Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grandmasterka/Admin backlog contest

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep - consensus is, I think, abundantly clear. --Xdamr^talk 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is proposing a "contest" which may, if held, encourage overly reckless administrative actions. It is therefore disruptive. When concerns about this were raised on the talk page by at least two editors, the page creator seemed to think the issue not serious. This needs to be halted now. DES ^(talk) 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep encouraging admins to work at the backlogs does no harm. No one is taking the contest seriously, it's just a bit of lighthearted fun. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep nothing wrong with this idea. -- Nick ^t 00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, looks fine to me.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 00:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This isn't the way to do it. I don't think the idea is problematic, but even if it were, asking outsiders to declare the project moot is not going to solve the underlying issue. YechielMan 01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I just edited it a little while ago to try and help address the concerns, and I responded to your criticisms on the talk page. You're welcome to disagree with it of course, but there are a number of people who seem to think this isn't too bad of an idea (more than I expected.) Grandmasterka 01:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Your response to my comments on the talk page was, "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." Do you really feel that this addressed the concerns? I see a fair number of over-hasty deletions already, and I fear this would only cause more such. Multiple editors raise this concern, and it seemed to me that you dismissed it. That sounds like it will wind up being disruptive to me, although I presume unintentionally. DES ^(talk) 01:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You and Amarkov were worried that DRV would get backlogged, that new editors wouldn't know what to do if their page got deleted, and that this would lead to more indiscrimiate backlog clearing. I responded to all three of those concerns with my honest opinion, and wrote a section on the main page to try and address them. What more do you want me to do? I wasn't "dismissing" them, I took them to heart and and responded to them both on the talk page and on the actual proposal. Grandmasterka 01:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Errm... I only see one editor here, and thats the nominator ;) Am I missing something :D If so please point me in the right direction. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • See User talk:Grandmasterka/Admin backlog contest for what started this. Grandmasterka 02:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, ok :) Sorry about that DES. Interesting idea :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Not quite. i was worried that thsi would cause rushed actionms, and particuarlly invalid deletions. I stated that if held, i would feel obliged to patrol the delte logs durign that time, expecting to reverse many improper deeltions, and that doing so would backlog DRV, so there would eb no gain, but my real concern was and is the improperly rushed actiosn i fear this would encourage. If no one else thinks this is a serious concern, then perhaps I am mistaken. DES ^(talk) 12:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • You could always propose that improperly rushed actions or improper deletions or deletions where the newbie isn't notified are deducted 1,000 points. No, make it a meelion points. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 12:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and edit. Good idea. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 11:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not convinced that this idea will be practical, but it existed for 18 hours before being nominated for deletion. Work with it, wikify it, see what ideas and problems it turns up. Proposed deletion is premature. Not only that, if it doesn't work, then leave it as a record of why it doesn't work to assist with future project improvements. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 11:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice This page causes fun, which obviously cannot exist on Wikipedia! Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and suggest that each person who !votes keep in this discussion be given 10 points, while each delete !voter loses 20. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Seraphimblade. Cool, my first 10 points. Garion96 (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a (semi-)legitimate discussion about how we can help clear out the numerous administrative backlogs. I don't see how that's problematic. Even if it doesn't go through, we're at least exploring options. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Why has MfD become "KILL THE BAD PROPOSAL"? -Amarkov moo! 04:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep: A) I didn't realize that we became thought police. B) Backlogs are problematic. This is a creative fix for them. C) How does this encourage bad admin decisions? Admins are trusted to make proper decisions regardless of whatever Grandmasterka does. If we don't, we get desysopped. Whaddya know, the system works! ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although this idea seems reasonable, even if it were a bad idea MfD wouldn't be the place to get rid of it; its talk page and {{rejected}} would make sense if it were a proposed guideline, or in this case, where it's just a userspace idea, just discussing it on the talk page makes the most sense. --ais523 12:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. With respect, DESiegel, your view is very pessimistic. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 13:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep we have too much backlog, and this is the solution offered. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 02:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Close Can someone snowball this? Pretty obvious it'll won't get deleted at this time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, although I strongly encourage removing the block section as that may encourage unnecessary blocking. Those areas rarely have backlogs anyway. -- tariqabjotu 07:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah... didn't see the negative points. I'll at least remove the strongly. Many blocks go unchecked so that could still be a problem. -- tariqabjotu 07:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I really don't see how this could possibly make an admin start blocking left and right; it's targeted at the semi-frequent backlogs on WP:AIV (where do you get the impression that it is rarely backlogged?). Really, have a bit more faith in us poor admins. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.