Forum:Administrator reviews

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Administrator reviews
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 25 April 2011 by Huanghe63.

Following on from the previous thread, there was enough support to merit a concrete proposal that we can shape into a functioning admin review system. I don't think admin reviews need become a particularly dramatic part of wiki life, I just believe that a modicum of oversight is a good thing in the long run, and it seems that plenty of you do too.

With this in mind, I propose that admin reviews be conducted on a weekly basis, that is, an admin up for review each week. My original vision is one of a simple comments page where people can leave feedback about their perception of the admin under review. I don't mean for this to necessarily become a formal affair - if the comment section rapidly fills with "sound chap", "doing fine" or similar, the review can be closed in relatively short order and everyone can put their feet up for the rest of the week. As for how long it takes until an admin comes up for review again, I'm inclined to favour longer times over shorter - let's say a year to start with.

I would like this to be an open forum for less positive feedback that anyone may have. I prefer to think that the sysops chosen by the community here are quite capable of taking criticism and I'm sure you agree with me. Anyone who has doubts about an admin or issues with something they have done could bring them forward on these review pages.

I personally don't want admin review to be a binding concept in itself. I see it more as a way to either confirm that an admin is continuing to be useful to the wiki or to notify them in a not-easily-missed manner that there are some problems or issues that the community would like them to address. One of the things I hope to see this prove useful for is a counteragent to the impulse to "build a case" against someone before complaining about anything. If you have an issue with an admin, it is worth mentioning it even in isolation or it might never get improved.

Some of you may well have your own suggestions as to the reviews' frequency, gravity or any other quality (so suggest away, I would like to see this shaped to everyone's satisfaction), but this is what I've been imagining when I've pondered the words admin review and what I would like to propose to the community.


Support as is - As nominator, pending any subsequent amendments. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 21:09, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support weekly reviews - One admin per week would be good imo. Seems a bit excessive but look at how many we have. It will take over a year to do them all currently. One year waiting time seems fine to start with... Maybe after we get those done with, we can move on to a lower number. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:38, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose reviews altogether - If you're just going to use this as a medium for constructive criticism, why bother? There's no reason why you can't post it on an admin's talk page if you think they need it. Andrew talk 21:40, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Soliciting criticism is a lot different than randomly having it posted on your talk page, which oftentimes comes off as an insult. It isn't all about criticism, anyway. ʞooɔ 21:54, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Andrew - If you have an issue with me, and want to give some constructive criticism, you do that right here. The same can be said for every other sysop. --LiquidTalk 21:55, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - I needed to strong support this to cancel out the... lovely opposes above. I think that this would be great for allowing users to bring up concerns with admins, and I also think that this should be done per annum, from when the said admin was sysopped. Opposers; do you not understand that the current system makes it very hard to bring up concerns, or do you just not want anyone challenging your power? ajr 22:01, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

It's not that hard. And what power might people be challenging? Old, decrepit, and de facto inactive sysops have essentially no power. --LiquidTalk 22:06, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
You mean de jure admins. lrn2obsucre legal terms. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:33, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
You tell me, it isn't me opposing for a ridiculously... lovely reason. Also, I'd say that any of our desysop threads show how hard it is.. or do you consider over 100kB of thread to be anything else? ajr 22:08, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
I think that's rather because we are careful about who we sysop. --LiquidTalk 22:42, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
Which is also one of the benefits of reviews: if it's easier to desysop, we can afford to be a bit less rigorous with promoting people. (wszx) 22:46, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

The results of the review need to be binding, otherwise they're just going to be useless drama vehicles. As noted, criticism can always be posted, so approaching these as institutionalised complain-about-this-admin fests isn't a good idea. I don't think we should do one a week; we can handle more than that, especially since most reviews are likely to be uncontroversial and I think people are likely to ignore it if we basically always have a review going. Batch reviews are fine. I also think loss of CC/IRC rank should necessarily accompany loss of sysop: they were expressly granted in the context of sysopship, and it's untenable to separate them at this point (particularly in light of my recent thread). Bureaucrats should also be subject to review. I once again object to inactivity as a basis for loss of tools. The real question is going to be how much dissent is going to be required to warrant a desysop. I also request that discussion be approached without accepting that implementation of review is already decided. (wszx) 22:23, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

