User blog comment:Zambiealex/Wiki Inspector/@comment-25024589-20160602111804

In my opinion, this right would be easily prone to abuse, favoritism, and poor advice.
 * Is the wiki "community friendly?": What is it and is it aimed to that subject?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but let me explain it this way: One of my home wikis revolves around a record label with an extraterrestrial cat for a mascot&mdash;which can sound pretty dang cheesy when you think about it (sorry fam)&mdash;plus the label's general fan community can be really immature at times. The wiki, however, showcases relatively little of the immaturity in the articles (though the comments are another story at the moment) despite being largely incomplete due to its two-year abandonment prior to its adoption last August. If you're saying that we should aim our content at a less-than-mature fandom instead of trying to be professional...sorry, but nope.
 * How they deal with socks and Vandalizers?: Do they have a effecient way of dealing with socks?

"Efficient" doesn't always mean "proper", plus there's really no correct way to deal with a sock/vandal; the best way varies case by case. For example, would you block a user who added "hi" to an article (without removing any of the other content) the same length as you would a user who mass-blanked pages and posted Terms of Use-violating links in place of the content? I wouldn't for sure; heck, I don't think Scenario #1 even warrants a block unless repeated over and over again.
 * Do they have qualified staff?: Are the Local staff viglielent and always availible to respond to problems that users have.

The definition of "qualified" can be (and usually is) subjective. On smaller wikis, the word may mean just being there, though on large sites, it may mean actively contributing, talking to other members daily, etc. Even on a wiki with set-in-stone guidelines, one user may think a staff member is qualified while another doesn't. If that's the case...then what? Whose opinion is more accurate? "Well, obviously the one that adheres closest to the guidelines," you may say...but what if the guidelines are both objectively and subjectively unfair? ;)

Now for the requirements. As for the Wikia Golden Club, that would only result in one thing: favoritism. Say there's an Inspector who loves the ABC Wiki but hates the DEF Wiki, and both wikis have to undergo an inspection around the same time. The ABC Wiki turns out to be in worse condition than the DEF Wiki&mdash;which has the stability of Finland&mdash;but the biased Inspector doesn't care, so the ABC Wiki gets into the WGC and the DEF Wiki does not. Now tell me: how is that fair? Lol.
 * 1) Well, I have no real problem with admins/bureaucrats requesting it. It's the case with spotlights, after all.
 * 2) Some wikis are incapable of getting to 100 pages due to the tiny size of their topic. Just putting that out there.
 * 3) Lastly, just because they have rights doesn't mean they're good with them. As far as anyone knows, a bureaucrat could've just promoted them on the spot to meet that guideline.

Not trying to be a hater&mdash;just wanted to put out my two cents. Have a great day. :)