User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Requirements for RFA

Six months? (Archive 3)[edit]

it is recommended that you wait until you have been a user for six months with a good number of edits.

6 months is a bit long isn't it? I was a sysop after 45 days... Evercat 23:51, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Number of edits more important, says Jiang[edit]

Maybe it's more important to specify number of edits. 2000? 3000? --Jiang | Talk 23:53, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There goes my sysophood... Κσυπ Cyp 00:22, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Then off with your head! You need to get addicted like the rest of us. --Jiang | Talk 00:26, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can I count the 500 or so edits I've done to the MediaWiki strings on cy.wikipedia in the last week or so, just to keep my count up? :) -- Arwel 01:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd prefer a time-based limit than an edit number based one. It's very easy to make a couple of thousand minor edits whereas a time limit can't be faked in such a way. Angela . 01:17, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

True. However, if you move pages, sometimes you travel back in time due to a bug. Maximus Rex 01:19, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How about a time limit and an edit limit? and or or? --Jiang | Talk 01:23, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cyan proposes case-by-case evaluation[edit]

Why have a policy about that at all? We're all capable of deciding if an individual editor has our trust, and expressing our confidence (or lack thereof). -- Cyan 02:03, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Guideline, not policy says Angela[edit]

I think it's more about having a guideline for when new people should be nominating themselves so they don't end up too disappointed when they don't get it. Angela . 02:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ah, good point. That should have been obvious. -- Cyan 03:47, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think the present system is OK. If people nominate themselves they do know they run the risk of not being supported. The boldface 6 months notice is ok, as it is clear from the context that it is just orientative, and also from the context one should infer that a bunch of minor edits is not relevant... Personally I found the introduction of the page quite enlightening. My 2c. Pfortuny 08:42, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We need to set a clear guideline whereby experienced contributors are not discouraged from applying by the possibility that they may be rejected for lack of experience. Minor edits are not necessarily a bad thing - people who fix typos can do the housekeeping work that makes them useful sysops. --Jiang | Talk 08:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, yes, the bunch of minor edits referred to someone just "making enough edits to become a sysop". I think experienced contributors, if they are really experienced and contributors, they need not fear rejection: in theory, sysops should be no more than experienced contributors (am I wrong?) only that their status is "recognized". Time and practice, that's all, isn't it? Pfortuny 09:01, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like the current system. It seems as if it works well, and it should probably stay the same. Greenmountainboy 13:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Some users who don't edit very much will probably need to be around for six months before they can be made sysops, some users who edit a great deal will probably only need to be around for a few weeks (I edited for about four months before being sysopped, and I've recommended several users to sysopdom who've edited for a shorter time than that). Similarly, people who mainly make major, high quality edits will need to make relatively fewer edits than those who mainly correct spelling mistakes and argue about POV on talk pages. What matters is that a user is trusted to not abuse their sysop powers - the amount of time and number of edits required for someone to gain that trust will vary greatly from user to user. There's no need (or point) in putting a number on it. I therefore edited the page to get rid of the "six month" requirement (though I see that in the time it's taken me to write this, Wik has put it back in again...). --Camembert 02:32, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Criteria (Archive 4)[edit]

Being a sysop is more about being a trusted member of the community rather than about how many edits you've made, and you can't expect to have gained this in less than a week. People need to see how you handle various situations, etc. --Angela, quoted (and seconded) by Uncle Ed 22:26, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One of those situations clearly being "how do you act when you don't get your own way". Which this would appear to be. -- Finlay McWalter 23:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thats a very good idea. Green Mountain 23:21, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I got sysop status after only a bit more than a month and maybe 300/400 edits, but most of the edits were useful instead of "added a period" or "spelling correction".

I'm not Attacking anyone who does that, but 300 minor edits is a whole different thing than 300 full-paragraph (or at least fact) additions...

--Ilyanep 16:38, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Polls on adminship requirements (Archive 14)[edit]

Poll 1[edit]

Polls #1 - How long is should an admin candidate have been here before applying, minimally?

<3 months

Meelar 02:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

3-4 months

→Raul654 02:13, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
Wik 02:14, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
Dori | Talk 02:20, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:28, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
Jia ng 02:31, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Menchi 02:36, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Metasquares 02:49, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC). 3 months for a nomination. Not a terribly long time to wait for an actual contributor, but enough to discourage sock-puppets. I'd say 4-6 months for a request, because it says something positive about a candidate if a member in good standing can vouch for him or her.
Perl This is probably long enough to discourage sock puppets.
Gives enough time to see how the candidate reacts to situations. Kingturtle 04:30, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Infrogmation 04:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Graham :) 16:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
DropDeadGorgias 20:21, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
Ruhrjung 13:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) - given these months have been "active" months
Tim Starling 05:42, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Optim 19:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

5 months or more

Sam Spade 03:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No strict rule or requirement should be set

Maximus Rex 02:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
RickK 03:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) - should be on a case-by-case basis
SimonP 05:02, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
Fuzheado 06:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC), agree with maximus_rex (3 mo, 1000 edits as guideline, not entitlement)
Isomorphic 07:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) - guidelines, not rules. Entitlement, even unintentionally implied, is bad.
Jake 07:36, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 18:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I think a minimum of 10-12 weeks is usually appropriate, but this can't be a hard and fast rule. A person who edits once on January 1 and then nothing until a flurry of 500 edits in the final week of April hasn't qualified, in my opinion, by May 1.
Anthony DiPierro
Michael Snow 00:09, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ryan_Cable 15:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian - it's the edits that count. 15:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dante Alighieri | Talk - case-by-case basis works for me.

Poll 2[edit]

Polls #2 - Minimally, how many edits should an admin candidate have been here before applying?

Less than 500

Meelar 02:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

500-799

→Raul654 02:13, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:28, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
Tim Starling 05:42, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Optim 19:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

800-1000

Dori | Talk 02:20, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
Menchi 02:36, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More than 1000

Wik 02:14, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
Jia ng 02:31, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Perl
Infrogmation 04:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Graham :) 16:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian 15:33, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More than 2000

Sam Spade 03:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That's only about 20/day for 3 to 4 months. It will give a good idea of howthe user acts and reacts. Kingturtle 04:30, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
DropDeadGorgias 20:21, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

No strict rule or requirement should be set

Maximus Rex 02:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Metasquares 02:49, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC). Edits != Trust
RickK 03:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) case by case
SimonP 05:02, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
Fuzheado 06:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC), agree with maximus_rex (3 mo, 1000 edits as guideline, not entitlement)
Isomorphic 07:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) - guidelines, not rules. Entitlement, even unintentionally implied, is bad.
Jake 07:36, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 18:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) - again, I don't think we can set a clear rule. 300 high-quality edits to potentially contentious pages may be enough. 600 edits that are either typo fixes or comments on talk pages may not be enough. General guideline of 500 is wise, I think, but nothing beyond that. And 2000 is insane -- many admins, myself included, still do not have 2000.
Anthony DiPierro
Ruhrjung 13:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I don't care about the number, I care about the behavior.
Michael Snow 00:09, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ryan_Cable 15:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There should be no incentive to have unnecessarily many edits.Peak 05:22, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:23, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) - as stated above, case-by-case basis

Poll 3[edit]

Polls #3 - Which combination of requirements?

#1 only

#2 only

#1 and #2

Dori | Talk 02:20, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:28, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 02:30, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
Jia ng 02:31, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wik 02:34, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
Menchi 02:36, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Perl 03:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sam Spade 03:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Infrogmation 04:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Graham :) 16:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
DropDeadGorgias 20:21, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
Ruhrjung 13:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Tim Starling 05:42, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Optim 19:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

neither one

Maximus Rex 02:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
RickK 03:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
SimonP 05:02, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
Fuzheado 06:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC), agree with maximus_rex (3 mo, 1000 edits as guideline, not entitlement)
Isomorphic 07:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) - guidelines, not rules. Entitlement, even unintentionally implied, is bad.
Jake 07:36, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 18:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) Again, general guidelines, not requirements. It's working.
Anthony DiPierro 03:42, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow 00:09, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ryan_Cable 15:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Merovingian 15:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I want to clarify my reasoning for my votes. I feel that being a contributor at wikipedia for a length of time (several months) and making a lot of edits (a thousand or so) are necessary to judge whether someone should be an admin. However, I feel that binding rules or requirements are not good for two reasons. 1)It is unnecessary to make it a requirement (too many rules is a bad thing) 2) It creates a false sense of entitlement once someone has passed the "requirement". Maximus Rex 02:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I favor the requirements, but I totally agree that there should be no sense of entitlement of any user after fullfilling them. There are additional considerations, such as the reliability in editing and abilities to get along with others that IMO should be weighed for potential admins. -- Infrogmation 04:52, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow... my comment provoked a lot of discussion, but not at all along the lines I was thinking. I don't see any strong reason for having strict policy on how long people have to be here and how many edits they have to make before becoming an admin. More specific suggestions, perhaps, but not strict guidelines. I worry that it will create the feeling that someone who meets the requirements and doesn't make admin is being snubbed.

