Forum:Too many administrators

Forums: Yew Grove > Too many administrators

This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 April 2009 by Bonziiznob.

I was taking a glance at the list of administrators we have and I realized that we have way too many for the activity level of this wiki. This issue was touched on a little while ago in a thread about removing inactive administrators, but nothing ever came of it.
Here is a little information to consider. Guildwiki with an article base of over 17,000 articles and 13,694 user accounts with only has 21 total sysops [1] [2]. Wowwiki has over 70,000 articles and 60,607 user accounts and only 22 sysops [3] [4]. Runescape wiki has over 11,000 articles and 10,807 user accounts and a whopping 51 sysops [5] [6]. All of these numbers include inactive sysops.

From general experience I can say having such a large administrator group is not only inefficient but it also causes more problems then good. For example we have had to desysop four administrators for misusing their power or otherwise being nothing more than vandals when push came to shove. With a smaller administrator base and a tighter RFA process we could have stopped such problems from starting in the first place. This leads on to my biggest complaint about having so many administrators is that it has been the prime cause of the drama that has been plaguing us for a good year or so. In fact, drama related directly to administrators actions has not left the yew grove since I joined this wiki and started editing it some months ago. I mean, we have so many administrators that its gotten to the point where most of them don't even need the power they have on a regular basis, lthey just go about editing like any other user and occasionally may perform a duty that requires the power they have but more often then not they dont even have any duties to perform.

I dont know what it is about sysop powers that makes so many users flock to it and consistently nominate themselves and other users to receive the power, but it is completely unnecessary and useless. It also kind of negates Jimbo's quote about how being a sysop is no big deal and should not be somethig you work for in the community to get.

I am not suggesting we de-sysop anyone or otherwise remove their power, I am simply suggesting we no longer allow RFA's until we actually require the service of more sysops or forum admins. I think we should follow in the footsteps of the larger gaming wikis and fix our mistakes early on so that we can become more popular and useful. TEbuddy 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and such

Support: ...what's wrong with me? Did I actually acknowledge that Tebuddy made a valid point?? ;) WWTDD? 15:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - But to be honest and blunt, I think you're wasting your time. We have some users here who are barely active, but far too socialist and enjoy typing 6 paragraphs at a time borrowing tacticts from Perry Mason to help prove their point about how it's voluntary and everyone deserves a chance to be an administrator. These people will never accept decent ideas, but I hope this passes anyways. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

16:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to point out that the wikis who cap the amount of sysops they have and prune the inactive ones have been Featured, and we never have. They have much less peer-to-peer drama that is brought to public, and they have a far more professiona image. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with Karlis, just oppose, because the number of admins doesn't hurt anyone? It isn't a major problem is it?Joe Click Here for Awesomeness16:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - If anything more admins are a good thing, vandals can be blocked more swiftly and more frequently. And about what Karlis said, I don't see how having less admins would change any of that. †Blade^#† 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he's talking about long-inactive admins, who don't really do anything (because...they're not on the Wiki, for starters). WWTDD? 16:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That is part of it. Also, I like the changes we are making to the requirement of admins, but I think we need defined rules to run for adminship. (eg - minimum edit count, antivandalism, known in community discussion) What we have now is rather vague. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

16:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Is there any list of these "long-inactive admins" that seems to be in question? If we knew the extent of the problem, perhaps we could possibly come up with a fitting solution. Wejer 16:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

here Karlis (talk) (contribs)

16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to give insight into why I am truly against this. I have been working for General Dynamics now for a while. Ever since I started here, I realized we had "too many chiefs and not enough indians." This means we had too many "higher up", "management", etc. The problem with too many "chiefs" is that nothing gets done. People are afraid to make a decision, and there is always complete opposition. Now, I realize that all editiors are equal, so this doesn't directly fit. However, as many know my company is shutting down in 23 days. Over the past year, all the managers have been doing are going to meetings to try to think of good ideas, but because it was impossible to please them all, nothing ever got done. We spent over $6 million on a new inventory program that was later decided it wouldn't "best suit everyone." We were going to do 4-day work weeks, but again, same problem. When too many "hihger-up" people are brought in, consensus cannot be made, and it leads to an inevitable downfall. I see something like this already happening. Our community has been hung or has drug on discussions for far too long, because we can't please everyone. Now granted not only administrators contribute in discussions, but the majority of them are very active in them. I just see the day that we have a huge group of admins sitting around debating what should have been a simple discussion, but can't decide because of entitlement, ego, downright disagreeable people, etc. Again, I try to compare this the best way I can while still keeping AEAE in mind. I just think we either need far stricter guidelines on adminship, or to cut it off completely and cap it at "x" admins. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Nomination to end RfAs, Support Alternative Method - We need to stop thinking about it as a small elite group and start thinking about it as extra tools for users who have proven themselves capable of using them properly. Karlis, your argument lacks structure in numerous points, specifically that you reference RS:AEAE but compare admins to native chiefs, when in reality, the admins are not superiors. I don't think a cap will work, as it will likely cause even more drama for people who know they're doing a better job than a current admin, but are restricted because it's the "elite 10" or whatever. It also keeps people from doing good things with the tool set. I think we need to take a whole new approach and make adminship much much more difficult to achieve, reserving it for those who are strongly interested in contributing to the wiki, and re-evaluate the current administrator base, as it would be unfair to have new standards with a number of people lucky to skate by on the old bare minimum. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 17:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Byte - Yeah, I realised I got off on a tangent, and I wasn't trying to compare admins to any form of superior. But you have to admit that admins are generally looked up to as they have clearly demonstrated they can be trusted in the community. This was the reference I was making. Also, I just think we either need far stricter guidelines on adminship, was said by me twice, as right now I think it's too lose and doesn't give potential admins a firm grasp on what is expected. Our current "Yeah, apply for admin if you want, anybody can do it" is laid back and too flawed to even be considered an acceptable way to choose admins if you ask me. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are far too literal, and clearly missed the point I made twice.

