Proposal talk:Require x amount of admins for a decision
"Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users?".
Interesting proposal but getting 3 admins to agree on anything is like getting 3 economists to agree on anything, not something which happens very often. The present dirigiste system, while er dirigiste, does seem to work remarkably well, even considering that I somehow became an admin somewhere back in the Dark Ages. Most pages which get speedied are almost inevitably pages which are pure junk or worse, and a house-trained admin (most appear to be) will refer anything else to AfD. Personally I spend more time trying to get stuff taken off AfD than put on it.:) Impact on admins will be more bureaucracy creep, impact on end users is that there will be more crud floating around while a quorum is being established to rectify it.Sjc 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Getting three admins to agree that an attack page was an attack page wouldn't be difficult, but it would be time consuming, and I don't see anything in this proposal to justify having cyber-bullying stay on Wikipedia any longer than it does. Also at least on EN wiki we have a declining number of admins, and the community seems unwilling to appoint as many as we are losing; so we need to use our admins time efficiently and not fritter it away in triplicate bureaucracy. WereSpielChequers 09:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The last thing we need is more bureaucracy and instruction creep. Parsecboy 20:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The impact of this proposal to the End User is:Unknown, to be discussed..
The level of discussion of this proposal is: Unknown