Furthermore, I disagree with Camembert's comment that eliminating self-nominations "wouldn't make any difference." I think it'd be easier on UserX to have UserY explain privately to them that they should wait and ask later, and why, than it is for UserXto nominate themselves and watch the "no" votes roll in. It's not such a public drubbing. And if UserX is the sort who will go pester others, then someone can nominate them to shut them up, and let them see for themselves. So some unqualified people still make it to the vote, but you cut twice - once when some people don't even bother looking for someone to nominate them, and again when some of them accept the explanation given them for why they should wait.

I'm not just talking about people who are unqualified because they're too new. I think having to ask someone to nominate you is a chance to find out about likely objections, before they become a community discussion. It also seems that when someone is nominated, people don't like voting against them unless there's a specific reason. I'd prefer having the extra step of needing a nomination, even if it doesn't end up doing much.

I can't think of any advantage to allowing self-nomination. Dropping a note on someone's talk page asking to be nominated takes no effort. The disadvantage is that it means some decisions are made by poll that could be settled in private discussion. This is true regardless of the outcome of the above poll, and I would like to reiterate my initial suggestion - no self-nominations. Isomorphic 07:25, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I self-nominated (and was made an admin) 2 months and a week into my time here, with about 500 edits under my belt. I think my position can easily be extrapolated from that. -- Jake 07:36, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)

In a similar boat: I was nominated by someone else (with no request to do so from me) after I'd been here about 6-7 weeks with around 300 edits to my name. Not that I think that should be the way we do things, but I feel like the community did make the right decision in promoting me (admittedly, we did wait 2-3 weeks and 100-200 more edits before I was promoted). Jwrosenzweig 19:04, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To promote or not

"a known and trusted member of the community"

That is the standard I have always used in the 2+ years I've been promoting users to admin. If someone is supported by less than 50% of those offering a comment, I do not consider that to show much "trust", even if I myself support them! Remember, I seconded 172's nomination of BL. --Uncle Ed 20:06, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Minimum qualifications (Archive 17)[edit]

I sense that there has been a creeping upwards of what is considered the minimum length of involvement and minimum number of edits to qualify someone for adminship, at least on the part of some voters. This trend started a year ago when the nomination process moved here from the mailing list and has continued over the last twelve months. I do not believe this is in the best interests of the project for these reasons:

Generally, the more admins, the better; particularly if we ever do receive a rapid influx of new contributors
Promoting people early limits the sense of elitism that may otherwise develop
A culture of granting adminship widely and soon would help us in the future if we should feel the need to make features admin-only
A numeric count of edits is misleading. Some activities, such as fixing broken redirects or typos, allow contributors to rack up edits rapidly, while fact-checking, careful research, and addition of new, well-referenced material do not.

I believe that adminship should be granted, or not, primarily based on understanding of the Wikipedia way of doing things and a willingness to work collaboratively. A history of contributions is important, yes, but I am concerned when I see a "no" vote solely because someone has "only 800" contributions. UninvitedCompany 17:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I had 500 edits or so when made an admin, and no one raised the issue at all. I think that under 200 edits or so does leave you too short, and that under 8 weeks does make it hard to be sure about a person's temper/reaction to disagreement, etc., but beyond that I don't understand. Some editors I respect very much say repeatedly (and apparently seriously) that one needs in excess of 2000 edits to be an admin. I have to say I disagree, and wonder where this new perspective came from? Jwrosenzweig 17:43, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree. The guidlines reccommend that a nominee be a trusted member of the Wikipedia community. This shouldn't mean they have to have worked 3 hours a day plus for 8 months. I would suggest that if the community feels a user is ready and trustworthy, and like Jwrosenzweig said, been around for more than 8 weeks with 200+ edits, there is no reason they shouldn't be made an admin. LUDRAMAN | T 19:18, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this is related to people realising how difficult it is to desysop someone once they become an admin. Adminship is practically a permanent position, which may be a problem. If someone has only been here a few weeks, there is no real way of knowing that they can be trusted. If I could vote "support" but then in a few months time change that vote, then I would be far more likely to support the applications of very new users, but the current system means that once someone is in, they are basically a sysop forever, even if they turn out to be untrustworthy. This makes the principle of first trust a dangerous thing to rely on when it comes to supporting requests for adminship. Perhaps people would lower their requirements for nominations if something like the confirmation of sysophood became compulsory. If decisions could be more easily reversed at a later date, there might be no need to wait for someone to have been here three months/ got 1000 edits etc. Angela . 22:41, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right. When someone says in their support vote "so what if he's new, he hasn't done anything wrong, give him a chance" it makes me very wary. Desysopping is so rare that it has become this huge deal and a huge insult that causes the contributor to leave the project. If desysopping were made less of a big deal and a more common action, I would support more newish users. moink 23:28, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My self-request for adminship was approved by a vote of 4-0. Damn - I guess those days are long gone... →Raul654 23:35, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with "the more admins, the better". I can think of only a few benefits from having lots of admins. Faster speedy deletions, which isn't really that big of a deal. More people able to easily see deleted articles to check for abuse, which is a power that every logged in user should have (or at least everyone in some category between admin and editor). And more people with the ability to easily revert vandalism, another power every logged in user should have. anthony (see warning)

There are those, but I think the major reason more admins is better is more about diversity of admins. The more of us there are, the harder it is to get us to agree on any point except the protection of Wikipedia. And that way we can't really behave like a junta or a cabal or whatever it is we're so often accused of being. We can't use our collective additional power (small as it is per each individual) to freeze out a less common POV. I'm not sure whether or not this works, but that's the idea. moink 00:05, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It could work that way, but the way things work, with it mostly being admins voting on whether or not to include new admins, really what it's doing is making the "junta" or "cabal" (not my words either) even stronger, because any diversity which exists is quickly drown out by the replenishment of admins who fit in with the supermajority. It's not like a single admin who disagrees with most other admins really can do very much. I don't know though. I think the more important questions are what powers do admins have and how are they expected to use those powers (only upon consensus support, 2/3, however they see fit, 51% of admin support?). Personally I feel admins should only act upon the consensus of the community, in which case they are really just acting administratively and their POV is irrelevant (note that acting upon consensus doesn't preclude being bold until someone stands up and objects). I guess this isn't really the reality though, and maybe I should just accept that. anthony (see warning) 00:29, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Criteria (Archive 17)[edit]

I have written a summary of the criteria I use for supporting nominations. Prospective nominators and nominees may find it helpful, and they and other may wish to comment on it on the related talk page. UninvitedCompany 18:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Proposed timelag between nominations (Archive 19)[edit]

I would like to propose a one month time interval between nominations of the same person. I.e. if a person is nominated for adminship and fails to gain adminship there should be a wait of one month before they can be nominated by anyone again.Any nominations within that month long waiting period can be removed straight away without waiting for a vote. What do people think? theresa knott 10:57, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It seems to me that if a candidate cannot muster enough support in a one-week period, he/she is very unlikely to do so the next week either, or the next. A one-month interval should be regarded as a bare minimum. I say this because it seems to me that no candidate ever gets rejected, unless there are serious concerns about his/her suitability. Giving one month's space for reconsideration seems very generous to the rejected candidate. I don't see how anybody could object.David Cannon 11:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Another point: There will always be problem candidates, who are out to waste everybody's time. Someone, whose user name I've forgotten :-(, brought up the issue about a month ago. He/she pointed out that a problem candidate could be rejected, then immediately force another vote. We again vote no, so he calls another vote. We vote no yet again - and then find ourselves faced with yet another time-wasting voting exercise. How long should that be allowed to go on for? I think your proposed one-month moratorium is an effective way of dealing with such trolls. David Cannon 11:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Theresa. One month sounds good. About the repeated case described by David Cannon: I am sure we could vote to ban such users from adminship for longer periods if necessary. But I haven't seen such a case yet, and lets hope there won't (wasn't) be one -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good - David Gerard 23:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The AC could easily decree a longer ban for particlular users. I chose I month for all users so as to minimally inconvenience non troll nominations (Sometimes people object because of "not enough experience") I too can't see how anyone could possible object, so I intend to be bold and and add the phrase to the page once a certain nomination has run it's course, unless there are any objections in the meantime. theresa knott 23:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. Neutrality 00:28, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Do we actually need a rule on this? Renominations within the same month happen so rarely, it seems rather pointless to make a rule for it. Angela . 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Poll — Nomination guidelines and self-nomination (Archive 19)[edit]

It is understood in all the below questions that a nomination posted contrary to these rules can be summarily removed by anyone. In all cases time would be counted from the withdrawal or end of the first nomination and the posting of the next. Poll will be evaluated in one week (2004 July 18)

If this poll is to have any credibility, shouldn't it have been publicized a bit more widely? older≠wiser 16:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So, publicize a bit more widely! It still hsa six days to run. ;=) -- Cecropia | Talk 18:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Q1: Reposting by same nominator after unsuccessful nomination[edit]

If a nomination fails to gain needed support, how much time should intervene before the same nominator can repost the failed nomination?