Now, I realize that all editiors are equal, so this doesn't directly fit.

Again, I try to compare this the best way I can while still keeping AEAE in mind.

Karlis (talk) (contribs)

17:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to jump off into hostilities, your use of emphasis suggests a volatile tone. Your first response seemed calm, but the second appears to be biting my head off with, especially with the use of an ad hominem (pointing out a person's flaws to disprove their argument, rather than just disproving their argument (your use of "you are...")) for disagreeing with you. I disagree with the argument, sure, but don't take a dislike in your views as a personal attack. :)

Anyway. My point still stands: cutting off RfAs would end one drama and start another ("If they could do it, why can't I? Elitist crap!") I think making passing applications much more difficult would be sufficient, as long as we re-evaluate the current administrators (requiring people to pass at heightened standards while having people flying below the radar is wholly unfair). -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 17:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that there needs to be actual requirements in order to run for administrator, such as "Must have X number of edits" and things like that. Ti en 17:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - what Tienjt0 is good, may I suggest 1200 mainspace, 150 image and 50 rs?Joe Click Here for Awesomeness17:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, even mostly inactive people can rack up edits over a long period of time. Basing adminship on edit count is silly, as it's no real indication of how active or "good" a person currently is. I'd like to base it on something that centers around:
(1) how often a person edits (not how many times the person has edited);
(2) whether or not they're responsible for any content creation (article writing, not just stub creation, to judge their fluency of the English language);
(3) how they've acted in the past under tense community situations (do they make or break up a flame-fest?); and,
(4) how often they contribute to community decisions (are they an active member of the community?)

Or something to this effect.-Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 17:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a realistic rough draft. Something that can give the community a feel for how they will act as an admin. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

17:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I sort of meant what byte has put, but I understand I did not state it that clearly.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness18:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My current issue with administrators is that we use RS:AEAE to a disadvantage: administrators are not required to meet higher standards in editing. Personally, I believe administrators should be held up to higher standards and should set an example of what an editor should try to be like. That's why those people who meet those standards deserve to be an administrator - they go the extra mile regardless of administrator status. Those are the people who should be setting examples in their actions for the rest of the community. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 18:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to touch on that. I discuss that often on vent. Not everyone is an administrator, and not everyone has what it takes to be an administrator, therefore not everyone is equal. We can say it and have a policy on it, but when it comes down to it, Administrators are proven trusted members of the community who have done what it takes to earn the tools. I think a role of leadership is healthy, as long as it's understood that they're experienced leaders, not dictators. Many people already look up to administrators as it is. Not saying their word is worth more that somebody elses, but perhaps a sense of leadership would help our wiki mature a bit. I'm glad I'm not the only one who notices how unbalanced AEAE is. I'll just throw this out there - I think AEAE is holding us back and is the root of almost all of our drama issues. Take that to mean what you will; there need to be leaders else there will be anarchy. Halopedia is a good example, but their admin group is much smaller. They also have far stricter guidelines for adminship. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

19:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! I really should come on vent some time... -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 19:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Byte, I agree with you. But were not exactly solving the problem. By allowing more RFA's, eventually someone qualified will get through and then we will have 30 active sysops. I don't think we need to remove anyones power, but more is not better in this case. If we can eventually agree that we dont need any more administrators at the moment, then we should move on to tightening up RFA's and editing AEAE to make things nice and drama free.

TEbuddy 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think just closing RFAs will solve anything. We still have a huge load of excess sysops which is the cause of the problem. Even if we don't add more, the problem of having too many is still there. This is why I think a re-evaluation of current sysops should be mandatory to actually solve the issue at hand. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 20:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Byte, that is a pretty bold statement coming from a non admin ‎

Atlandy 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Also byte, if you could get something put together that was reasonable you would have my full support. I a doubt very much so that you will actually get anything done that would touch some of our sysops precious power. Also, closing the RFAs for the time being would give us time to work without adding more pressure. We dont want to add water to the boat while we are trying to bail it out.

TEbuddy 20:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment How dare both of you question the hard work admins put into this wiki. It isn't about power, it isn't about being cool, or whatever you think it is. I and many of the other admins do what we do because we like it. We spend our time editing, preventing vandalism, and making articles. Our "precious power" is virtually no more than the abilities you have. To say that you want to re-evaluate the admins show to me that neither of you have any idea what this wiki is about ‎

Atlandy 20:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop assuming things, Atlandy, I'm not questioning anybody's hard work. You're acting threatened over nothing. Calling me out as a "non-admin" and using that to devalue what I say is one of the things that's wrong with the current administrators. If you're a good admin and you do your job well, you have no reason to worry about losing your sysop powers. If you do what an administrator should do, there's nothing that should concern you. The problem rests on the administrators who are inactive, or only partially active and don't set an example for the community. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 20:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything. Read what both you and Ted wrote. You first "This is why I think a re-evaluation of current sysops should be mandatory" and Ted "I a doubt very much so that you will actually get anything done that would touch some of our sysops precious power." All of the sysops, current and non-active went through a RFA. After that, you still want to re-evaluate them? and Ted's comment is totally out of line. ‎

