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)		* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)
			** I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange.

Gmaxwell: re

2013-03-29T20:10:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:10, 29 March 2013
Line 10:		Line 10:
	* I trust him with the role of admin		* I trust him with the role of admin
	* I believe he has shown interest in the role		* I believe he has shown interest in the role
			<hr/>

			* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, 14 April 2013
Line 14:		Line 14:
	* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)		* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)
	*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)		*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)
	*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last ~~resource~~ actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)		*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last recourse actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:10, 14 April 2013
Line 14:		Line 14:
	* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)		* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)
	*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)		*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)
	*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last resource actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to ~~be involved~~ enough to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)		*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last resource actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to have had enough involvement to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:09, 14 April 2013
Line 13:		Line 13:

	* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)		* I, regretfully, oppose at this time. ThePiachu has been almost completely inactive here and so I cannot point to any work he'd be engaging in which would be facilitated by making him an administrator at this time. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (GMT)
	** I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)		*: I don't believe that an active wiki participation is a requirement for the role, but rather is a "nice to have" feature that should be considered along with other traits. ThePiachu is very active on Reddit on Stack Exchange. [[User:Ripper234\|Ripper234]] ([[User talk:Ripper234\|talk]]) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (GMT)
			*:: The important work of administration on a Wiki does not generally require administrative access. Administrative access gains you the ability to block users, delete pages, and set page protection— all of which should be options of last resort, especially in an environment like this one where paid access kills spam, vandalism, and sock-puppetry mostly dead. These last resource actions can be handled by a small number of people with access, but they need to be involved enough to know when they're being applied appropriately. Someone who hasn't demonstrated that they're willing to contribute to operation in less-than-last-resort-ways is an unknown quantity, doing so may promote anti-community and anti-consensus administration styles that tend too much to last-resorts, and granting them adminship while not granting it to more activity contributors can leave people feeling disenfranchised. --[[User:Gmaxwell\|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell\|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2013 (GMT)