No rule

Snowspinner 23:41, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) This is not an issue worth policy formation.
David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Common sense. Most people have it.
Michael Snow 18:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) Agree with Snowspinner - I oppose a rulebound and mechanical adminship process. If someone makes a premature renomination, just let it get voted down.
I'm changing this title from "Immediately (no delay)" to "No rule" since it best fits the above votes (and my own). anthony (see warning)
Merovingian✍Talk 15:44, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
This will just encourage people to use sockpuppets to renominate for them. Angela . 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One week

Two weeks

One month

Spectatrix 03:21, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
Cluster 04:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:04, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If a nomination fails, I don't think it should be reposted by the same nominator -- but if we're going to establish a rule for those lacking wisdom, let's say one month. Cribcage 04:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Cribcage (above) and RickK (below) -- should require different nominator; one month is a fine guideline if we're setting one. +sj + 15:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Graham ☺ | Talk 09:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
ALargeElk | Talk 09:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 11:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Warofdreams 13:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd really prefer a longer period, such as 3 months as Acegikmo1 suggests below, but I'd accept 1 month. - UtherSRG 14:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
BCorr|Брайен 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
EddEdmondson 15:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Quadell (talk) 17:04, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) In my own experience, I've had several people vote against my nomination, but say they would be willing to reconsider after a month. This seems a natural period of time.
David Gerard 17:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Tεx τ urε 18:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
theresa knott 18:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Frazzydee 00:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Stormie 02:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
Gauss 21:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[[User:VampWillow|Vamp Willow]] 22:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Timwi 14:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other time period (how long?)

Three weeks. Neutrality 02:42, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
Three months. Acegikmo1 13:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Whatever is reasonable. anthony (see warning)
Two Months. Ilyanep (Talk) 02:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not at all—a different nominator should be required

RickK 21:20, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
Sam [Spade] 00:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Exploding Boy 15:05, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Q2: Reposting by a different nominator after unsuccessful nomination[edit]

If a nomination fails to gain needed support, how much time should intervene before a different nominator can post a new renomination for the same person?

No rule

Snowspinner 23:41, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) This is not an issue worth policy formation.
David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) A different nominator should be allowed to re-post immediately. There may be valid reasons for doing so.
Timwi 14:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow 18:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) See above.
anthony (see warning) (see above)
Merovingian✍Talk 15:44, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Such a rule requires that someone is actually going to keep track of who last nominated someone, and when they did that. Why add additional work like this when there isn't really a problem? Angela . 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One week

Neutrality 02:42, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Two weeks

blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Frazzydee 00:55, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Three weeks

One month

Spectatrix 03:21, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
Cribcage 04:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Graham ☺ | Talk 09:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
ALargeElk | Talk 09:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 11:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Warofdreams 13:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Given the nature of sockpuppets and cabals, it really doesn't matter if it is the same nominator or a different one. See my response above for Q1. - UtherSRG 14:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
BCorr|Брайен 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
UtherSRG is quite right. EddEdmondson 15:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
David Gerard 17:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Tεx τ urε 18:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
theresa knott 18:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Stormie 02:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Uther (but still think 'different nominator' should be required). Until there are restrictions on who can be a nominator, these two options are very similar, and shouldn't have different time-frames for a renom. +sj + 15:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[[User:VampWillow|Vamp Willow]] 22:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Three months

Three months. Acegikmo1 13:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Acegikmo1 -- three months. RickK 21:22, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
Also three months. Sam [Spade] 00:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other time period (how long?)

Q3: Reposting self-nomination[edit]

If a self-nomination fails to gain needed support, how much time before the candidate can self-nominate again?

No rule

Snowspinner 23:41, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) This is not an issue worth policy formation.
David Remahl 23:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Again, a vote to keep the rules concerning adminship and the nomination/vote process simple.
Michael Snow 18:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) See above. Also agree with anthony's statement below.
See above, though with this case I think less leeway should be given to people clearly abusing the system. anthony (see warning)
I agree with Anthony. --Merovingian✍Talk 15:46, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
The amount of time a user leaves before re-nominating themselves can tell you a lot about that person. It's useful to know if someone is so obsessed with adminship that they renominate every couple of weeks. Would the problems with Aplank or Pumpie have been noticed if they hadn't been constantly listing themselves here? Angela . 22:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Two weeks

One month

blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Graham ☺ | Talk 09:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Views on users can change a great deal in a month, especially if the objections were around lack of experience. Warofdreams 13:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
BCorr|Брайен 15:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Quadell (talk) 17:07, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) It seems to me that requiring a different user nominate you (if less than three months have elapsed) will be inviting sock-puppet nominations.
David Gerard 17:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) - I would say "three months", but the pathological will merely use sockpuppets.
theresa knott 18:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Timwi 14:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Three months

Neutrality 02:44, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
Spectatrix 03:22, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
Cluster 04:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Cribcage 04:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
ALargeElk | Talk 09:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 11:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
David Cannon 11:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Acegikmo1 13:35, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
UtherSRG 14:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
EddEdmondson 15:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Tεx τ urε 18:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
GeneralPatton 21:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
RickK 21:22, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
Sam [Spade] 00:54, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Stormie 02:01, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
+sj + 17:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) (if you can't find someone else to nominate you, now may not be the right time to renom yourself)
Ilyanep (Talk) 17:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[[User:VampWillow|Vamp Willow]] 22:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) Has to be longer than nominated by someone else. If they are an otherwise good candidate they will be noted on the first 'visit' and possible get nominated anyway

Other time period (how long?)

Never—one self nomination per editor

Standards for adminship (too low?) (Archive 23)[edit]

I'm new to the process of voting for adminship. I actually just noticed that any user can vote. I thought it was only users who were already admins who could vote on a nomination. After going through the process myself (for a few days) I would like to help decide who becomes an admin, but the process/idea seems to be flawed in my mind.

In my time on Wikipedia, I have seen some very heated debate on talk pages, VfD and the mailing list. Some of the debate really didn't come off as very responsible or friendly and I came to notice that some of the people engaging in these debates were admins. It may have started out with adminship being "no big deal", but that's not how I am viewing it.

Admins are supposed to be considered the trusted faces of Wikipedia and yet I have seen banning wars between admins numerous times. Admins ban their enemies and unban their friends. As a common user, I have to say that this does not reflect well on the community as a whole. Even if adminship should be no big deal, new users see admin and think "power" or "leadership". From some of the arguments I have seen, it seems like some users should have their adminship revoked and yet this does not happen.

I am not trying to change the process. If that's how the community wants it, that's fine, but that wouldn't be how I want it. I have seen some users answer nominations by saying that the user does not meet their standards (and they have user sub-pages that state their standards). I am trying to form my own standards now and I would like to hear what other users who frequent this area have to say on the matter of admins not living up to the higher standards it appears they should be held to.

I am trying to play more of a role in the community rather than just working on my WikiProject. I have joined the Association of Members' Advocates and now watch other community based pages, but I would like to contibute my input here as well, so any explanations would be helpful.

Skyler 02:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would help if administrators were given a less authoritative name, such as custodians. Part of the problem is that the title (when it appears such as in "An administrator has banned you with this message: 'you suck'") conveys an authority that really shouldn't be assigned liberally. I don't agree with raising standards for access to this particular suite of features however (indeed, lowering them might be wise), as we need more counterbalance and accessibility to the system, not less. Very Verily 01:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I refer you to Wikipedia:Administrators, specifically:

Current Wikipedia policy is to grant [Admin] access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community.

and:

"This should be no big deal," as Jimbo has said.

If anything, adminship standards are too high. {Ανάριον } 07:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Admins ban their enemies and unban their friends

I haven't seen much of this going on at all. But if you have then the way to deal with it is to start a rfc on the admin in question, not to make it more difficult to become an admin.

it seems like some users should have their adminship revoked and yet this does not happen.

The reason it doesn't happen is that most ordinary wikipedians are not prepared to speak up against admin bad behaviour. What needs to happen is for more ordinary people to become active in reviewing admin actions and be prepaired to do something about misdeeds.We have an AC which has the power to deadmin. More people should use it. Again though, making it harder for people to become admins in the first place will not solve this problem. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 07:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No one speaks up because it will gain you enemies and accomplish nothing. Only if one offends a bigwig will one's admin status be in any danger. Very Verily 01:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Personally I haven't seen a lot of problems, but I can assure you that making it harder to add new admins would make the situation you describe worse. Raising the standards widens the gap between admins and other users, making for a more stratified community. Isomorphic 14:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Anarion, Theresa Knott, and Isomorphic. Additionally, it's interesting that you thought that only admins could vote for other admins - what would happen if only current U.S. Senators could vote for new Senators? Talk about a Cabal....