Atlandy 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they went through an RfA with uncommonly low standards for adminship ("trust"). What we're suggesting is that there be newer, tighter standards. What I'm personally suggesting is that all current administrators be required to meet those standards. Having administrators below the line while expecting new ones to be above it is unfair. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Choosing of new admins should be independent of preexisting admins. They can equally benefit the Wiki, help with flamers/vandals, etc. This is totally unfair to users that want to be admins. Jedi ^Talk ^HS ^Log ^Tracker 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your attached comment suggests that you are opposing a separate issue from this one. There are so many problems that stem from having far too many administrators, especially a lot of this drama that we've been a victim of as of late (see Karlis' statement). I agree that it's "unfair to users that want to be admins," but it's also unfair to continue with something that "harms the wiki." I think the good of wiki should come before a few people's feelings - shouldn't it? -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose halting RfA's, Neutral to desysopping active admins - I really don't think there is much to this. Yes I think we may have proportionally more admins than other wikis. I don't think that this is a bad thing in itself. I think that halting new RfA's seems like we'd be taking out the situation on potential new admin applicants, and that doesn't sound fair to me. As for the inactive admins, I don't set this as a problem. Sure we could desysop them, but why? They haven't done anything to hurt the wiki, and I think that would be extremely unlikely. They might even help out if they come back to find their privledges intact. As for the active admins, they're working hard to keep this wiki running smoothly and if there even were to be a problem, we have ways to address that. Tollerach hates SoF 21:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What we tend to not realize is the real reason behind an inactivity clause for removing sysops. It's not that they harm the wiki by not being there, it's that it's an incentive to continue to be active. A number of people edit well for the sake of becoming an administrator and then start to slack off, as they don't need to show off anymore. A "continued activity" guideline would keep administative powers to those responsible enough to use and continue using them. I don't question the hard work some people put in to become an admin. I question the lack of hard work once certain people have become one. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose to re-evaluating current admins - Are you out of your mind? This is volunteer work, not something I should have to reapply for annually. What was recommended was that a minimum guideline be placed for adminship. Anybody who is already admin would be grandfathered in. What you're recommending is absurd and insulting. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

22:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it's possibly insulting to anybody who actually acts as an administrator should. Said people have no reason to worry about anything. If this is volunteer work, I suggest those we hold up to be examples should volunteer and contribute more than a handful of times a month. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Also. STOP. Ad hominem arguments, insults and implications that somebody with a different viewpoint is "out of their mind" is NOT acceptable and you of all people should know this. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 22:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless I am completely misunderstanding you, well, let me make sure I'm not. You are recommending that all admins currently editing be required to meet certain standards (such as possibly editing 50 times per week, 10 vandalism reversions, etc) and if they don't meet these standards, that is grounds for removal of adminship? I completely agree with removing adminship of those who have not performed administrative tasks in some time, but I don't think people should be required to do X amount of tasks per week/month. Please say I am misunderstanding you and this is not what you're proposing. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

22:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely. What I'm trying to say is that they should meet similar standards that we would subject new administators to (new or old, an administrator is still an administrator and if there's standards for one, it should apply to all). I'm saying an old administrator should at least be quasi-active. For instance, if they're "currently editing," even if they've become reserved to just vandalism, they're still active and should be kept on board as they're continuing to use the administrative tools responsibly. I'd be looking to see X edits per time to gain adminship, but significantly less to continue using it ("stay somewhat active"). I'd also like to be sure they still play a role in the community, rather than just poke the wiki now and again. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 22:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I would need to remain neutral to what you are saying until the standards are laid out. I cannot always commit to certain things every week, but I understand your point. However, I think the minimum monthly goals should be strictly administrative tasks. I see a lot of sysops who have last edited in 06, 07, and the first half of 08. After that, some have returned, and others have made 2 edits to their userpage. This shows to me no need for adminship. I think maybe you should write a draft of what the minimum requirements should be. We have many younger users who are not granted full access to a computer, so they can only edit in spurts. The way it comes across is that you want admins held to a strict standard of (fill in standard here) and if they can't keep it up, then they're gone. I have noticed a lot of people who are granted sysopship tend to not edit much if at all afterward. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

22:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here's a rough draft that could definitely use some refining:

Guide to Adminship
Editing
	Gaining Sysop	Keeping Sysop
Activity	An applicant must be a regular contributor to the RuneScape Wiki. 400 mainspace edits in a month on average should suffice (remember, this is only about 12 edits a day, not too hard to keep up with!).	A current administrator must show they they still have an interest in the project. 200 mainspace edits per month (roughly 6-7 edits a day, not a whole lot, and not hard to do). This number of edits can easily be maintained simply by reverting vandalism.
Edit Count	Despite having a high activity level, the applicant needs a history of at least 2000 mainspace edits. This is for those voting on an RfA to have enough to review the applicant's behaviour on the wiki.	This requirement was met during application process, and only applies to applicants.
Content Creation	An applicant must have created two decent length articles (or the rough equivalent of two articles added to current articles) of original content. This is necessary to judge the applicant's grasp of the written English language.	This requirement was met during application process, and only applies to applicants.
Community
	Gaining Sysop	Keeping Sysop
Involvement	An applicant must be involved in community decisions through outlets such as the Yew Grove. The user must contribute to at least 8 separate discussions per month. Since topics seem to come and go at a snails pace, being active in 8 discussions seems fair.	An administrator should continue to be involved with the community and continue with being active in about 8 discussions per month.
Attitude	Applicants should show that they are able to do the following: Abide by the User Treatment Policy when in a discussion (avoid "ad hominem" statements). Removing themselves from an issue that bias may be a factor in their judgement. Demonstrate maturity in situations of high temper.	Administrators should continue abiding by these guidelines. As well, they should also be capable of: Interjecting in a heated argument and instructing people to take time to cool off when absolutely necessary. Remembering that all editors are equal, and they should not place themselves above anybody else in the community setting.

