Forum:Time to start talking about new admins?
I figure now is as good a time as any to ask this... Are we going to appoint some new admins to replace all the work those admins who left were doing? We lost some really good people, but they ALSO did a whole freaking lot of work, and we're already feeling affects of it (in the recent changes, especially). I'm just asking if people think it's a good idea right now, we're not selecting anymore at this point. Also, I'm locking this thread so only admins can comment, since users will, for the most part, all say yes (since, really, who wouldn't want [as yet still] unlimited power?). So, let me know what you think. New admins: good idea, or bad idea?--<<
>> 20:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: let us keep in mind that we may be experiencing temporary. I know I will be back to patrolling sometime in the next two months, and Those we've lost might be back by then too. Just something to consider. ---
Rev. Isra (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that goes for me also. I'll have a lot more free time to huff 'n' stuff in about a week or so, but I also expect some of the admins to come back. -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 20:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Think everyone needs to take a deep, deep breath and just let the dust settle. -- Sir Mhaille
(talk to me)
- Think everyone needs to take a deep, deep breath and just let the dust settle. -- Sir Mhaille
Recent changes patrolling should be a lot easier when wikia upgrades us to Mediawiki 1.9, with those automatic edit summaries. But I still think some new admins would be a good idea. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:35, 6 Dec 2006
Just a note: I would like to see the following vote used for consensus purposes, not just as a majority wins vote. And again express by indecision/reluctance. --Rev. Isra (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't think we would need a consensus, necessarily, but a very large majority (at least 3/4). This way people can change their votes later, if they change their minds.--<<
>> 19:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal to appoint some new admins
- For. I think this is a good idea, at this point.--<<>> 20:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- For. Probably a good idea. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:36, 6 Dec 2006
- For - David Gerard 10:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- For. I can certainly think of a few deserving candidates. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 11:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- for. I'm in favour of a large admin pool -- sannse (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Against I agree with Mhaille, we should give it a bit more time to see who comes back. —rc (t) 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Against I agree with RC. -- Tits McGee 19:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Indifferent. I see what Brad is talking about, expecially in the recent changes. However, if we were to add anymore, I think 1 would cover it for the time being.
t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) - Against new admins = drama, and we don't need any more at the moment. Let the dust settle, see who comes back, and let the humor flow back. I'd rather see votes based on merit than votes based on retribution for a recent flamey time.
Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 12/8 01:09 - Meh. I don't care. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Against. It might seem tempting to just throw some new people into the mix, but in reality its better to just let things settle and re-assess it later. Do we really need more admins? Lets wait until we know the answer before promoting. ~Sir Rangeley
GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC) - For once, against. I agree with Famine; mixing things up means more getting-to-know-you (and possibly ban, desysop, and flame you) time. I can try to delete more crap on a daily basis and whatnot, but I think that adding more admins will just shake things up more. --KATIE!! 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I support the opinion thread following Rc against this proposal.
19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, well, now we have a sense of where we're standing, and with many of the admins that left returning (with a few highly notable exceptions), it's fair to say that the crisis has passed. My reason for calling the vote was dire need, and since that is no longer the case, I withdraw it (though I may, and probably will, bring it up at a later date).--<<>> 20:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd bump this up to see if anyone's changed their minds recently. I know I've been doing more work of late, I'm not sure if others have, as well. Todd's definitely gone, and the number of edits has increased, so I still believe we need more admins. Has anyone come over to my side of the fence in the last month?--<<>> 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The amount of time I spend on the site hasn't changed much, but I've been forced to pay more attention to New Pages and Recent Changes. There's definitely been an increase in vandalism, but I guess you could argue that you don't necessarily need to be an admin to revert vandalism. It used to be people watched RC and added NRVs in hopes of one day becoming an admin, but seeing as we've only added three new admins in the past 6 months, I think people are becoming a bit discouraged - we're losing potential candidates instead of gaining them. Anywho, I'm all for 1 or 2 new admins. t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
January Vote
- I think enough time has passed and things have settled down. If we still need admins, then now seems like a good time to get them. I vote for a new admin or two. Now I just need to consult with the
CABAlcommunity to see who to vote for. ---
Rev. Isra (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC) - For, again. If I thought we needed more before, we definitely do now, especially as Todd has retired from adminship. Also, anything that means I can be more lazy is good. Also, someone managed to get goatse on the front page for about 20 minutes today. If that's not a sign we need more admins, I don't know what is. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:09, 6 Jan 2007
- We gotta FIGHT... For the RIGHT... to be LAAAAAA-ZY!--<<>> 05:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- For. (I'm not lazy. Never.) t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 06:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe one or two more
minionsadmins. For. --User:Hinoa 23:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) - For, understood the pause, but am still in favour of adding more admins -- sannse (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- For, but not: a) Benson; b) anyone who's asked for it. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 12:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, why not? -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 17:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, okay. --Algorithm 00:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional for Only if Benson gets to be admin. --
04:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC) - For, now Todd's 'gone'. That last FFW must really have taken it out of him. -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 11:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever I was too lazy to post anything here, but Codeine harassed my talk page, so I'll give you some sort of vote. I'm not seeing an extensive need for another admin, but if we make them focus on one area like we tried to with the last two, I'll give that a for. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01/11 21:29
- Famine says it all. 23:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