^ I completely agree with this (if anyone cares :P) ajr 22:27, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
A previous discussion has established that loss of sysop rights means loss of CC rank. I don't feel like digging it up right now, though I will if someone asks for it. I think we can apply that discussion to IRC rank also. In the event where the individual in question was already a sergeant/lieutenant prior to being sysopped, I would say that the rank should revert to the previous lower rank instead of being removed altogether. If the individual had no rank, then the rank would be removed. --LiquidTalk 22:42, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
I only bring that up in the context of loss for inactivity. The argument goes that people who are inactive on the wiki are not necessarily so in the cc/IRC, and might be doing a fine job in there. Accordingly they would not need to lose that flag. (wszx) 22:46, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - As said in the previous thread, I fully support admin reviews. My only concern about the one sysop a week proposal is that based on the current numbers of sysops, we will be perpetually reviewing sysop after sysop for every single week of the year, I fear that the community may get tired of having to discuss a sysop every week for the rest of their wiki careers, and this project may end up being ignored. 222 talk 00:20, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support + suggestion - Admin reviews will be quite useful. However, I would like us to allow volunteers to go first (I would think that there would be 20+ sysops that would be willing to do a review at any time), perhaps letting them all go at once. If we let them all go at once, it will have the consequence of lowering the attention on any one review, but it will also allow us to plow through them a little bit quicker. ʞooɔ 01:07, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I don't think I'll pass one. I be afraid. - JUST KIDDING. In all seriousness, instead of doing this-if we have a particular problem with someone, bring it up on YG. It's easier that way. Then if someone's doing a crappy job, you don't have to wait 6 months, and you don't scare the living snikies out of precious new sysops. HaloTalk 01:26, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal would supplant regular desysop measures on the YG as usual. (wszx) 01:29, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of things that are not worth starting a thread about that may be worth mentioning. This is a concerted effort to improve our sysops, and is not just about bad things. ʞooɔ 01:50, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I suggest the list of reviewees are positioned by age of sysopness, oldest first. 222 talk 01:35, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a bad idea. Seeing as most of they are inactive these days, the whole thing would get off to a very slow start. ʞooɔ 01:50, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - What about inactive admins? HaloTalk 01:46, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Any criticism of me can be directed to my talk page. I am a big boy and can handle it just fine. We do not need a formal review 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 02:01, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

This is not about whether or not you can handle it. ʞooɔ 02:08, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support if binding - I don't see much of a point in them if they are not-binding as problems can be put on the users talk page, but if it's binding it could work out well. Have them last a week, but extend them to 2 weeks if the result isn't definite, like how fimg works. Also if we are going to review in-active sysops as well, then we should run 2 reviews per week. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:03, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

One of you supporters needs to get the ball rolling with criteria the judge the sysop against, so that everyone's held to the same standard. Christine 02:13, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Why does there need to be criteria with which to judge the sysop against? These reviews are not intended to measure any sort of qualitative property - but rather to measure the quality based on the person. There can be no set standard for this, but I suppose that a typical review would raise questions over a user's use of the sysop tools, and interactions with other users, as a starting point anyways. ajr 02:17, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
"measure the quality based on the person" - so you're admitting this will be a popularity contest and won't judge the person as an editor? k. Christine 02:35, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course that's what I'm saying. If you aren't going to make any attempt to contribute to these discussions, why do you waste your time being here? ajr 02:54, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I am contributing, but because you don't like how I present it, you're ignoring anything I say. I'm not going to vote because that would just look self-serving and I don't want to be a tool and oppose just because it'd be better for me. If you'd read what I said, you would've responded to my question about whether these reviews should be about the admin as a person, or the quality and frequency of what they do on the wiki. Christine 04:16, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I agree. What are the reviews based on? Activity? Contributions? Most of my edits are minor, does that make me less worthy of an admin then someone who makes full page contributions? If this turns out to be a popularity contest..then even the hard working editors who do not contribute to active discussions and just edit will be judged more harshly. If I want a peer review, we have that system in place. 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 15:59, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that what we're here to discuss? (: If done correctly, it can't be a popularity contest. It's just users giving admins advice, or at least it should be imo. If one is found to be too flawed, out with 'em. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:02, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
Defined Flawed 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 16:04, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
The definition would be whatever people come up with here, or if no base criteria is set, whatever the reviewer deems flawed. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:22, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
So we are essentially voting to do reviews, but we have no standard or idea what those reviews are going to detail, what attributes will be critiqued, what they are based on, or what will happen to admins who do not pass their peer review? with the exception of (out with 'em) Once again, if this is just a vehicle to tell admins "how they are doing", do we not have peer reviews in place? 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 14:23, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Even though no quota has been set, one would believe each administrator to be judged by the amount of times used over total edits during a certain period of time. That is not to say that we strip someone of the sysop group right should they not edit MediaWiki, block an editor or delete a file on an irregular basis. What I would like to see is that we don't do this activity of reviewing every week. This will get older than when we had RfA's every other week in late-2009 to early 2010. In my opinion, having reviews often does not benefit anything. The only people that will comment on the reviews are those who are passionate about the editor one way or another. The other thing about this that I don't like is the ignoring of inactive administrators, a loophole if you will. Should we find ourselves in such a predicament where an administrator take a wiki break, give them two weeks more before a review, should an administrator leave indefinitely, strike the name off of RS:ADMIN and leave the rights as they are. No sense in having names on that list if you cannot contact them for help. Ryan PM 03:04, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'm afraid that this project will have a similar fate as the Editor Review project, RS:ER. See RuneScape:Requests for deletion/RuneScape:Editor Review. At first, we might see a lot of activity, but as time passes, only a limited group of users will participate in the project, until finally it just dies... as we witnessed in ER.