Just an idea. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 00:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I do agree with some minor requirements on becoming a sysop. But, the thing about activity I do not agree with. Real life events can come up and that player would be hurt by that, and if already a sysop, would get de-sysoped. Good idea for requirements, but not for activity. Also, the activity thing could bring small minor edits, or spam edits. ~Muz^Talk 01:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

comment - This was something I wanted to make clear from the start of the inactive admins discussion a few months ago. We are not coldly logical and rule mongering. We all have lives and some of us actually work in the real world every day. If your house burns down or your family needs your attention obviously that takes priority. The problem arises when you dont care to inform of us of such a problem. Taking 5 minutes to contact anyone on the wiki who can relay a message or even leaving something on your userpage is acceptable. Second of all, a minimum level of activity is good for me. The table looks good but I would change the yew grove commitment to interjecting once in a discussion at least once a week. Not eight replies or topics, but one thread where you keep the peace or make your opinion known is good enough for me. Also, I consider myself very active and I only make 4-5 edits on articles and I dont make it a habit to seek vandals in progress or patrol recent changes. 6-7 edits a day for an admin seems reasonable to me.TEbuddy 01:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - And what of us bureaucrats? May I ask. I edit here to improve the wiki and ensure any vandalism is minimalized. I edit here as a stress reliever, and now I'm forced onto a quota (which is only going to promote spam editing)? I don't always edit the mainspace, many times I'll simply edit in the RuneScape namespace and many times this is more important work than a minor edit to the mainspace. Must be involved in the Yew Grove atleast once a week? Hurston, before becoming an admin, really never participated in community, he was quite literally an "edit machine", does this mean he should have never been sysoped? I now am required to participate weekly in the Yew Grove, despite the fact that it is my personal belief that a bureaucrat should stay out of discussion as much as possible and let the community continue without interference? There's a reason why I have been with the wiki(both with and without an account) for about two years now, it's because the wiki has always forgone the unnecessary bureaucracy of wikipedia. In all honesty, this measure system of "activity", would knock out most, if not all bureaucrats. The number of edits isn't important, I'm on the wiki pretty much daily, however, some days I don't edit, am I inactive on those days?--

Azaz129

^Talk ^Edits ^Contribs

02:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I would just like to make a brief observation from the point of view of one of these 'long inactive sysops'. Adminship itself is just access to an extra set of editing tools - it doesn't make one editors opinion more valid than another (non-sysop's) opinion. It doesn't grant them anymore powers in community decisions. All it does is give them access to the ability to block vandals, rollback edits (and lets face it - that's almost the same as undo), delete and protect pages (among other things). The appointment of an admin by the wiki community is just a judgement that this person is responsible enough to use these tools.

From this point of view, what does it matter if an admin becomes inactive? They aren't denying others these editing tools. They aren't using them to damage the wiki. In some cases (such as my own), they may come back from an extended time of inactivity and start to use those editing tools again - for the benefit of the wiki.

The only thing we should be worried about is when admins start using the tools to the detriment of the wiki project. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but none of our de-sysoppings have been of inactive admins who have come back to haunt the wiki. In the case of active admins going haywire - it's a simple case of removing their powers and/or handing out a block (followed perhaps by discussion and, if warranted, a re-instatement).

Thus, I fail to see how forcing 'activity' standards upon sysops does us any good at all. At the best it keeps the admins who were already planning on, and able to be, active around (and thus achieves nothing); and at worst it is denying trustworthy and valuable users (who for one reason or another can't be active at that point in time) the tools that they have been using to help maintain the quality of the wiki. The middle ground is that the admin tools sit there inactive along with the absent sysop - and this does no one any harm.

The other problem - that of too many chefs spoiling the broth - I touched upon before. As the opinion of a sysop should be no more valuable than that of another, active, user (in practice RS:AEAE in this case doesn't really apply to IPs and very new users) - and as all decisions are reached via consensus it shouldn't matter whether an opinion is put forward by an admin or by someone else. Karlis's point about admins sitting around arguing over decisions is equally valid for any user - if we desysoped all these arguing admins then they would still be there arguing - they would just lack the admin tools.

This is in part the reason I have never weighed to heavily into the community decision process of this wiki. The problem doesn't lie with having too many sysops (and therefore distorted lines of power), it lies with our community's inability to interact in a civil, professional manner toward each other (and no I'm not pointing fingers, nor saying this applies to everyone). Whether it's the younger player base that RuneScape attracts or any another reason - I don't believe that the solution lies in removing editing tools from a group of (currently) inactive - yet trustworthy) users.

That all being said, the adminship selection process is still important. The most important quality for an admin is that they will always remain trustworthy with the tools they are given. It would be nice if the admins themselves were able to behave in a rational and mature way, but as I have said, enforcing this quality upon applicants is unlikely to solve any problems.

To summarise, in case your attention span didn't last that long:

Adminship is (or should be) only access to editing tools
It doesn't make one person's opinion more valid than another
Desysoping old admins can only be to the detriment of the wiki (it doesn't give us any benefits)
Source of arguements doesn't lie with too many admins - it lies with the way users interact with each other
This problem is unlikely to be resolved by ensuring admins are all civil/mature/rational (although this would be nice) - the argumentative users will still be there - they just wouldn't have access to a set of editing tools. There would be no difference in their behaviour and, assuming we all want to uphold RS:AEAE, there would be no difference in the weight of their opinions

Thus there are two ways of solving this problem (as I see it). Neither are perfect. They are both perhaps a little extreme – but I’m just trying to illustrate a point. First - abandon RS:AEAE and have a small group of very active admins whose opinions are more valued than others (as is the case on Wowwiki and the like I suspect). This would provide clear lines of power – as Karlis was arguing for. It would virtually eliminate the need to desysop rouges, the “drama” would disappear and it would ensure that only those who use the admin tools have access to them – as TEbuddy pointed out in his intro. It would get rid of inactive admins – who several people seem to see as a negative despite it not being the case, and it would ensure that admins did have to meet a higher standard of editing – as Byte_Master suggested.

The other option is more in keeping with the spirit of the wikia project. We put more emphasis on RS:AEAE. We hand out admin tools to all those who show the ability to use them, remembering that they are just editing tools. We would have a large admin count but, seeing as we would treat all users’ opinions as equal, this wouldn’t matter – all decisions would have to be reached by consensus. Along with our rising sysop count we also up the number of ‘crats – thus meaning that if sysops start going rogue there would be more ‘crats around to deal with it. Ultimately we would devalue adminship to the point where it truly isn’t a big deal at all.

