Wikipedia talk:Admin backlog contest
|
This page was nominated for deletion on 01 May 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Let me bring up the obvious concern...
Backlogs can not just be blasted through indiscriminately. Making a contest only encourages that, and minus points for invalid actions doesn't work, because that doesn't count the articles made by newbies who do not know how to complain.
...and yes, I KNOW I'm not an admin, but I do look at the backlogs. -Amarkov moo! 04:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Amarkov. If you do this, i will expect to patrol deltion logs that week, and overturn any dubious deletions, listign them all on DRV, thus increasing backlogs. DES (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'd rather have a backlog at DRV than a backlog in 10 other places like we do now. That would be a sign of a healthy and productive community I think. Also, the deletions don't have to be overturned at DRV to count against whoever deleted it. I don't see indiscriminate backlog clearing being significantly more of a problem with this than it is normally. Grandmasterka 20:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see. If you aren't concerned about this, at all, this idea is more dangerous than I thoughtWP:MFD here we come. DES (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'd rather have a backlog at DRV than a backlog in 10 other places like we do now. That would be a sign of a healthy and productive community I think. Also, the deletions don't have to be overturned at DRV to count against whoever deleted it. I don't see indiscriminate backlog clearing being significantly more of a problem with this than it is normally. Grandmasterka 20:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I already see a lot of over-hasty use of the delete button, often apparently motivated by the desire to clean out "backlogs". I fear that if this has any effect at all, it will only make that worse. Unless some caution is included here, i think this would be only to likely to encourge bad deletions. What, if anything, wouild you do to try to counter this effect? Wouldn't you agree that anything that encourages bad deletions is disruptive? DES (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
That seems like an amazing failure to assume good faith DESiegel, as well as a bit of a WP:POINT. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Rogue
How many points for rogue actions that are later endorsed? John Reaves (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- M, of course. -Amarkov moo! 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- "M"? Aww, I don't get it. John Reaves (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Q would be funnier, but I don't like ducks. -Amarkov moo! 05:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think you should get
points. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think you should get
- Q would be funnier, but I don't like ducks. -Amarkov moo! 05:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- "M"? Aww, I don't get it. John Reaves (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Link?
Can you link the WT:RFA discussion you mention twice? Curious. Chick Bowen 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try and find it... Grandmasterka 05:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Found it! See NoSeptember's final comment in that discussion. That inspired this. Grandmasterka 05:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Indeed, very interesting. Obviously I'm well aware I'm not keeping up my end, but the top-heaviness of that list bears thinking about. Chick Bowen 06:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Found it! See NoSeptember's final comment in that discussion. That inspired this. Grandmasterka 05:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Added One
Getting a speedy deletion overturned is even worse, so I added it :-P ^demon[omg plz] 05:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all...
What about page protections?
- Also, this might have a side effect of Wikipedia:Adminitis. It would be annoying to count the admin log, and even more annoying to count the declined requests that are dealt with, and even more annoying to haggle about DRV cases when the admin says he was judging consensus, etc. etc. So this will never fly in practice. What might fly, though, is to focus efforts on a particular backlog. Thus, image backlogs are a notorious problem, so one week could be "image backlog week", another "uncategorized pages backlog week" (non-admin work that I do, but whatever) and so on. YechielMan 07:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Great ideas. I haven't gotten around to adding page protections, you're welcome to add them yourself if you like. I'll dream up some more tomorrow perhaps... Grandmasterka 07:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, I love the idea (I think we're mature enough to not blast through everything, so I have no concerns about that). I do think something is missing, though: non-destructive backlog clearing. I've added missing licensing tags to images that I could have just deleted instead.[1] Considering the time it can take to do this (much longer than just deleting), 5 to 10 points sounds fair. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kopi_av_CSI_NY.PNG&diff=prev&oldid=127031962){kind=link}
Non-admins
I like the idea in principle, though it will be difficult to recall when a block was listed on WP:AIV (esp. while it was backlogged), or when an image was overdue for deletion. Whenever I go through CSD I find that many many items are listed inappropriately and need to be dealt with through other means than admin tools - eg. either article expansion or editing, or adding a {{logo}} or {{screenshot}} tag, or even notifying the uploader. This is stuff that non-admins should be doing, and they should also be rewarded for it, perhaps separately. -- zzuuzz(talk) 12:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- A contest for non-admin actions is a good idea too. And for admins, we should honor individual categories of action (especially the more neglected ones like image deletions) as well as identifying the overall multi-category champ. NoSeptember 19:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Another fantastic idea. I don't have time to write such a thing but I certainly endorse it. Grandmasterka 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)