Admins should only be judged by what they are doing, not what they are NOT doing... that is, if an admin does a questionable act which goes against policy, the admin should be notified of this in their talk page. If the act is serious enough, a thread in YG could be created discussing this act. Why can't the admin's talk page be a "simple comments page where people can leave feedback"? Commments, compliments and critique can ALWAYS be left in the talk page. Why is there a need to complicate things? Use the KISS principle... keep the simple and stupid.

I like Degen's response to the comment that it "Doesn't hurt anyone...", he says

It could hurt them as an editor. Billy asks for a review, only Bob responds. Bob is clueless and tells Billy he should focus more on anti-vandalism. But Billy is great at adding real content to articles, and all the anti-vandals are already keeping the wiki clean. So instead of continuing to improve our articles a way desperately needed, Billy join the group of people waiting for a vandal and racing to revert it. We lose, Billy loses, the wiki loses. Editor review fails.

Same thing applies to admin reviews...

And, to respond to Halo's question "What about inactive admins?": We could be reviewing them, but they may never realise they are being reviewed. The review is simply a waste of effort. The obvious conclusion in that review would be that the admin is not doing their "job" due to inactivity.

My two cents.   az talk   07:36, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I don't care either way, but the reviews shouldn't be too grueling. We don't want admins editing with feelings of uneasiness. They're fine as long as they are editing and aren't exhibiting problematic behavior, even if they use their tools infrequently.  Tien  17:43, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - So somehow... someone competent to get sysops flags... has to be tested to see if they're still semi-competent? All I can say is this sounds like it'll make admins feel more cautious with their tools rather than just acting on gut instinct. Smuff [citation provided] 17:46, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

People change and the wiki change. Idk about you, but I have no idea how competent those people from 4 years ago are, considering no one's seen them since. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:21, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that that makes them incompetent. We have no reason to think they aren't. Christine 19:09, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
Then they'll have no problem passing a review. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:11, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
RS:AGF has absolutely nothing to do with any assumptions on the competence of inactive editors. Suppa chuppa Talk 19:11, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
Sure it does. Saying they're incompetent is assuming that they've somehow become stupid and won't know how to be fair and just and level-headed with their decisions. Christine 19:14, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
Assuming good faith only applies to actions performed. In any case, I don't think that the assumption is that that they are necessarily incompetent. Suppa chuppa Talk 19:17, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
...No, it doesn't. Just because the page says that it applies to edits, does not mean it should be taken in such a black-and-white way. AGF is an ideal and isn't selectively applied to some things and not others. Christine 19:20, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

