User blog comment:Drew1200/User Promotions/@comment-4583071-20140203213353/@comment-4845243-20140204051837

I was going to dismantle Rose's argument, but then I thought no one would take too seriously. Time for an analysis.

ALMOST NOBODY UNDERSTANDS WHY IT'S BAD BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONES WITH THE STARS! NOT ONLY DOES IT GIVE ME A HEADACHE TO SEE THEM ON THE SIDEBAR, LIKE I SAID, GO ON ANY OTHER WIKI AND TELL ME IF THIS IS NORMAL! ANY NEW USERS FROM ANY OTHER WIKI WILL GET ON AND THINK THAT WE JUST GIVE PEOPLE RIGHTS WILLY NILLY, AND THEY'LL THINK WE'RE A BUNCH OF POWER HUNGRY BRATS.

She makes a few arguments:


 * We don't understand why it [having many moderators] is bad, because we are moderators.
 * It [having numerous moderators] gives me a headache, and no other wikis have so many mods on at a time, so therefore it is not normal.
 * If new users get on our wiki, they will think we give people rights "willy nilly" and are a bunch of power hungry brats.

The first argument, as an enthymeme, has an assumed premise: that moderators do not understand why there are too many mods. That is demonstrated to be false by Aok and RePeat. So the reason for us not understanding is not that we are moderators or admins.

The second argument seems to be saying that our user:mod ratio is abnormal, and implies that said abnormality is sufficient justification for not promoting more moderators. It relies on the assumption that we need to be like other wikis. That assumption is not proven by Rose, probably because she cannot prove it. All wikis are unique communities with unique needs, and decisions need to be made to meet the needs of that particular community, regardless of what happens in other wikis. I'm not saying there is no value in common wiki practices, but I am saying that the assumed premise is false, and her argument unsound.

The third is not an argument, but merely a speculation. However, it has no empirical basis, and until it has such, will not be sufficient justification for any course of action. If anyone thought that we promote mods without planning or direction—that is what "willy nilly" means—then they would be very unobservant. We have a structured way of promoting moderators, and do so by deliberation, or community consensus. All one has to do is examine the user rights logs, or look at the of promotion blogs, or simply ask another user, and they will quickly learn that it is not easy to get moderator here, and are not just a bunch of power hungry people. Since your wild speculation is without empirical basis, I will have to reject it as a serious claim.

It is also important to note that no one in this blog has given a real, demonstrable reason why having multiple moderators in chat is a bad thing. Also, everyone is acting as if we promote moderators all the time. We do not; this is the first promotion in many months, and probably the last mod promotion for months to come. All this commotion is over nothing.