Of course there is always a middle road somewhere between these paths – the ideas are purely academic at the moment – I’m not suggesting that we must take one or the other of these paths, or even either of them. They are both fairly drastic.

Now I’m sure there are plenty of holes in my reasoning along the way there – seeing as I can’t even remember the beginning of what has turned out to be a bit of an essay. Please point them out at will. The object of discussion is to get everyone thinking. Dechaineux ^Talk 03:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I support everything you've just stated Dechain. As this wiki has grown larger I've noticed a clear tendency of forgeting the true spirit and principles on which this wiki was originally run. Now, I may be just an old fuddy-duddy here, but I recognize class creation when I see it. Rather than trying to further create a division between regular users and those who happen to have a few extra butoons at their disposal we should be trying to break the illusion of power further, not creating the actually "oligarchy" that was always claimed by trolls. Admins don't (or atleast shouldn't be) run the wiki and the fact that why have a large group of trusted users shouldn't be frowned upon. I'd rather have one user mistakenly sysoped rather than no one on who can protect the site when the bot returns, we should not rearrange the entire guiding foundation of our community everytime the going gets tough. Every group has good times and bad, however, only the strong remain true to their principles and stand firm in the face of adversity.--

Azaz129

^Talk ^Edits ^Contribs

03:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A quota? No way. That's just rediculous. Six to seven edits a day may not sound like a lot, but for some people, it really is. I, personally, right now have a Hell of a lot more important things to do than help an online encyclopedia that won't absolutely crash without me.

Also, seriously, basing things on hard numbers is a bad idea in the case of wikis. 2,000 edits to become a sysop? One person may get that in two months from correcting typos, and someone else may get it after two years from always adding paragraphs of content. Would they both be the same when it comes to candidacy for adminship? Again with a 'daily quota', would completely revamping an article like Varrock not meet the cut if it's the only edit? Don't tell me that it would because it can account for at least six edits altogether. If that were so, each admin's edits would have to be individually evaluated daily, and someone would have to decide how many edits a single edit can account for.

The way I see it, if the community finds someone trustworthy and up to the job of adminship via an RfA, we should not remove their status unless they either:

Abuse their power
Prove that they aren't trustworthy and/or likely to abuse their power
Request it

De-sysoping someone because they can't make a quota is just assinine. Are they still trustworthy? Are they still the same person who achieved community consensus?

All admins can do are protect pages, delete and restore pages and images, block users for vandalism or other offenses, edit MediaWiki pages, edit protected pages, and perhaps some other things. Now, does filling a quota help a sysop carry out their sysop duties? No. Does not filling a quota show that they are incapable of carrying out duties? No.

Rollback-wielding users can get rollback status from being trusted and asking for it. That's it. If too many users had rollback, would that be a "problem"? Out of 10,000+ users, having 51 sysops is- the way I see it -nowhere near too many. That's about one-in-200 users being a sysop.

Back on the topic of having requirements for becoming a sysop in the first place, I think listing suggested editcounts and length of time having been active would help, but not having it be a hard requirement. Chiafriend 12 Loon is best buttlord 03:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC) (Double edit conflict)

I understand that administrators can go inactive, but an issue still lies in administrators who are here often and still don't do anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it shouldn't be a bad thing to expect an administrator to do more than just sit on the sidelines watching the editors roam by. It shouldn't be a bad thing to expect an administrator to actually contribute to the wiki more than once a month. It shouldn't be a bad thing to expect an administrator to be a community figure. Somehow it is, and that's where this community is failing.

The problem is that administration is more than just "editing tools." Let's not forget that they have the power to completely bar somebody from editing. It takes an innumerable amount of responsibility to entrust somebody with that ability, and yet so many administrators stop editing once they've had their powers for a short while. They've played with their new toys and gotten bored.

Now, about those that go inactive. Most wikis have an activity clause in their adminship policies for the sake of encouraging their administrators to continue to be a contributing part of the project. An administrator should be somebody that users can look up to. If a majority of current administrators are doing nothing at all to benefit the community, what example does that set for the rest of the community? "If an administrator does nothing at all, I should be an administrator too."

The thing I find most concerning about this discussion is how we're arguing against something as small as an average of 6 or 7 edits a day. That is not a lot of edits. That will not constitute "edit spamming." If we can't even expect an administrator to be responsible enough to be able to edit a few times a day and actually be productive to the wiki's content, I wouldn't expect much of anything from them. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 04:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Six to seven edits a day isn't really a lot you say. On the face of it that seems true enough. Until you have the really busy days of bringing the kids to three separate events, nothing is ready to make for dinner, and you had to work 12 hours that day. And during sports seasons these days come frequently man. If you want a lot fewer vandal blockers then you must not be paying attention lately. This wiki would have tons of spam pages with nothing but swearing if we did it your way. Some days its real easy to make some edits. Some weeks will totally suck. Your ideas of admins do not fit the definition of an RS wiki admin. As far as contributing to discussions, I make a habit of not talking just to hear myself. A good habit to have I assure you. If my points are already made in a discussion, there is nothing for me to add. And if the topic is a technical thing, which happens fairly often, I don't comment because I have no idea WTF is being said. You want me to have opinions for something for which I have no knowledge? Naaaa. That's just stupid. Especially when we have 3 or 4 forums for basically the same topic. --Degenret01 04:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This idea is total nonsense to me, but where do Forum admins come into play. We are still admins too. Or are you just talking about Sysops? Jedi ^Talk ^HS ^Log ^Tracker 04:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I understand where you guys are coming from not wanting regulations on administrator activity. But what Byte master suggested is not only not finalized, but it is also extremely reasonable. And like I said I don't want administrators to consciously ask themselves every week if they are meeting the standards. Active administrators usually already meet every criteria listed and 200% more than the average user. However the problem comes with inactive administrators or administrators listed as active but dont really do anything that requires sysop tools. Take a look at the list of active sysops, just to name a few who really are not active at all llyas [7], Chicken 7 [8], and Gangsterls [9]. I mean honestly, it took me 3 minutes to choose a few random names and look up their contributions. Not only are these people barely active, but they don't need sysop tools to operate. Llyas last activity was posting in his RFA accepting the dang nomination over three months ago.