If anything, I believe that people like blankfaze, Netoholic, and others are making admin access into a bigger deal with their standards, and others are politicizing adminship and bureaucratship by voting against people because of their not Wiki-related opinions - for example, for being anti-American, as in Grunt's bureaucratship. Andre (talk) 21:16, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Or they could be just trying to make Wikipedia a better place by making sure that admins really are experienced users with the proper experience to know the full range of tools Wikipedia puts at users' disposal and to understand the full set of Wikipedia policies, and the proper judgment to handle disputes. Think about it this way: how long was it before the first real, real dispute you got into at Wikipedia and found out whether you were really prepared to handle it? How many edits was it before you really, really stopped discovering new tricks in editing? When I was a new to Wikipedia, I really appreciated the fact that the admins truly were extremely knowledgeable and nearly all very fair people, good at handling disputes. I'm less sure that's as true nowadays. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 23:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Making adminship harder would discourage people from fighting vandalism, confronting unconstructive editors, and other actions that are necessary for the proper operation of Wikipedia but could gain you some enemies. Gadykozma 00:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favor of the defined policy for administration, and find in general "personal standards" for adminship to be a violation of policy. I for one will never vote against anyone with a reasonable amount of credibility and no specific negative criteria against them, and have found the standard have increased enormously over time, which kind of upsets me. Sarge Baldy 00:30, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that everyone must use the same criteria. Wikipedia policy is not set from above, it is constructed from the individual opinions and actions of editors. I agree with you that many people use standards that are unnecessarilly high, but some disagree and that is their right. Isomorphic 22:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Standards page (Archive 23)[edit]

Please consider expressing your views at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards, a page I've just created for users to set out their views. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 02:38, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

jguk's new admin criterion (Archive 25)[edit]

Just announcing my new admin criterion. The criterion is that the candidate must have helped get an article up to featured article status. Some of the reasoning is on the page I've linked to, but could be developed further, jguk 14:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um... we kind of need more janitors. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you choose not to support (ie. vote neutral or abstain) any candidate that doesn't meet your standards, I don't have a problem with that. However, I strongly disagree if you actually vote to oppose a candidate based on the fact that they haven't developed an article into a FAC. It's especially serious because one oppose vote can cancel out three or four support votes if the level of support must be 70-80%. Carrp | Talk 16:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You might want to make use of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards, where others have documented their criteria. -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Will do, Netoholic. I disagree with Carrp that it's serious in a bad way. I am stating quite clear what criterion I base my vote on and candidates for admin can, if they so choose, look to meet that criterion before becoming candidates. I note my reasons for it on my subpage, and as we have well over 300 admins and one admin per 400-500 users, I think we can afford to be picky, jguk 19:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the policy itself, but I do believe that it would be more appropriate to vote "neutral" rather than "oppose". It's fair to withold your support for any reason, but I don't think it's fair to oppose a candidate due to a personal policy. Carrp | Talk 19:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I will consider it, though I do note that those who have a personal policy of X edits or Y months often do oppose a candidate due to a personal policy. Kind regards, jguk 20:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And those who do so and don't have the now fairly standard 1000 edits/3 months criteria are widely criticized for it. Snowspinner 20:15, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Everyone's bound to have different criteria for support, but I feel a little concerned about this one for the simple reason that -despite becoming an administrator myself with a vote of 44-0 (with one neutral), and having now over 15,000 edits, I have yet to take part in any one featured article. Surely it's far more important to write 100 very good articles than help in a process of getting one to excellent status. Grutness|^hello?

01:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, I must also ask you to reconsider your guidelines. While helping to bring an article up to FA status is a big plus when considering if someone should be an admin or not, it should not be the only consideration, and failing to have done so should not count against candidates if they have otherwise shown that they grok Wikipedia. If you must, I would also encourage you to vote neutral rather than oppose if someone does not meet this guideline. I also have to disagree with your assessment that we have plenty of admins. Notices about various backlogs on WP:AN are new enough that they haven't been archived yet, and my own gut feeling is that we could probably use at least twice as many people with rollback and blocking abilities on RC patrol and vandalism hunting at any given time. - RedWordSmith 02:54, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't even consider being involved in creating an FA to be that big a plus when considering RFA noms, as I'd prefer not to distract heavy content contributors with the 'keys to the janitor's closet'. Despite having been here for over a year, and an admin for about 9 months, I only just recently helped get San Jose, California featured, and others had done all the 'heavy lifting' before I got there--I just worked on addressing the two main objections: 1) 'Too many redlinks', so I knocked out a quick couple dozen stubs, and 2) 'Too many long lists', so some I summarized and moved the detail to a sub-page, one I broke into shorter categorized lists, and one or two I put just enuf words in between the links to turn it into prose. The vast majority of my 15,000+ edits are various 'housekeeping' tasks, including Vfd participation and reverting vandalism (even before I got the 'rollback' link). That's the sort of editors I would most want to see become admins. Also, I think the number of admins is misleading, as not all admins actively do the housekeeping the admin tools facilitate. I also agree with the similar points raised by jpgordon and Alai below, and Grutness, above. And, yes, I think we need more people doing RC and newpages patrol, altho', while having the rollback link is handy on RC, and blocking is good to be able to do on occasion, either can be done by non-admins. Niteowlneils 05:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if I understand it correctly, the bureaucrat creating the administrator has some leeway, no? In that case, a wise bureaucrat would simply look at jguk's vote and disregard it for having no particular relevance to the process. Becoming an admin is not, after all, a popularity contest. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps having helped with a FA should be a criteria in some sort of Wikipedian promotion/award scheme (don't ask me which, now, or what sort of as-yet-non-existent variety, mind you), why should it be connected with becoming a sysop? That's not intended to be a 'reward for performance' per se, and nor do the associated duties require puissance with the ol' purple prose -- rather one needs people prepared to do essentially routine tasks, and one needs to be confidence they're unlikely to abuse the extra 'features' to which they're given access. Alai 03:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Like what, a respective editor's status? That considerations of their merit should be weighted before we ban them from editing? -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As someone who has been involved in a couple of FAs, I'd just like to say that I really fail to see what that has to do woth being a sysop. I'm a 'heavy content editor' in the sense that I work on a smallish number of articles to some depth, which involves a lot of background reading, and end up with little enough time to do janatorial duties, to my shame. Filiocht 12:38, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Tour of the Wikipedia namespace (Archive 25)[edit]

I notice that occasionally there is someone who applies for adminship who is a good editor but has barely touched the Wikipedian namespace. I may be changing my criteria to reject candidates without that experience, but it would be good to give them some pointers to gain familiarity and come back a month later. Is there a page designed to give users a tour of the Wikipedia namespace? I started my own here: User:Rad Racer/Scavenger hunt Rad Racer 13:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added some more - I trust that that is in order. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HELLO (Archive 26)[edit]

Can you please tell me how many votes are necessary to gain adminship, like minimums. Also, what proportion, a simple majority, or a 2/3 majority, etc.

- Marmosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARMOT (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 Jun 2005

It seems to be spelled out at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About RfA. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Conflicts as a sign of potentially good RFAs (Archive 28)[edit]

Should a wikipedian have conflicts ? Are wikipedians and potential administrators obligated to have conflicts?

No. Conflicts are not a sign of potentially good RFAs. If there is no issue to dispute about, there should be no conflicts. In fact I believe , admins should try to generate harmony and cooperativity. However, ... conflicts do seem unavoidable. Normally there are issues which are controversial to others. Absolutely no need for conflicts, they come on their own.--Jondel 02:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Jondel, see below.

Removed from TheCoffee's RfA:

I don't normally vote on users I've had no interaction with but I'd like to comment on the answer to question 3, for this user and for future RfA candidates. I've seen way more than enough potential admins say they want to clean up some backlog on a few pages that have administrative drudgework to do - or that they've done lots of RC patrol. Those are fine and good. But the real mettle of an admin, a respected admin, is one who is willing to get into those confrontational issues. A real backlog is all of the RfCs. How many nasty hairy edit wars could be solved by some levelheaded admins mediating or even arbiting those issues? From now on, I want to see controversy in admin candidates. I want to see that they are willing to go into a situation where they will experience hostility. If one side of a dispute is just plain dumb, I'd like to see a willingness to just go make a decision to edit the article the un-dumb way. If two sides have meaningful issues, I want to see an admin who can present the third way, that uses NPOV, verifiable facts, cites, and presentation to create better articles that all sides can accept.

And to other voters, please look at potential RfA candidates with that view if they have had conflicts! It's too easy to avoid conflicts and everyone is happy and they get voted an admin with 100% approval - but how good will they really be? If a potential RfA candidate says "Yeah, I did jump into lots of fights on articles I didn't care about and the end results is that the articles are better." That is a better admin candidate than a mopboy who got 7000 edits doing stub sorting.

Sorry, TheCoffee, for using your candidacy for writing a manifesto. I didn't mean it to be this long and it's nothing to do with you except that statement on Q3. SchmuckyTheCat 08:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sure all editors who put their time and effort into making this encyclopedia a well-structured and more organized place find the tone of your comment on "mopboys" quite amusing. So, you made a comment on an aleatory RfA. Gee, That's so helpful. I'm sure everybody will listen to you now. --Sn0wflake 02:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's no insult. Count the number of times "mop" appears on the vote page. Sorry if you take offense. SchmuckyTheCat 06:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Conflicts are not a sign of potentially good RFAs. If there is no issue to dispute about, there should be no conflicts. In fact I believe , admins should try to generate harmony , cooperativity, good faith; a 'win-win' situation. However, conflicts do seem unavoidable. 'Don't feel obligated to have conflicts, they just come on their own'. --Jondel 02:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not advocating potential admins go pick a fight - but no matter how polite and good natured an editor is, if they haven't gotten into it with a troll or stubborn vandal they simply haven't been around the block enough to endorse them as an admin. I am advocating that admins should be intervening on highly contentious issues, RfC, RfPP, and 3RR are lists of people begging for that intervention. SchmuckyTheCat 06:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with your statement, Schmucky, I highly suggest you move this to either the Comments section on this RFA or the main RFA talk page, as this can apply to any nomination. Anyway, I agree. I'm tired of seeing the same old answers to that last question (and the first question answers have gotten a bit genetic, as well). I like to see users engage in conflict (though not on purpose). I want to be able to see how smoothly the nominee handled it. It would give us an idea of how he or she would handle a similar situation, in which he or she could protect a page or block someone. Acetic Acid 04:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

