This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was to allow "too many admins already" as a criteria, but not to assume that there is currently a hard limit on the number of admins.—Xwing328(Talk) 23:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't really have anything to do with the other admin voting poll on Consensus Track. Basically, this is to address the glass ceiling that has sprung up recently with admin nominations, namely that there is a widespread feeling that there are "too many admins." I was all right with this at first, until it led to Rmfitzgerald50 losing his nomination.
This is ridiculous. Of the 16 admins, maybe half are currently active, and the ones that aren't include the two bureaucrats. Then there is the vandalism surge. Between the fact that there aren't always admins around to handle it, you keep voting against my proposed reforms to limit it, and the main wikia staff seems like they won't admit whatever decisions we did come up with, more admins is the only way to handle this effectively. All you people who whine about me doing my job? More admins will help make it so I won't have to be so draconian.
So this is how this vote is set up: option 1 is to vote to keep the current system, ie there can be no more than 16 administrators. Option 2 is to eliminate the limit and would make it so that votes against a candidate based on that criteria can't count against the candidate.
According to Kuralyov, this option would mean "to eliminate the limit and would make it so that votes against a candidate based on that criteria can't count against the candidate." —Silly Dan(talk) 22:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
See comments below. —Mirlen 13:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not that Wookieepedia is not prepared against vandalism, but it's the speed with which it gets dealt with. Often, there's no one online who can ban vandals and it often takes half an hour of incessant vandalism reversion until one comes online. Quickly reverting/removing vandalism and keeping up fighting it for an extended period are different things. - TopAce 13:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an option to allow "too many admins already" as a criteria, but not to assume that there is currently a hard limit on the number of admins. —Silly Dan(talk) 22:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
While I would not be opposed to more admins volunteering/being volunteered in the near future, I would like to reserve the right to vote against on future RFAs and RFBs on that basis in the long-term. —Silly Dan(talk) 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Not so much because I think there could be too many admins, but because we're definitely having too many nominated. Everybody and his mother is getting nominated for adminship now and every other noob thinks he's going to be one once he's been here six months. Havac 22:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
At least it's good incentive for them to stay and act good :) —Xwing328(Talk) 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I was uneasy about this at first, but I have to agree now because things are getting slightly out of hand. Adminship should not be turned into a status symbol and that seems to be the direction that things are going.–SentryTalk 23:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm abstaining: while I agree (now) that we could use a couple more admins, I reserve the right to decide later that we don't need any more. —Silly Dan(talk) 13:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Can't we have an Option 3, where we keep the current system except based on currently active admins? And remove the "there can only be 16" crap. If we see the need for more admins, let's get more admins. But in moderation. --Imp 13:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There has never been a limit on the number of admins. The previous votes failed because it was felt by those voting against that the existing admins didn't have their metaphorical house in order, and adding people to the pot would only lead to more chaos. That said, we haven't done much to clean said house, and the vandals keep coming. So I don't want to make votes based on "we have enough or too many admins" illegitimate; it just happens to not be true right now. At any rate, this does have something to do with the other vote on CT, because if one of the revised systems came to be, single admins voting against (like was had for RMF) wouldn't keep the vote from going through. jSarek 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The admins that are currently active need to be cohesive and follow the project guidelines in regards to blocking, editwarring, etc., and some of us are not doing that. While I am not against more admins, I feel that we need to fix our current problems before adding more people to the mix. Chaos only breeds more chaos. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a bit of a zombie thread, I admit, but now that we've revised the rules so a single admin can't block all new admins, and we even have a procedure to make bureaucrats, I'd like to revive this thread so the new situation can be taken into account, and the thread can be properly closed. Three votes for and three non-voting commentors doesn't make for a consensus, I think. —Silly Dan(talk) 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm confused about what the two options even are, though! - breathesgelatinTalk 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried to clarify (hopefully, Kuralyov, I've got your options right), and added my own after realizing I misinterpreted option 1. —Silly Dan(talk) 22:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we need a limit of some type. Or perhaps a ratio based on our size and/or activity. But a hard numeric limit created right now is not the way to go either. -- Darth Culator(Talk)(TINC) 23:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a few slight corrections. In Of the 16 admins, maybe half are currently active, and the ones that aren't include the two bureaucrats, there are now 19 admins as of today, and as for me, I still contribute. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As do I, just not near what I used to be able to. WhiteBoy 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If there are many inactive admins, and there are plenty of capabable users out there who would be able to take their place, then why not? To assume that there are too many admins out there, whether or not there is a loose ratio or hard number to maintain, and that "chaos breed chaos"(especially if half of them cut down the number of "chaos") doesn't quite make sense to me. "Organization can replace chaos," regardless of number. If majority of them are inactive or are uncapabable, then it is only fit that those who are capabable and active unofficially take their place. If the worry is that there are too many admins to control or that too many admins will lose the elite status of being an admin, then the RFA procedure and requirements should be more restrictive as to confirm that there won't be too many to wreck havoc or meaning/image. (As a note, I realize I just may be mouthing what I don't know what it's really like out there in the admin world in Wookieepedia, so forgive me if I speak too audaciously for one who is not an admin and does not have an interest in being so. Neither do I have anything against any admin present here — who are all active and capable.) —Mirlen 13:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.