Dechain, the problems we have had with de-sysopping disruptive administrators is not as easy cut and dry as you would think. Every discussion I have seen where an administrator going rogue has lasted several weeks even months before any action was taken, and even then it still caused massive drama and still leaves scars today. Had these users not ever received their power due to a administrator cap, or been rejected because of a cleaner and tigher RFA we could have avoided these problems entirely. I would also point out that having such a huge list of administrators leaves resonable rule enforcement to the judgement of every sysop. Since every policy and common courtesy is not written in stone, every sysop would interpret things a little less than the sysop before them and sooner or later we have a huge group of people complaining that this guy did this and how this guy did this different and on and on. With a centralized group of admins who are active and pass a well put together RFA, things become standard, synergizing becomes easier and efficiency is boosted. Also, as I have commented on before, if a user is indefinitely inactive, why keep them as an administrator. Sure they dont harm anything, and all editors are equal, but I believe that should only apply if they are actually an editor. They are not editors, they have not expressed a wish to retain their powers or even use them, and they do not edit at all. What do we owe these people who just up and left one day without so much as a talk page saying "Im done with this, bye". As I said before, life happens, but leaving a message anywhere takes no time at all and lets everyone who put you through an RFA and trusted you with sysop tools that your still around and you are still aware of the commitment you made.

I agree that the drama has to do with the activity of users and their interaction, but through a series of responsible changes such as this one we can make steps toward making interaction between users more civil and less angry or dramatic. However not proposing any type of suggestion to a problem like that is pointless, we need to take action. Tidying up the administrator list and RFA makes sure that only administrators who need the tools get them, and that when they do use them they use them correctly and with purpose.

We are not creating an air of elitism by pruning inactive sysops and those who dont use the power. The spirit of the wiki is keeping sight of the fact that we are a database that anyone can edit, anyone can edit, anyone can do near anything without any permission or screening from anyone. If you wanted to devalue adminship to the point of "no big deal", remove RFA's, remove sysop power, and give everyone a green name. Then we can create a new group of administrators named regulators that have more power than sysops, then we can be back at square one with nothing different except more wasted time.

Azaz, reducing the number of administrators would not change how effectively they can respond to vandalism or an attack of some sort.

Degen, as I said above the chart is not finalized or in any completed and ready foruse. As well, if you cant actually edit the wiki because of real world commitments, then whats the point of accepting a nominations or nominating yourself. You as an adult should be able to say "I have responsibilities and I could not put my tools to good use many times during the week". Many different vandal blockers you say? According to the block log only a few active admins have even been blocking vandals [10]. By my count, only 8 sysops have blocked anyone in the past month. According to our chart, every admin who has used the block log has met all the criteria easily without thinking about it. What about the other 20 sysops who swore to constantly deal with vandals and their side effects? I mean it every RFA you see the candidate vouch for the fact that they will fight vandalism. Also, consensus does not function correctly if everyone is not involved in the dicsussion. Thats one of the many flaws in our decision making process, if a point has already been made then you should be replying to issues with a support or oppose to show the number of people who actually want something to happen. By your logic we should have only two responses to every thread ever with support or oppose with every reason for each side listed. If you cant take the time to even comment on an issue like a global policy change, then why do you care about your admin tools in the first place when some major change that you didnt vote on could take them away. TEbuddy 04:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If its a serious issue then yes I care thank you very much. But many of the issues are extremely minor. But when theres already 12 people who said the same thing i would, adding a support i silly since were not a democracy man. And I accepted the nom because I figured when I am around I can contribute and help out with a couple of better tools.--Degenret01 05:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - True, a lot of the topics on the YG are caused by lots of admins. So? Is there anyting wrong with a topic on the YG (sorry, I should've stated this a bit earlier in the discussion)? I don't really see a reason to start limiting the number of sysops. ~

Sentry Telos ^Talk 04:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose So the metrics that make up a good sysop/admin are going to be how many times the contributed to discussions and how many edit counts they made? Who is going to going create the files to log this info? Who is going to look up each sysops info on a daily basis and be responsible for it? Will the upkeep of this info count towards that persons edits counts? You want to force people to take part in discussions that they have no opinion about one way or another or honestly don't care? I could just see a mass exodus of admins saying it isn't worth it anymore..when what was once a fun pastime of editing pages and countering vandalism became a nonpaying job. How many programmers would stay at company if they knew that they weren't going to be judged on their end product but rather on how many lines of code they wrote? I could write lots of lines of programming to fill quotas that did nothing more than take me back to the starting point. How many programmers would stay if they knew that instead of being the one behind the scenes working their magic they had to throw themselves out to the public and be forced to give their opinions? Nobody is getting paid to do this and setting quotas is too much...it's the quality of their work that matters, not the quantity, and since there are no deadlines here it's the quality that matters most. There was a time when I had thought about looking into becoming an admin because I thought I could do a good job in the background, but not now. I only edit from work (sorry, but home life takes precedence) during the graveyard shift and for a time, this site was blocked and I was most likely considered inactive here..would I have been demoted for this? Having more sysops/admins would make up for my lack of activity at a time such as this. I have a husband, a 4 and 7 year old to take care of and a house and all those responsibilities that go with it..I won't even bother looking into it anymore with how these discussions are going and I won't blame any admins/sysops or potentials from saying the heck with it too. Lastly, if something were going on in real life that would have prevented me from making edits and filling my quotas for a while is, well, honestly none of your business and I don't think I would need to explain myself to anybody here. If you want, inactivate admin rights for people that inactive for over 6 months, otherwise, leave them be and hope they are ok. Vadanea 05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