That would have been better, agreed, alas it is here now and so to move. SchmuckyTheCat 06:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand that would-be-administrators shouldn't pick a fight. But some people(trolls) seem to get the wrong idea. Back to disputes. I've had horrible encounters with trolls who seems to think that conflicts is the way to become an administrator. It's like an obsessed person who starts the war to get it over with and instead becomes a nuisance to the other party. Wikipedia really should be for people who like to write articles or contribute to the body of knowledge. There are controversies and disputes and it is hard to imagine that they don't exist. It can be minimized though. Some people have left wikipedia because of trolling. I was accused of plagiarism by a controversy-obssessed troll, when the reverse case was true , the guilty websites copied some of the articles I wrote. It took a lot of time and effort to prove the originality of the articles (Languages of the Philippines and Edgar Cayce on Karma). I got the webmasters to email me and state that the articles were copied. If disputes or conflicts had a voice , they would say, 'Don't call us, we'll call you'. But I agree that it is easy to see the mettle of a would-be administrator from the conflict encounters. --Jondel 07:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider having particpated in a conflict a neccesary part of the route to adminship. However, the way a person handles conflict does say a lot about their suitability, so if a person is involved in a conflict and handles him or herself well, that is definitely a plus. I don't really know if a person who, when faced with trolls, unfairness, POV pushers, personal attacks, etc, responds by meekly accepting everything, just for the sake a dodging around conflict, would be an all that good administrator. Administrators need to be a little bit firm. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I think after reading all of these comments, I agree with Sjakkalle the most. Conflict is not necessary, and I think it might me a bit problematic to say the conflict is a necessary step for adminship. However, if a candidate's entire Wikipedia career is changing punctuation, there's not going to be much conflict found in the history. I certainly don't want potential admins going around looking for trouble just to prove to someone that they can handle the responsiblities of being a sysop. Conflict is just a good indicator of a person's level-headedness and ability to deal with disruptive, contraversial. and otherwise troublesome users. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 16:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

If their entire career is changing punctuation they don't need admin tools. We don't need more admins to monitor speedy deletes. We do need more admins willing to negotiate issues on RfC. SchmuckyTheCat 18:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

as of this moment we need more admins on Wikipedia:Copyright problems medation is not one of the things admins are expected to do. However it is useful if an admin has some conflicts on the basis that if they haven't we don't know how they are going to react when they get involved in a conflict as an admin.Geni 21:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

One need not be an admin to get involved on RfC, as there are no admin privileges involved in that process. Similarly for mediation or even arbitration: those processes do not require administrative rights. The only place where administrative rights come into play is when we start talking about deletion, protection, and blocking. Probably the worst backlog we have is on WP:CP, and even there non-admins can help by researching the copyvios and reporting back so that an admin can delete (or not) as necessary. Administrative privilege is either not required or only minimally required for almost all the housekeeping beyond vandalism management. We need to stop acting like having an admin flag is a prerequisite for being helpful on the Wiki, or a requirement to be considered a "community leader". Kelly Martin 21:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Email id (Archive 28)[edit]

About a year back it was mentioned somewhere that candidates should have entered a valid email id. This seems to have disappeared. I think it is imperative that email ids be provided so that a blocked person contact the blocking admin. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

It is possible for blocked users to reply on their talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

But autoblocked users need to be able to contact the blocking admin, who won't know to look on their talk pages. FreplySpang (talk) 14:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, good point - I hadn't thought of that. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think its mentioned somewhere that when you are blocked 'you can contact the blocking admin via email' =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nichalp; actually, I thought it was still a requirement. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I remember RickK refused to enter an e-mail even though he blocked more people than just about anybody else. So either it's not a requirement or nobody enforced it on him. Everyking 14:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not a requirement. However, I think it would be good practice for admins to only engage in blocking if they're willing to have the email function available. --Michael Snow 17:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Actually, more strongly, I would support making it a requirement; adminship is a position of responsibility, and since the full spectrum of admin duties includes responding to users you've blocked I don't think it's too much to ask. If you find yourself not doing much blocking after all the Wikipedia email function won't get used much, anyhow. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree as well. It shouldn't be a requirement for regular editors of course, but for administrators it is generally a good idea. Hall Monitor 23:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes...I've gotten a few e-mails myself about his blocks

. Anyways...I think it's a good idea overall. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently blocked users get tired of e-mailing before they reach "R" on the list, though I do have an active e-mail address listed. I agree that it should be strongly encouraged. — Dan | Talk 23:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need to require it, that'll just lead to people using throwaway accounts they don't check. We should strongly recommend it though.

Also, I think a way for accounts without an email specified and anons to e-mail a specific admin would be useful, but limiting abuse might be tricky. Maybe a setting in your account preferences that specifies whether you want to receive email from users without an e-mail address specified? --fvw * 15:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

User Peer Review (Archive 32)[edit]

Where could I go if I wanted to have a peer review for well, myself? I do not know if I want to become an admin. at this time or ever for that matter. I want to know my weak points so that I may begin to edify them. (Just in case.) Jaberwocky6669 18:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's quite a good idea, I think - there should be a place short of RfA where editors can get general feedback on what they need to do to bring their participation up to admin quality. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not the most traditional usage, but isn't WP:RFC already that place? Nothing prevents an editor from listing themselves and explaining why they want comments. Friday (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

True, but the page claims to be part of the dispute resolution process - just seems awkward. I recall some folks have set up subpages of their user page to invite comments. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That would work too. IMO, the specific wording at RFC is just a result of instruction creep. Perhaps it should say it can be part of dispute resolution. Friday (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know.... Alot of hurtful things could come out of such a process, and I don't think we need another place to attack eachother on wikipedia. If you feel that you are qualified enough for adminship (ie read all qualifications and check that you meet them) and want it, apply for it. If you fit all these you're a shoe-in

- Preferably >1500 edits
- Atleast participation in 3-4 months
- Have atleast around a hundred edits in each the following namespaces Wikipedia:, Talk:, User talk:, and a atleast 500-700 edits in the main article space.
- You have followed WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL religiously
- Haven't made any incorrect speedy taggings
- Haven't made any crazy statements on basic wp-policies ("4-3 is consensus", "3RR is stupid", etc, you get the point)
- Also, it's a big help if you have a featured article and/or have been involved in a horrible dispute which you handled with great care and resolved

If you have all these, you'll be fine :P gkhan 20:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point Gkhan! Ok, well it seems as if I have all of those except for the featured article. I have a number of articles that I have made a lot of edits to that eventually became FAs but not directly because of me. Dont ask me which ones either lol I may remember one or two. Well, I will take it upon myself to nominate myself! Jaberwocky6669 20:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. maybe... Jaberwocky6669 20:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the featured thing isn't that important :P You should know, there is not guarantee even if you pass all these, but there is a definitly a very good chance that you'll pass. gkhan 20:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I would consider a featured article all but irrelevant. I've been an admin for more than a year, and only within the past month was an article featured which I can consider largely my work. — Dan | Talk 20:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, you don't have to have it, but if you do, it's a big plus. gkhan 20:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that getting a featured article is irrelavent. Getting an article featured informs the community that 1) you know how an encyclopedia is written 2) Are aware of referencing needed and copyright status of images and 3) is willing to undergo a really stressful week or two. Its a test of character too, and many newbies crack at this extreme form of peer pressure. I've also noticed that most people who do get a FA are quite successful in their RFA. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Lemme address a couple of those "criteria".

Haven't made any incorrect speedy taggings

We all make mistakes. I've mistakenly speedily deleted things. You gonna pull my admin bit?

Haven't made any crazy statements on basic wp-policies ("4-3 is consensus", "3RR is stupid", etc, you get the point)

I hate 3RR. You gonna pull my admin bit?

Also, it's a big help if you have a featured article and/or have been involved in a horrible dispute which you handled with great care and resolved

How about you've been involved in a horrible dispute which you tried to resolve, but everyone else in it was too insane to do so and now it's in front of the ArbCom? Happened to me, more than once, actually. Kelly Martin 20:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Allright, you got a fair number of good points :P First one, could have been worded better, second one, well maybe a bad example, and third one, that's fine, I just said it's a plus if you can solve a hard conflict by yourself. Doesn't mean that you have to never have been in a bad conflict. gkhan 22:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

To answer the above question in its originality, may I suggest Esperanza?? I'm sure someone will help out there. --216.191.200.1 21:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Esperanza will probably do that. Just mention it on our talk page and I'm sure many of us will get on the case. Tito xd^(?!?) 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

