Forum:Opinions on Admin Population

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Opinions on Admin Population
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 29 April 2009 by Azliq7.

In my sole opinion I think we have a large population of admins that do a great job of moderating this site and at present don't see a need for any more. So, I'm simply asking when do we call it quits on allowing users to become admins, or do we continue to allow rfa's. In general, I don't see a need for 20-30+ active admins, so I'm looking to see if other users share the same opinion. Should we for the time being discontinue requests for adminship and re-open it again when needed?

Please note - Cause some of you I know will be like, Well of course Bonzi wants this, he was the last one to be sysoped, but no. That is not my intention. In general a wiki of this size does not often have as many active admins as we do so why keep allowing users to become them when we don't need it.

Bonziiznob Talk

22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we just discuss this? Andrew talk 22:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so Soldier. If it was, it wasn't as heavily focused on this issue. 22:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Round 3, here we go again. =\ I personally think we're more than fine, but everyone else has the mindset of "the more the better." Karlis (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
We didn't discuss this particular issue heavily, but I agree and give my support. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose any restrictions, as I have done in the past. The number of admins we have is irrelevant as long as none of them are abusing their powers. Any sysops who really do think that a large administrator population is a problem are welcome to request removal of their powers here. Dtm142 22:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That is highly uncalled for. This is not a discussion of removing powers, and your funneling people who oppose you to your talk page to remove powers is immature, to say the least. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with Karlis. I'm not proposing we desysop anyone and you channeling it that way simply alters the meaning of this discussion. I am simply stating that it has come to point where this site is heavily moderated and does not need any more users to do so. We are fine as is. It will come to point that "too many chefs will spoil the broth" and we don't need that. Perhaps that is why we haven't been contacted yet by Jagex to help support us. We are too easy on allowing users these rights. 22:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not intend on desysopping anyone as I don't believe that there is a problem. I am only offering a solution to those who think there is. You asked for opinions, and to call me immature for expressing mine and offering a solution is assuming bad faith. If there really is a problem, then everyone who holds sysop powers is contributing and can choose to either help fix the "broth" or do nothing. I simply find it hypocritical that some administrators wish to limit the sysop population as long as it does not involve personal sacrifice. It is similar to complaining about air pollution and global climate change while driving a Hummer.
The role of editors on the RuneScape Wiki is much different from that of users on another fansite. Administrator powers are an extension of regular editing abilities that every user on the site could potentially make good use of. The only reason that they are restricted is that they can be abused, thus only trusted editors are given access to them. Administrators on the wiki are much different from moderators on the forums of other fansites.
Only Jagex truly know the reason why they haven't contacted us. They may not have noticed our request or are too busy. They may not like the fact that anyone can edit the site (for those who don't know, the integrity of wikis is very controversial to most of the world). The most important principle of a wiki (anyone can edit) is both our greatest strength and our greatest flaw. To change what has worked for us for years because Jagex has not contacted us is ridiculous. As seen here, Jagex are looking for:
  • A friendly, fun, helpful atmosphere
  • Encouragement of constructive discussion
  • Encourages players to get involved with the community (ie, by running events or contests)
  • Encouraging of fair play and following the rules of the game
  • Strong desire to give Jagex constructive feedback on things they don’t like, as well as things they like.
Also stated in that post is that all fansites are different (this means that all have a different system for selecting moderators). If we are doing all that (and I think we are), Jagex may or may not reach out to us. They said that it takes time, and it has only been two weeks since that thread came out. Patience is the key, not unnecessary changes to the fundamental principles of our site. Dtm142 23:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well said DTM. Your words are very well put. To respond, I would offer up my sysop rights be it would benefit the wiki, but that is not what I am aiming for (no, I am not asking for these rights to be removed). I'm simply implying that too much of a good thing can often lead to bad. I also understand that we are significantly different from other sites and that we run things differently. That is what separates them from us, but I also think that we should maintain a strong leadership and offering these rights in turn can have it's negative affects when we so freely hand them out. What I mean by freely is that is doesn't take much to get these. A new user with limited knowledge can gain a consensus from supports of users who have been here less then one week that weigh as much as the opposes from users who have been here for months. I know AEAE, but in reality our rfa system is still rather flawed. And, like I said, I am simply looking for opinions, not an immediate change to our RfA system. I was not looking for consensus to make change, just expressing my opinion and was looking for others. Thanks. 03:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good thing. The more Sysops we have, the faster any vandalism gets reverted, the faster problems get solved, vandals get blocked, etc. As we are getting more and more popular, we'll need more and more sysops to keep the Wiki running. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 23:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There are wiki's with 40,000+ articles with less then 10 sysops over it's whole course of existence. They are more then well managed. 23:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do is to allow each contributor to judge RfAs on an individual basis. If they feel that a user should be given sysop tools then by all means, let them support, but if they disagree then let them oppose. That's how we choose our admins, and there's no reason to limit/halt the process. Yes, we have more sysops than a lot of other wikis do, but we also tend to clear up vandalism a hell of a lot faster. Andrew talk 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The more we have the safer we are, no chance of forming cliques and such. Especially keeping in mind they are only a few extra tools, not a position of authority or power. Were it in fact that, I would agree on limiting it. I personally would give it to every editor who has been here for 4 or 5 months, demonstrated maturity, and shown an understanding of our principles and policies. Those are key items in my book. And why we are talking about being contacted by Jagex on this forum is beyond me, I couldn't give a rats pituitary gland if they contact us or not. --Degenret01 03:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as too many admins. Which is not to say that we should sysop everyone, just not put a limit on sysopping those that are suitable. Administrator Hurston (T # C) 07:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If it ain't broke... - I don't believe there is anything wrong with having "too many" admins. I can understand the concern with having too few. So far, in the past several discussions of this nature no one has made a solid point as to why having "too many" admins is a problem. This wiki works, and I think closing off the RfA process would be against RS:AEAE. If an editor wants to get the admin tools, and the community agrees, let them. End of story. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 08:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. More stuff about to many admins. I am with Hurston, no such thing as to many admins. It won't hurt anyone, to have lots of admins.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as admins are given their tools by community consensus once they're trusted, having more can do no harm. A few times I've seen the CVU templates have 2-3 for awhile. This hints that there's too few admins to sort it out. Plus you can't have too many admins if/when the vandal bots come a'calling. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are lots of vandals at one particular time this is common, but it's safe to say that it is handle very accordingly and promptly. A majority of the time Sysops have already blocked the users in the CVU. They have just not cleared the list. I'd say perhaps 5 times this week I have been on the CVU to block some users that have already been blocked hours ago. Perhaps the issue you should address is that our current sysops just need to check the CVU to ensure the user they are blocking is not mentioned on it and if it is to simply remove it from the list.
Bonziiznob Talk

12:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that way may well be the case. However my point still stands: having more admins does no harm. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There are wiki's with 40,000+ articles with less then 10 sysops over it's whole course of existence. They are more then well managed.

I might comment here that their communities are, as a whole, different for two primary reasons: 1, their communities are considerably more mature than that of the RuneScape community, and 2, they're a lot less likely to be a target for spam than something RuneScape related (for a period of about two weeks, I'm told that RuneScape was the most vandalised article on Wikipedia). JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 19:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion: The more the better. ço¬Ø

I oppose this proposal.

Having too many admins is not a problem, and I don't see how limiting the number of admins will benefit the wiki in any way. As I said on Gaz Lloyd's RfA, we do not have a server limit, memory issues, or anything similar which would limit the number of admins; any user that is trustworthy enough can be given admin tools. Having many admins shows that we have a very trustworthy and strong community.

I remember this became an issue a while ago on Chiafriend's RfB, where Chia was strongly criticized by the community for having the belief that there could be "too many admins". As Endasil said, "...it seems like Chia is only in pursuit of fame or notoriety. It explains why he voted down almost all RFA's after his own on the basis of "there being too many admins", even when the community told him many, many times that there really can't be too many sysops.: It always seemed like he was trying to keep sysop a special role because he was one". By limiting the number of admins, it becomes a status symbol, which is not what we want.

The only issue I could see with having many admins is not having enough room on the clan chat for the rankings, but that is a very minor issue. If that is the case, corporals and seregants can lose their spots, and inactive admins can be removed from their ranks. Even if that doesn't work, the clan chat rank is a very small part of becoming an admin and is not a big deal.