comment - Vadanea, as it has been said about three times, the chart bye master posted is not finalized and is probably nowhere near ready to be used as the offical rule. Please stop being so defensive as were not bum rushing you and forcing you to accept this or hit the road, this is a simple discussion and nothing is final until we all reach a general agreement. Also, the standard I wish to see implemented most administrators would meet anyway. As well, posting a simple one line message saying "sorry things are hectic right now/busy/tiring/whatever" would be more than enough to show that you still wish to edit and acknowledge that we are still floating around somewhere in your thoughts. You do not need to say anything revealing or personal at all. It seems to be that your argument is from total exaggeration of the changes proposed. TEbuddy 05:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I came across that way as it wasn't my intention (there's nobody here today to proofread things for me to prevent this exact thing!)..I'm seeing too many "changes" going on in real life that I'm very much against and my passion for those started coming out here. I just don't want to see numbers used to determine what makes an effective admin/sysop because I don't think it takes into account a person's judgment nor personality enough (which is partially covered in the chart). Currently where I work they are breaking down issues that come in as break/fix issues and we are required to be able to resolve 70% of them. Lines have been drawn to categorize things for what is and isn't. They originally thought that they would be able to bring us up to the 70% by training us on the issues that we were unable to resolve but there are to many things that you cannot account for and it makes this a very ineffective method to determine competence nor ones dedication to want to live up to the 70% expectation. But, since the policy and these numbers are now in place, they won't change it nor will we ever meet their goals because most of the time it's not a training issue (sorry, I'm having problems explaining what makes sense in my head, but I know there is a correlation here..somewhere). I think it should be left up to the admins to use their own judgment to desysop somebody if they think somebody isn't utilizing the new tools enough (or at all if the case may be) they acquired once they were promoted. For all we know, it could be a training issue (many of the help files I found to be difficult to follow with bad examples). Do admins have their own forums to discuss things such as this that we may not be aware of or aren't sharing with us? I know I tend to exaggerate and you can see why I usually don't post on the yew grove (imagine if I were an admin and I was forced too!! Just kidding..) I think I'll stop now so I don't lose any friends!! ;-) Vadanea 06:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Based on the response we have gotten so far, I have copied the table Byte Master used above and replaced some of the values with much more lax guidelines for keeping sysop status. Hopefully this will make the terms more agreeable to current admins while still pruning those who do not contribute to the wiki.

Guide to Adminship
Editing
	Gaining Sysop	Keeping Sysop
Activity	An applicant must be a regular contributor to the RuneScape Wiki.	There is no quota to meet. After four months of inactivity a message will be left on your talk page. After one week if you have not responded to this message in some way, your power will be removed and you will be returned to the normal user group. Should you return sometime after you have been de-sysopped, you may make another RFA at any time.
Edit Count	Despite having a high activity level, the applicant needs a history of at least 2000 mainspace edits.	This requirement was met during application process, and only applies to applicants.
Content Creation	An applicant must have made a significant contribution to two articles. This shows that the applicant has a solid grasp of the English language, and that they understand organization and page style/formatting.	This requirement was met during application process, and only applies to applicants.
Community
	Gaining Sysop	Keeping Sysop
Involvement	Although it is not required, participating in the Yew Grove would give insight into how you reason with other users and present yourself in what may be a a stressful situation.	Administrators as part of their RFA agreement should consistently check the Yew Grove and try to keep the peace and mediate disagreements should they arise. The Yew Grove should also be monitored so that administrators are aware of current wiki events and changes.
Attitude	Applicants should show that they are able to do the following: Abide by the User Treatment Policy when in a discussion (avoid any personal attacks). Removing themselves from an issue that bias may be a factor in their judgement. For example, a topic about banning one of your good friends should be approached cautiously. Demonstrate maturity in situations of high stress and pressure.	Administrators should continue abiding by these guidelines. As well, they should also be capable of: Interjecting in a heated argument and offering neutral points of view or letting someone know they are out of line and need to take a break. Carry out consensus of community decisions after the issue has been closed and all viewpoints have been addressed. Remembering that all editors are equal, and administrators have no greater say then any other editor.

TEbuddy 09:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I still don't have 2k mainspace edits. Bye bye extra tools. Well, Stink would be happy anyway. --Degenret01 13:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is funny. It's nearly the same thing I suggested last discussion, that inactive sysops be desysopped after X time and that we need stricter guidelines, and it was shot down. Now all the sudden everyone is for it. While I have no concerns with my position, a quota on a volunteer job is rediculous, and I will never be for it. I think we just need to set sguidelines to becoming a sysop, as far as requirements, so we don't get the RFA list cluttered with RFA's of users who clearly won't make it. Damn this is laggy, I can't contribute anymore, sorry. It takes almost 20 seconds for 1 word to appear.Karlis (talk) (contribs)

13:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What you fail to see is that SysOp is not a volunteer job. Editing is a volunteer job. Accepting SysOp powers is accepting a responsibility in doing the volunteer job. Frankly, if a sysop's not responsible enough to stick around and uphold the responsibility they accepted, then I fail to see how they're responsible enough to continue using their powers. -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The fastest growing yew grove dicussion since Why is stinkowing an administrator 1 and 2. Those guidlines are harsh, bonzi is a great editor, but only 1,400 main edits. Basically I think everything is fine as it is. Most admins do there job fine, and that creating 1 or 2 long aryicles is silly, as everyone here can speak good English, it is a English language wiki. But could some special rules be introduced to stop flops going up for rfa's, [[RuneScape:Requests for adminship/theg721

|like theg]]. Such as you cannot edit the RS:RFA page unless you have 1,000 mainspace edits?Joe Click Here for Awesomeness15:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Degen, why are you contributing if you have nothing to say? This isn't some web forum where everyone laughs at stupid one liners like that. Not only that, but after spending a good portion of time thinking about this topic and coming up with that chart it saddens me that you would disregard it like that. These things are not final people, instead of saying "no I dont like that, come up with something new" or shooting the entire idea down from the start, meet me halfway across the bridge and come up with something you think will accomplish both of our goals and be generally accepted.