3 Months-->6 months (Archive 36)[edit]

Wow, that's strange. I've always heard it's 3 months to become an admin, why are we capping people for time, and 6 months time at that! Ya know, even if they only were an admin for a month and ran off, we'd still get all that much help. Adminship should be given out liberally, Jimbo himself agrees with this, and I can't say I understand this new 6 month requirement used by some people. If we were to desysop everyone who made it at 3 months, we'd be minus about 250 admins (educated guess!), including myself. I'm not particularly annoyed at the bureaucrat opposition, but opposing people we all know will make great admins just because they haven't been here for such a long time, well, enrages me. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you can vent your rage in placing your vote. Time is important because it lets the community know that a person is not going to burn out or freak out; six months happens to be about the average maximum time that someone with, say, borderline personality disorder, can manage a positive relationship or interaction before breaking down. It's not an unreasonable concern that someone will appear helpful, normal, and in general a good candidate for adminship (even being brand new to wikipedia) and then become horridly destructive soon after. Clearly adminship is not a big deal, but it's a much bigger deal for such a meltdown (or desertion) to happen to an admin than just an editor, and I've seen far, far too many perfectly normal and helpful individuals experience just such a meltdown, particularly online. siafu 23:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Both of the comments are correct. Time is important of course, however, there's no single policy covering the issue neither Rfa's have been consistent dealing with that. Plenty of admins became admins after only a few weeks since their first edit. Cheers -- Svest 23:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Admins after a few weeks? Really? Do you know of any offhand? Carbonite | Talk 14:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I recall a few passing mentions of it happening in the eary days of the project.Geni 14:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I was just confused because the user who said that above has only been here since April 2005. He must be a much better Wiki-historian than I am. ;) Carbonite | Talk 14:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You can, come to think of it, make a good case that a large proportion of people who eventually become admins are as capable after the first month as they are after the first year - the steepest part of the learning curve has been climbed, and the next few months are mostly incremental improvements to their knowledge and "familiarity" with the project (learning names and remembering links, as much as anything). I mean, Redwolf got adminship after not much more than a month of actual activity. Shimgray | talk | 14:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a policy about this instead of everyone making up their own standards? This page says "This should be no big deal," according to Jimmy Wales.' and "Current (de facto) Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. In practice, standards have generally risen." Is there any evidence that people made administrators after 3 months end up turning bad more often than those made later? Tedernst 23:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes but only becuase most admins take a while to "turn bad" and as a result were elected when standards were lower.Geni 14:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

CAN I BE AN ADMINISTRATOR LOOK AT MY EDIT HISTORY I'VE BEEN HERE FOREVER AND A DAY, HELL, ACCORDING TO MY EDIT HISTORY, I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE THE VERY FOUNDING OF AOL AND WIKIPEDIA ITSELF--205.188.116.132 23:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, because your caps lock key is stuck on. the wub "?!" 00:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

(After edit conflict with Svest and Tedernist and the above IP) Are we so paranoid about this? For every one user who does this, there's 100 who don't. We have 6 admins forcibly desysopped (Stevertigo is the 7th), and something like 640 admins total. Plus why even stop at 6 months? Why not make it two years. I'm sure all the best admins have been here at least two years... But sysop abuse is rare, and most of the people respected enough to be nominated for RfA (in a non-trolling way...) will ask when they're not sure about something, otherwise they would have left a long time before three months ;-) I'm gonna cut myself off there before I rant... R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

IS THAT A NO? IT'S NOT MY FAULT I CAN'T TURN OFF MY CAPS LOCK KEY IT WAS JUST ALWAYS LIKE THAT, IS THAT A PROBLEM?--205.188.116.132 00:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible for anonymous IPs to become admins. The MediaWiki software does not support it. So why are you even asking? — JIP | Talk 07:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Red and Wub. It should not be a big deal and of course why not 7 months or 87? -- Svest 00:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

87 months is out as a criterion becuase Wikipedia only started 57 months ago. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It was meant to say that x or y months are not relevant when it comes to adminship! Svest 10:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

The criteria that people wish to establish for themselves to vote on RfAs are of their own making and apply only to their own voting. I see no reason to bludgeon people for their respective stances on voting standards. You're certainly welcome to voice your opposition to their standards, but their standards are not 'wrong' or 'right' by any definition, as neither are yours. --Durin 13:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In general, I do want to see six months of participation before a user becomes an admin, but of course there are always exceptions. I know many users have lower (or no) duration standards, so I highly doubt a candidate would be ever be rejected solely for having been here less than six months. Carbonite | Talk 14:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to nip this in the bud, rapid inflation is bad ;-) And I motion that we deop everyone with under 70,000 edits and 4 years contributing. I guess that leaves Maveric149 as the sole admin, but on the other hand we won't have corrupt sysops to worry about ;-) R e dwolf24 (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

And Carbonite I'm glad you added in there are exceptions. I am alright with you having time problems, but if someone just goes around opposing on such grounds without looking at true merits or allowing exceptions, I will not get along with them. R e dwolf24 (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia gets funnier and funnier. I know of a new sysop who doesn't know the difference between an attention and a cleanup tag. Just 5 months down in Wikipedia, he's been nominated and became a new admin, apparently because he hasn't offended anyone yet. Mandel 20:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I imagine that one thing we expect of admins is that, presented with a situation with which they are unfamiliar, they will ask a more experienced editor for guidance (or find it themselves on the appropriate project page). BD2412 ^talk 06:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia will continue to become more and more complex. It is not reasonable to expect that any administrator candidate understand all aspects of Wikipedia prior to becoming an administrator. Analogy; the United States holds the record as the country with the most laws. It is literally impossible for any one human to know all the laws in the United States, much less practice as a lawyer with respect to all of those laws. The human brain can hold 10¹³ bits of information; that's less than the sum body of law in the U.S. Yet, we don't regard lawyers as incompetent because they don't know all of the law. As Bo noted, what is more important is an administrator's ability to find guidance on issues they are not fully versed. --Durin 15:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

List of things one should do to become admin-worthy? (Archive 44)[edit]

Besides making a thousand or so edits, what other kinds of projects should an aspiring admin work on? Thanks in advance. J.R. Hercules 05:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the Guide to RFA? This covers a fair answer to your question. Also, take a look at past RFAs for more clues. jnothman ^talk 05:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Be around at least 3, and ideally 6 months, show good edits in article space, at least dip your toe in project space, and if you want to be really sure you'll be a good admin, have some good conversations on policy and attitude with a few existing admins. --Improv 05:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, WP:GRFA is a good place to start, but you may want to read the original version of that page—a less politically-correct but more practical and succinct version of the guide. Owen× ☎ 17:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Minimum number of edits (Archive 44)[edit]

Although I am not an admin myself, I do believe there should be a minimum number of edits to become an admin because there are people who just become admin for the heck of it, have their closest friends back them up, and then don't even do their job. This is trashing up the encyclopedia, and needs to be stopped.

The amount of edits I am reasoning is 1000. 1000 edits would be a significant number of months on the encyclopedia and provide experience to how it works and what is acceptable and what is not. To stop potential power abusers, I believe there should also be a "no criminal record" rule. That means those who have vandalised shall never be made an admin for any reason. If that rule doesn't work, there could be an alternative of, say, 6 months of acceptable behaviour.

A minimum number of edits would also be required to participate in admin nominations to stop users from creating sockpuppets to cast votes for themselves. That would also solve the problem of people creating new accounts and voting yes or no on every single election for the purpose of participating.

As a matter of fact, I have been a user for 3 months and I still do not believe I am experienced enough for an admin. It is just sick to let very new and/or rude people cheat their way into jobs that have power over the veterans of the encyclopedia, and either abuse their power or get bored of it and quit. So everyone, vote yes for a minimum number of edits for adminship.

PS. Post comments as needed Link9er 14:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Although vandalism is considered to be a black mark, as is trolling, being a POV warrior, and other forms of problematic behaviour, it is always possible for people to turn around and become upstanding, productive Wikipedians, given time and engagement with the community. Although we should perhaps wait a bit longer when people need to be reformed if they do these kinds of things, I don't think it would be appropriate to close the door forever on their being an admin. I can think of two people in particular who have done some very problematic things during the first few months of being in the community who have since then proven themselves to be good Wikipedians, and who I can see eventually becoming admins should they become interested. I think having hopeful admins become engaged in the culture of the community and initially working closely with existing admins would be a good tradition. --Improv 15:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In practice, nobody with fewer than 750 edits has been made an admin over the last 400 RfAs dating back to June 27th. Among those 400, there were 29 with 750 or fewer edits. All were unsuccessful or withdrawn. In short, we don't need a rule for 500 edits or more to make admin; that's the defacto case already. As for sufferage; bureaucrats make the decision on what are and are not valid votes. It is frequently the case that sockpuppet votes are identified by others long before the bureaucrats close an RfA. Thus, I doubt any change is needed here. --Durin 15:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

- What is the least number of edits that a successful RFA has had (among those 400) ? Tintin Talk 16:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  - 767 for Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NicholasTurnbull. --Durin 17:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a minimum of edits rule is needed. Wikicountedits is overrated: It is not the number, but the quality of the edits that should count.