I still fail to see how "good faith" can relate to assumptions on the competence of an editor. Good faith deals only with intentions, and a lack of competence does not translate to bad intentions. Suppa chuppa Talk 19:23, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Right, and if we establish that someone does not have bad intentions, then what is the reason for taking away tools? Christine 19:30, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
Because they don't use them. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:34, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
So? Christine 19:43, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
So that's why. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:44, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the connection. Why does inactivity necessitate the removal of the tools? I agree with whoever said they should be taken off the admin page, as there's no reason to recognize them if they are inactive, but why remove the tools? Christine 20:11, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I already discussed all my thoughts on the other thread. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:14, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It sounds like it could be useful in some cases - for example, I remember someone mentioning that an admin review could be helpful because it would give admins feedback on how they could improve or correct small issues before they turned into big issues, or, as Bull says above, someone decides to 'build a case' against them. However, as others have pointed out above, we have numerous other ways to do the same thing or something similar, so I would like to see an argument as to how this system could be designed to be better than the one in place. I am somewhat concerned with the intent behind the reviews, though. If you view admin reviews as a desysop tool, remember that there are (again) already methods in place which have the same function, with the additional advantage of not forcing admins who aren't abusing their privileges (the vast majority) to go through another bureaucratic process. If you view them as a genuine tool for encouraging admins to improve, then see what I said above (why is it better than what we have? I'm not saying that it isn't or couldn't be). As for the matter of inactivity, it doesn't seem relevant. The basis for adminship is trust (not necessity or recognition or whatever). Admins should be desysopped only if they violate the trust bestowed on them (and I don't believe that inactivity does). To desysop based on inactivity is to say "I don't trust you anymore because I haven't seen you in a while." Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk 10:34, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I think there is one major issue here, the purpose of the proposed administrator reviews are not clear. What are its aims? To provide mandatory feedback to admins once a year? Or to explore the possibility of desysopping them? Also, how stringent would the process be? Are we going to easily pass each admin as they come in, with a "Good job, keep it up, you've got no problems" or will we be strictly reviewing each and everyone of them and checking whether they've performed their role up to exceptional standards, or perhaps a compromise of both? Some of us are ploughing onwards sure that these reviews will bring benefits, while others are holding back, not sure whether the benefits outweigh the problems. But I am pretty sure that many, both supporters and opposers share these questions, 222 talk 10:50, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Supporters, tell me, what does the Wiki stand to gain from reviewing and desysopping inactive admins? Real Crazy 13:04, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Stop being lazy and read what has been written multiple times above? ajr 14:29, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that. What does this add to the wiki? Criticism can be done on talk pages, and unfit admins can be desysopped via discussion on the Yew Grove. What is the point of this, other than to desysop people? All admins are different, it's impossible to set requirements for keeping powers without running into the RS:ER scenario where people get told to be an editor they aren't. Real Crazy 20:45, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I've looked at both sides of the discussion multiple times now, but I still agree with having admin reviews. Sure, it may cause some distress depending on the person, but I think that it not only helps ensure that admins are not doing anything wrong, but it encourages them to make better edits. In an admin review, any of the mistakes admins are making are probably going to be mentioned. The reviews can help make the community feel better knowing that the admins are making few to no mistakes, make the admins themselves feel better too, and it can, depending on the type of review, warn them that if they don't make some improvements by the next review, they may be desysopped. The benefits overweight the negatives of the reviews in my opinion. Smithing 14:17, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - As Liquid stated in one of the first comments above, if we have a problem with our sysops, we should just tell them on their talk page. Constant reviews will only succeed in worrying and irritating the sysops. And what if an admin goes inactive for, say, a month? Does that mean they "fail" the review, and get desysopped? I'm not questioning any admin's committment to the wiki, but there will be times when they go temporarily inactive, or simply don't have the time for the wiki anymore. That doesn't mean they've become "incompetent" or uncommitted, that just means they have real-life issues to deal with. As such, I throw in my full support to Christine, in that inactive admins should get to keep their tools, but should be removed from the Adminstrator page. Weekly reviews would be ridiculous, but monthly or every two months could be considered, as long as a big deal isn't made of them. If this motion does pass, the reviews should just be a quick check over their recent edits to make sure they're keeping up their good work, not rooting through their edits to see what they've done wrong. Ronan Talk 15:03, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Read the proposal properly, it says we are reviewing one different sysop every week, not all the sysops in one week. And fix up your signature, it's depositing a lump of code on every page. 222 talk 00:29, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I think it's fixed. ^ Ronan Talk 15:03, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - If you have criticism for an admin, be an adult and post it on their talk page. I hear (read) a lot about the results of the criticism being "binding", but the only outcome I see that could possibly be "binding" is that the review could result in desysopping. And in that case, how is it different than a normal desysop thread? It seems to me that its different in name alone. Given what has been said so far, it seems like there's only two ways it could turn out - they get desysopped or the community says "yeah, you're doing alright". The former should happen on the yew grove and the latter should happen on the sysop's talk page. There is no place for an admin review. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:33, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It's all well and good that you guys are supporting the reviews, but until you start creating some guidelines and criteria for the reviews, this forum is hardly different than the last one. Christine 21:10, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