If eighty admins jump at one vandal on the CVU, great. If eighty admins try to rollback one edit, great. That edit is sure to get rollbacked. While our vandalism-protecting record is stellar, nothing is 100% perfect. Therefore, in my opinion, we can always get better. Having many sysops will help us strive for that 100% goal and make sure that the RuneScape Wiki stays in good quality for all to read. Butterman62 (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dtm, D4K, Degenret, and everyone else who has opposed. As Tollerach said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  21:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Dtm's 1st comment. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 21:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Hehe, reading Butterman's speech convinced me. I don't think we should be too eager in sysopping every single user who seems trustworthy, though.  Tien  12:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, why thank you. :P But why not sysop every user who's trustworthy? I don't see a reason not to. Butterman62 (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per all. There's no point in discontinuing RS:RFA if we don't need to. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 11:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per all. I feel that the more the better for admins, it will mean faster blocking of vandals and more help to users. ~MuzTalk 22:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment/adding to oppose - this was a picture that I took from a few days ago while looking at the recent changes.

rswiki-recentchanges3.png

Apparently, I was the only active admin at the time (I don't know if any were just lurking or not, but there were no admin edits or anything). If anything, that signals we need more admins, not fewer. Butterman62 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That was a period of less then 30 minutes... 14:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a period of 30 minutes too many then. We should have 0 minutes where only one person is watching. If we don't, we need more admins, simple as that. Butterman62 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - If anything, we should be removing inactive sysops, rather than preventing perfectly good contributors from becoming sysops. Sysop is not a rank. All it means is that someone is trusted with a few extra buttons. The more sysops we have, the better: it means more people are trusted. Supertech1 TCE 00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think that we may remove incative sysops, also like as above "more the better" that would help with sysop population. -- Defence Waterkunai1 Talk # fluffy bunniesArmadyl symbol.png 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Being an admin is no big deal, it mostly just gives greater powers to edit more effectively. If everyone who has those privileges is using them responsibly, I don't see any reason to inhibit the ability of future editors to gain them based on their own merits. Otherwise we run the risk of there being a kind of "clique" of long-standing editors with all the privileges. Making a policy against allowing new editors to enjoy the same opportunity to become admins would be a step backwards - after all, all editors are equal.  :-) Now if it is the case that people are being given admin rights too easily then that is a different issue, and if there are individuals who are not using their rights responsibly then they should be revoked. But if we can get more trusted people with these extra powers then that's a good thing. And as for changing the way we do things in the hope that Jagex will elect to endorse our fansite... that's a bad thing. But I have already stated my position on this issue.  :-p Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see how limiting the number of sysops would help in any way when you consider how often this site gets vandalized and I haven't seen any arguments that would make me think limits would have any positive affects. Inactivating sysops after a period of time to keep the books clean is another thing, but limiting active ones I'm opposed to. Vadanea 06:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Even as i post this, the CVU has 5 vandals that have yet to be blocked, and there was sevral acts of vandalism from 10 minuets ago that had yet to be reverted. if anything we need more admins. --File:Red phat chathead.png‎|30px|My hair is ftw ^.^ Noah Talk to meh here <-You should really talk with me..... 01:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

See here:

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/759/picture1erw.png

I added that picture to speedy-D at 11:03.

Still half hour later, and as of now, it's still there.

Bad thing.

Oppose. --http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3921/thehimmemote.pngGone. 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand the point of these pictures. It's fine you oppose, I'm more neutral towards this now anyways, but still, the picture shows nothing. Hurston here is active meaning we do have an admin present, and that's not to say there are admins that are watching, simply not contributing. Anywho... 22:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. --How can we ever have to many? After all "Becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*". So I feel the same, any trusted user whos been awhile for a while should be able to become an admin, so why would we want to limit admins.-- Woodcutting Talk! Quest! Timchoff Sign! Edit #Hunter 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for closure - There are no persuasive arguments from the affirmative side (the side who want RfA discontinued) and the majority is in favour of leaving things the way they are. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  06:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Yes, please do close. I really rather not see a topic of this nature again, at least not for several months. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 06:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Closed - as requested.   az talk   07:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)