But I strongly support a "no criminal record" rule. Those that have vandalized and/or were pov-warring and edit-warring should really have 6 months of acceptable behaviour. --Kefalonia 16:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the quality of edits as well, but I believe a minimum of at least 1000 is sensible. Regarding the "no criminal record" rule, I disagree somewhat, because some "injustices" are not sufficent enough to ban someone from adminship. Others are. So that's somewhat varible basis concerning what the actions. For example, take cool Cat. He's clearly reformed, and despite his past behavior, he is clearly one of the best, constructive editors I've had the pleasure of meeting. Even take the fact Davenbelle has been harrassing and sniping him, and Cool Cat (clearly and changed person) just shrugs it off and doesn't let it bother him. That's what its all about. :) In a moment of madness, I may just re-elect him for admin; he clearly deserves it. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

(replying to Kefalonia) In general, if an editor has a history of edit warring or other bad behaviour, it will be brought up and discussed (often at length) during the course of an RFA. If the behaviour is sufficiently inappropriate, the RFA fails. I don't think it's necessary to enshrine such standards in policy; the community seems to do a pretty good job of evaluating the merits of each case already. If we try to create a laundry list of sins for which adminship will be witheld, it will encourage wikilawyering and whining of the form, 'I demand to be sysopped because adminship should be no big deal and I didn't do any of the things on the naughty list'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a stated personal standard of 1000 edits (~2000 for self-noms). I know a lot of other RFA voters have their own standards, and therefore I believe a fixed minimum isn't necessary and contributes to m:instruction creep. --D e ath phoenix 17:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and past "bad behaviour" is also unnecessary because each RFA candidate goes through scrutiny. RFA voters also have their owns standards about bad behaviour. --D e ath phoenix 18:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No doubt they will. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

- Thank you for your comments. -Link9er 18:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Rather than a minimum count (which doesn't necessarily translate to "months on Wikipedia", although it should, I'd much rather see increased granularity of admin/sysop powers be implemented. Adminship may have been no big deal back in the day, but the potential for abuse of some powers is ripe. Others can be handed out at a lower trust threshold. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A fine and excellent idea. It could be similar or akin to semi-protect, in a sense. Allows users that have fullfilled preregcosites and gained community trust over time to slowly gain different administrative abilities until they become a full-fleged one themselves. It would depict how and why they utilize their admin abilities, without any speculation on our part. Perhaps a chat with Lord Jimbo is in order about this. -MegamanZero|Talk 19:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Are admin standards too loose? (Archive 44)[edit]

Recent discussions show admins engaging in wheel wars, admins insisting they are in the right and are entitled to act unilaterally — even when corrected by community consensus —, admins abusing their power, and on and on. I read WP:SIGN every week, and it is telling that there are on average (rough guestimate) about twelve new admins per week. TWELVE? That seems like an awfully fast rate of advancement.

Persons are regularly promoted to admin who have been with Wikipedia less than three months. This has disturbed me for a long time. My edit count was a minor issue in my own WP:RFA; what was hidden by the edit count discussion was the fact that I had been around longer than most of the people involved in voting (and indeed longer than some members of the ArbCom), and what was even more hidden was the extensive amount of Wikipedia reading I do. There aren't any "article read count" features in MediaWiki that I am aware of.

Yet these -- trying to be funny and for lack of a better term -- "whippersnappers" presumed to admonish me in some cases about what I could do to become a better candidate for adminship, etc. Less than three months. It would be overgeneralizing to assume that these same folks are the ones causing the wheel wars and taking other actions showing such clear misunderstandings of Wikipedia. But the fact remains that my personal gut instinct called not for a high edit count but for a 'twelve month track record standard for adminship.

Apparently expecting people to use and edit Wikipedia for at least a year (in general — no hard and fast rules, here) before being given administrator status on one of the top 20 websites on the entire Internet is gallingly over the top for most Wikipedians, whose standards seem to hover around three months, often because many of them were themselves promoted after less than three months. (Or hope to be promoted when they hit that mark...)

Even more important than my time constraint is my attitude criterion: an admin must be someone who has shown a demonstrated commitment to the principles of consensus and NPOV, believing that these will eventually result in a high-quality encyclopedia.

Most admins pass in underwatched RFAs. I'm seriously thinking of becoming a regular in the RFA discussion. I'm seriously thinking of beginning to vote "oppose" in all RFAs where my criterion are not met. I think we need to raise the bar for adminship to calm down some of the rioting that has been happening. "Adminship should be no big deal" — that's not (or at least no longer) an admonishment to hand out adminship to everybody who asks; it's an explanation of why people should not seek it as if it is.

I'm thinking I might do the following: for any RFA, post questions asking for diffs demonstrating the commitment to principles that I am looking for. Vote oppose in any RFA where such diffs cannot be produced and/or editor has not been around for a year. Vote support in cases where the demonstrated commitment overwhelms the lack of fulfilling the time criteria. Reserve the right to vote support or neutral in any special cases.

How much will this help? I dunno. Even raising the time standard wouldn't rule out some of the people I'm seeing overdo it on WP:IAR. But it might prompt people to think about raising their standards, and consensus might find the sweet spot for good adminship. It's not really about time or edit counts. But more filtering and raising awareness of the issue might help. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This has actually been the subject of some recent discussion on wikien-l. There's a way you can access the list's archives without being subscribed to it (through pipermail somehow), but I couldn't tell you how... maybe someone else can. Also, you might be interested in SlimVirgin's proposal to require a minimum amount of support votes before someone is promoted to administrator, which you can find here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Proposal_on_minimum_positive_votes. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Reading those list archives is what prompted me saying this. :) And I saw the minimum 30 vote proposal. Good idea overall, and it will probably scale until Wikipedia is at least twice as old as it is now. There's still the fundamental problem of deciding this with democracy, and the fundamental problem of deciding it with a popularity contest. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if someone could give me a gut feeling of "Jdavidb, you will or will not be perceived as a jerk if you start voting oppose on RFAs for candidates who have not been around for twelve months. Actually I'd prefer to hear from several someones. :) If I can't get enough feedback, I'll probably tentatively try it out on some poor unfortunate's RFA, selected at random, in the next few days, then see what happens. There have been a few universal- or near-universal-oppose voters before, and it has never been popular. But I would be explaining my oppose votes. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think anybody would think that. In the case of, say, Boothy443, I think people began to get tired of his voting no on everybody because, in the absence of any sort of explanation, it seemed arbitrary, petty, and sort of silly. A jerk? Maybe, but I doubt it. A principled jerk? More likely. Crotchety, entirely possible as well. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I also wouldn't see it as jerkiness at all. However I'm not sure how much it'll help- some of the worst behavior I've seen lately is from "old timers", many of whom are already admins. I'd still like to see a way to de-admin people in a process similiar to adminning them, but for whatever reason this idea doesn't seem like it'll ever have much support. In the meantime, sure, raising standards is perfectly reasonable. Friday (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I recall someone (can't remember who) used to have a nine-month standard, and that didn't cause too many problems; the interesting question would be how many candidates could actually pass your criterion.

On another note, it would be interesting to see some statitics for the rate at which admins burn out/leave/become inactive. Raising standards to the point where we have a net loss of active admins would probably be counter-productive, especially given our ever-increasing number of users. —Kirill Lok s hin 02:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think time limits, edit limits, minimum-voter-counts, more questions, no-self-noms, or more detailed requirements are any kind of solution. A few months and a few thousand edits is more than enough to gauge whether someone is a jerk, nutter, egomaniac, or ill-motivated partisan. Why we don't spot them accurately enough needs some examination. Back in 2003 my own RfA came after 3 months and about 1100 edits, and got about nine support votes - this link is roughly where it closed (this may not be such a good example if someone thinks I am one or all of those unfavourable things, but ignoring that...). The difference then is that Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community was really very small. Everyone voting on my RfA knew me, or my edits, fairly well. They were voting based on personal knowledge, not a brief review of my edits and talk page, not on statistics someone quoted or pat answers I'd supplied to rote questions. People who didn't know me well didn't vote. I'm not in the least special in that. But look at what people say in votes now. It seems to me that many voters have little, if any, personal knowledge of working with the editor they're supporting. I could very well be extrapolating too far, but I think a lot of people are basing their opinions (whether pro or con) on that list of stupid criteria. Some people vote on nearly every nomination - you couldn't possibly know every applicant well enough back in 2003 to do that; the wiki is vast now, the non-admin population enormous - no-one can possibly make a genuinely informed vote on more than a few percent of applicants. Now, some will claim they do due dilligence, but on editors even with 1000 edits that's a huge job - reading through their edits, checking the context in which they're made, understanding the state of discussions and votes and consensuses and wikiprojects at that time is essentially impossible. These days I very rarely vote for someone (and very rarely against, too) as I know so few applicants well enough to make an informed opinion. An informed support vote should read something like "I worked with user:foo on XXX and on YYY related articles, and I've found them to be ZZZ", not "Seems okay". I think the only solution to bad admins (which is a problem, although probably not really much worse than it's ever been) is genuinely informed voters. And I know of no practical policy which can ensure that. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

These days I very rarely vote for someone (and very rarely against, too) as I know so few applicants well enough to make an informed opinion. Finlay, I feel like that may be the crux of the problem. I'm the same way: I don't vote, because I simply don't know people. I'm sure it describes a large number of other people who would be qualified to judge admin candidates. So uninformed people vote "support" with no restraint, and people who are capable of really seeing what makes a good admin either don't vote, or vote "neutral." And "neutral" essentially has no effect, except perhaps to spark discussion. So I'm concerned that I should be voting oppose to counteract that effect. If I start voting oppose on candidates with less than twelve months and/or the inability to demonstrate with diffs their commitment to NPOV and consensus, that will cancel out at least one completely uninformed vote.

Oh, crud. I see that I'm calling this "vote" again. What I mean is, if I vote "oppose" and ask some questions, not only will it counter one person who simply said "yes" without thinking, maybe it will prompt some other people to think.