Idea - After talking with a few people, we've come up with some general info for these reviews. First of all, the main goals will be to get rid of the obvious baddies, but also to encourage every reviewed administrator and help them learn their mistakes. Here are the ideas:

Reviews shall be open for one week, and will be closed by a crat. There will be some sort of queue which users may add administrators' names to... Each week we'll go down the list and strike them off as we go. If we get to the end, well then there'd be no reviews until another person adds to the queue. (: Once reviewed, an administrator cannot be reviewed again for 6 months. There will be no opposing or supporting, everything will be comments, therefore having it ruled with consensus is crucial. Below would be the guidelines for people to follow when making their comments:

1. Tools

a. Does the administrator actively use their tools?
b. Does the administrator use their tools properly?

2. The Wiki

a. Does the administrator actively take part in editing the wiki?
b. Does the administrator actively take part in community discussions?

3. The administrator

a. How does the administrator interact with the community? Positively/negatively/not at all?
b. Overall, does the administrator conduct themselves in an acceptable fashion?

These would just be encouraging guidelines, and in no way would failing one mean an administrator would absolutely lose their tools. This just gives the reviewers something to go off of. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 07:57, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to mention this - I also think it'd be a good idea to have the reviewed administrators have some questions about themselves to answer. The above guidelines could work, or perhaps questions similar to the Rfa questions... Any thoughts? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 08:31, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support Fergie's idea. It sets a clear set of guidelines on how the reviews would take place, and it seems very reasonable to me. Suppa chuppa Talk 07:58, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support Fergie's idea, just like you, suppa. If we're going to do this, we may as well do it right. Kudos to everyone who came up with these guidelines. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 08:00, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Hooray for fergs - I'll admit that my ideas for this review process were somewhat nebulous and I like this codified version. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 10:04, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Fergie's idea sounds good, Strong support - Per Andorin. Ronan Talk 15:03, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Closed by a 'crat needs modification We do not have an active enough crat for all the reviews coming up. The only reason we have few crats is because we do not have much need of them, as their additional duties on top of being a sysop are to enable tools and close passing RFAs.--Degenret01 10:13, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Our crats are active enough to show up once a week. ʞooɔ 10:26, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
Adding another set of tasks unique to one user group creates more of an impression that said user group is special or holy or some such. We should always try to avoid this whenever possible.--Degenret01 10:44, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
The reason crats should close them is because it involves user rights. ʞooɔ 11:19, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
So in the case of it seriously looking like the person needs loss of tools, fine. But in the same way that sysops have closed obviously failing RFAs, the same method can apply here.--Degenret01 11:40, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

...the main goals will be to get rid of the obvious baddies... -If their are obvious baddies that you recognize as being such, you should start a de-sysop thread immediately.--Degenret01 10:44, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. If you are waiting for a review to de-sysop anyone, you will be waiting forever. 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 12:37, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - This should be no different to taking up an issue with a regular user - post a friendly reminder of whatever policy's being broken, and if that's not enough, make a thread on the issue. Unless you don't understand talk pages, in which case, learn fast or stay quiet. Real Crazy 20:45, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support- — Stormsaw1 (talk) 21:05, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per other opposes. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 21:11, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Psycho Robot and the other opposes. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 22:30, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't see why sysopians should be treated in a different manner just because of their user rights. First off, they have been given those rights because they are trusted to do so. More importantly, they are accountable for their actions and contributions in exactly the same way that everyone else is, and if they do something wrong they should be held accountable in exactly the same manner as another editor of another user group. --Henneyj 14:37, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per opposers. They passed their RfA exam, now let them be >_>. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 19:15, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Administrator reviews. Request complete. The reason given was: Discussion has been dead for over a week and there clearly isn't a consensus Andrew talk 21:04, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
I second Andrew. --LiquidTalk 21:29, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus at this time to implement any form of administrator review. Huanghe63talk 22:34, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, there is no consensus to implement this proposal. There was a administrator review proposal which garnered support. This thread is closed, by any rate. Huanghe63talk 22:44, April 25, 2011 (UTC)