I have seen many RFA's where people were rejected because people did not feel they had enough mainspace edits. In fact, some of the people I see complaining that 2000 is too high of a standard are the ones who said someone with 1000+ edits was not fit to be an admin in past RFA's. But thats ok, so lets decrease it to 1000 edits as a pre-req for making an RFA.

Karlis, I supported the motion to have inactive ops deopped when it came up last in the Yew Grove. As well, I have removed the "quota" and only required administrators to be active in some area of the wiki and only recommended Yew Grove participation.

2+2=4, contributing majorly to two articles is really not asking that much. You could upload a few screenshots you took, write a paragraph or two, do something that shows you can do more than correct grammar and spelling and hit revert to combat vandalism.

Also, if someone has an Idea for splitting this discussion so we can reduce the page size please do so asap so we can get this ball rolling.

TEbuddy 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Guide to Adminship
Editing
	Gaining Sysop	Keeping Sysop
Activity	An applicant must be a regular contributor to the RuneScape Wiki.	There is no quota to meet. After four months of inactivity a message will be left on your talk page. After one week if you have not responded to this message in some way, your power will be removed and you will be returned to the normal user group. Should you return sometime after you have been de-sysopped, you may make another RFA at any time.
Edit Count	Despite having a high activity level, the applicant needs a history of at least 1000 mainspace edits.	This requirement was met during application process, and only applies to applicants.
Content Creation	An applicant must have made a significant contribution to two articles. This shows that the applicant has a solid grasp of the English language, and that they understand organization and page style/formatting.	This requirement was met during application process, and only applies to applicants.
Community
	Gaining Sysop	Keeping Sysop
Involvement	Although it is not required, participating in the Yew Grove would give insight into how you reason with other users and present yourself in what may be a a stressful situation.	Administrators as part of their RFA agreement should consistently check the Yew Grove and try to keep the peace and mediate disagreements should they arise. The Yew Grove should also be monitored so that administrators are aware of current wiki events and changes.
Attitude	Applicants should show that they are able to do the following: Abide by the User Treatment Policy when in a discussion (avoid any personal attacks). Removing themselves from an issue that bias may be a factor in their judgement. For example, a topic about banning one of your good friends should be approached cautiously. Demonstrate maturity in situations of high stress and pressure.	Administrators should continue abiding by these guidelines. As well, they should also be capable of: Interjecting in a heated argument and offering neutral points of view or letting someone know they are out of line and need to take a break. Carry out consensus of community decisions after the issue has been closed and all viewpoints have been addressed. Remembering that all editors are equal, and administrators have no greater say then any other editor.

TEbuddy 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The more admins the better, I feel. However, I feel that admins that haven't made any edits to the wiki for 2 or 3 months should be demoted. They can always re-apply for adminship, and have records to go by. Anyway, if they're going somewhere, they can always leave a message on someone's talk page.

Ameobea10^{Talk • Contribs • #}

20:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of cooling things down...

I move that we all take a break from this discussion. Let things cool down. Throw some cabbages around and relax. Who's with me? Tollerach hates SoF 18:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any flaming or flaring tempers, mate. Probably not necessary yet. ;) -Byte_Master http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig2.png http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss336/byte_master1754/bytesig3.png 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion broke off from its original intent I believe. No volunteer wants a quota to fill. The discussion of de-sysopping old admins belongs on another post. And I believe we had a post about minimum requirements to become an admin too. Should we want to discuss one of these things, it needs to be on a discussion only for that, otherwise people go off on tangents. I think the quota idea is horrible, de-sysopping I'm neutral now, and minimum requirements to obtain sysop tools I am for. It's silly to say "You have 10 mainspace edits, go ahead and give it a shot!" Minimum edit count, community involvement, and counter-vandalism makes sense to me, but some admins are strictly anti-vandal, or only contribute in discussions, some only help with deleting things, and others are balanced. But as I said, this needs to be broken in different discussions, not all clumped into one. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I will make a couple of topics for it, we need to split this huge thing into a couple of separate areas anyway.

TEbuddy 18:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, if people are required to meet and/or maintain certain requirements to become an admin, AEAE will need to be abolished as they clearly have standards to keep that normal editors are not required to upkeep. If they are required to meet certain tasks, their word should carry more weight, and they should be trusted to make decisions. It is unfair to require certain things from someone, yet they are kept on the same "level" per say as somebody who has made 1 edit. A sense of leadership, I believe, is healthy, so long as people don't take the leadership to mean a dictatorship. I think AEAE is flawed as I stated before, but are people willing to abolish it? Karlis (talk) (contribs)

18:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that RA:AEAE is flawed and is used the wrong way most of the time. In this case I think RSAEAE would not apply because in essence, all editors are really equal. Opinions are weighed based on their relevance, not by who submits it. Edits are made in good faith by all users and community consensus is usually carried out without any disruptions. Simply requiring administrators to be active is not in any way voiding their position or devaluing their opinion. Or putting adminship on a pedestal for users who wish in the end to become an admin.

TEbuddy 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I just think there is an underlying sense of leadership with admins, regardless of how equal we all are. Equal in a sense that they are not more important, just each have their own, unweighted say in things. But clearly not everyone is equal otherwise there would not be different toolsets to begin with. I certainly don't want to see a cabal of dictators running around making decisions on their own, but I think AEAE needs some work. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

19:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Closed

Closed - Please discuss the relevant issues here[[11]] and here[12] in their respective topics. TEbuddy 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)