I'm worried this may hurt some feelings of candidates. But if adminship is truly "no big deal," then hearing, "Sorry, we can't vet you as an admin &mdash yet," should also be no big deal. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I tend to think that RFA makes regular minor mistakes, but over all nothing earth shattering. I know of at least a couple recently approved admins that (imo) show little understanding of policy and whose blocks and deletions seem pretty arbitrary. I don't think the standards are too loose, I just think we don't hold editors to them and/or don't properly perform due diligence while they are at RFA. So on one hand RFA doesn't make huge mistakes, but like I said it makes regular minor ones. So having said that I'd propose "admin tool" blocks. If an admin misuses admin powers they lose them for a day/week/month. And then they get them back when the block expires. Abuse of admin tools are not exclusive of new admins...so this might be a way of policing the admin group as a whole and would provide consequences to the mis-use of admins tools that aren't as harsh as total de-admining. Rx StrangeLove 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking in a general, I wonder if these issues are a sign that the community has grown so large that it is beginning to lose (or has already lost) its ability to "police" itself adequately. The systems that are in place seem to be showing signs that it cannot adequately address all the complexity to which it is exposed to. --HappyCamper 04:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing, in this context maybe we need a set of senior admins with powers to suspend editor's admin functions if needed. Even to me it seems like a bad idea, can of worms etc...Rx StrangeLove 04:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm...I wish I had the time to elaborate on this more with this medium. Maybe I will save this for Wikimania 2006. --HappyCamper 04:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

All we really need is a fairly simple way to ensure admins can be held accountable for their behavior. In short, a community based process for removing sysophood. To restate a proposal I've made in the past: Why not have a process where if any administrator is judged to have significantly abused their powers by X other administrators then that person should be required to stand at RFA again to reassess whether the community supports their continued access to those powers. It's simple, direct, and less open to abuse than many other possibilities. This would allow us to go on making promotions fast enough to support our growth without having to fret over how hard it is to deal with those few admins that are later revealed to be poorly qualified/abusive/etc. Dragons flight 05:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd still be interested in a halfway measure, some sense of a warning before removing sysophood. I don't think taking admin rights away will ever be easy or non-disruptive. Rx StrangeLove 05:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If implemented properly, that would be a nice reform. Tintin Talk 05:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it may lead to a situation where admins play it safe or take revenge - you don't put my name up for RfA and I will t do the same, or vice versa. Tintin Talk 05:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why X needs to be something greater than 1, but if we can't assume good faith on behalf of most admins then we have a lot bigger problems to worry about. Dragons flight 05:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Of possible interest regarding the establishment of a process for the other admins to notice problems, please see my A modest proposal section earlier in this talk page. - 05:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO, voting in essentially any context within Wikipedia has become virtually meaningless. 3 years ago, 9 votes was probably a significant percentage of the active users of Wikipedia (anyone want to guess, perhaps 10%?). Now, 10% of the active users would be a huge number, perhaps more like 1000. When there are 100 users altogether, it's possible for 10% of them to know you. When there are 10,000 it's simply not possible. Compound this with self-selection of voters and you end up with votes that have absolutely no statistical meaning. What do you suppose is the chance that the opinion of 80% of a self-selected subset of 100 members out of a group of 10,000 represents of an overall consensus? My guess is that if it's even 90% of a self-selected subset of 200 it's still pretty darn close to 50-50. This issue affects every "consensus discussion" we hold - RfA, CfD, AfD, FAC, every policy discussion, .... Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying we have bad admins, or that the *fD results might as well be coin flips (hmmmm, come to think of it). I think the folks who self-select to vote on RfA generally do a pretty good job. On the other hand, imagining these votes represent "community-wide consensus" is delusional. I think the reality is we have a weird self-selected representative system, essentially based on blind faith (that the self-selected representatives are acting in accordance with the best interests of the community). That this sometimes screws up shouldn't really surprise anyone. If we want consensus, we should really be doing some sort of random sampling. Perhaps every month or so we should randomly select (not elect) a new slate of representatives willing to vote on RfA, AfD, etc. and make sure the group is large enough to have some statistical validity. It'd be fun! Just like jury duty! Seriously, we seem to take assume good faith pretty far, but I'm not sure there's a viable alternative. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you're suggesting some sort of "Administrator Selection Committee". If you do it randomly, you'd have to make it truly random (but at the same time, make sure the random process chooses activer users). You'd also have to choose a sufficient number of users to have a better gauge of consensus. Not sure if that would be the way to go. It's frustrating to know that the process isn't the best it can be, yet we can't seem to find a way to improve it. --D e ath phoenix 06:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Rick, I've considered (and maybe discussed somewhere) an idea like this at one point. I don't think we ever want to just allow these "votes" (ugh) to be run solely by a randomly sampled committee. But maybe we could get better results if we had some kind of "JuryDutyBot" that periodically selected a random sampling of active users (perhaps culled from the most recent 5000 logged-in edits or something) and posted messages inviting them to participate in one area of the discussions, informing them as to what it's all about, letting them know that more participation yields better results, etc. Rather than overwhelming them by inviting them to every discussion, select a pool to invite to RFA, a pool to invite to AFD, tinier pools to invite to miscellany for deletion etc., and so on. I don't think anyone would even have to change policy to do this. I think you'd just have to get approval for the bot. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't have an issue with tightening the guidelines a bit on who can become an admin. There are so many RfAs up for a vote all the time that even though I glance through the listing every few days I recently missed one for an editor I knew and would have voted for. The problem, though, is that any solution to this, such as an "Administrator Selection Committee," would have other inintended consequences and probably cause just as much trouble. Not sure what the answer is.--Alabamaboy 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I proposed adding more quesions in the above topic, and Lupo recently indicated to me that there's nothing wrong with simply asking questions of candidates, since RFA voters often ask additional questions of candidates anyway. Unless there's an objection to my doing this, I'm going to give it a trial run and post these questions on new RfAs starting tomorrow. Since there's no onus on candidates to answer these questions, I'll definitely put up a disclaimer before the new questions pointing out that they are optional questions with no "correct" answers. --D e ath phoenix 14:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, that's a really good idea. I'll support you on this and will state that I'll only consider voting for candidates who answer these additional questions. If other people preface their vote consideration upon the answering of these additional questions, that might help this situation. Best,--Alabamaboy 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's still going to be optional for now, but voters are free to depend on whatever questions they wish. --D e ath phoenix 20:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

subheading to make this section shorter -- please be bold and give it a descriptive name[edit]

Well, I just randomly selected (literally -- with a short perl script) one of the admin candidates. He did meet my time criterion, so I expressed a neutral vote and added a question asking for more information. I think I'll keep doing this until I find one I vote oppose on. Just "testing the waters," here. Hopefully I don't ruffle any feathers, and even more hopefully I cause people to start thinking more about RFA.

Couple of comments:

I view the discussion of raising our admin standards (each of us, independently — this is a wiki, after all) as orthogonal to discussions of deadminship. Jayjg commented on the mailing list that it's far cheaper to filter out problems earlier than to correct them, later. This experience is definitely borne out in my field of programming, where catching software defects is always an order of magnitude more costly in the next phase of the project. As Benjamin Franklin said, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Rather than an explicit deadmin process, I'd personally just like to see the Arbcom process streamlined and encourage them to execute the option more frequently and swiftly where desired. I think selecting no-nonsense Arbcom candidates helps this. But having an opinion on a deadminship process is, as I said, orthogonal to having an opinion on raising our standards. You can believe in either, both, or neither.

Big support for those considering asking the candidates more questions. I'll continue to revise and refine mine.

Had another comment which I've now forgotten. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Idea for sifting out only dedicated candidates[edit]

This is just an idea that probably needs refining, what if people could only vote for or oppose a prospective admin., if they had had communication with the candidate on three separate occasions - on three different topics - over the previous three months. It would ensure knowledge of the candidate, and that the candidate was a fully paid up member of the project - used to having interaction with many members of the community. Of course the candidate would have to be allowed to notify his contacts of his candidature, by having a template on his page, or even attaching something to his signature - I'm sure some way of notifying all his contacts good and bad could be devised. This is just a vague idea that could perhaps be developed. Giano | talk 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just realised that those who have an unpleasant experience of an editor seldom return within three months for a second helping - but I still think something workable could be devised from such a system, which would also prevent pile-ons. Giano | talk 17:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What if it were required that every vote be accompanied by just one diff, demonstrating a good or bad interaction? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You can easily require that. Just vote Neutral or Oppose on every nomination with the caveat that your vote will only be changed if the candidate posts said diff. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't work. This idea was to require every vote to come with a diff. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I misread you. :) But wouldn't people who currently do the pile-on yes votes just copy the same diffs others gave? Hmmm, maybe each vote should require a unique diff. (And maybe those who don't have that many good, unique diffs should be admins...) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, something along those lines would be great, one diff involving each commenter and the candidate Giano | talk 17:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ummm, I can think of many occassions where I have observed people doing good work without feeling the need to talk to them about it. Dragons flight 17:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

An admin has to have good communication skills, and these are what need to be proved, the good work should come from a requisite number of page edits Giano | talk 17:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- And, I've also observed plenty of examples of good communication without having to be party to the conversation. This happens both by observing an individuals conversation with other people and by looking at the statements they make on forums like AFD (which do involve reasoned communication, even if not a specific conversation with anyone in particular). Dragons flight 17:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with DF. Your opinion of someone is built not only on your interactions with them on Wikipedia, but also through observing their edits and interactions/conversations with others, their postings to places like here, WP:AN, etc., the mailing list, IRC... In addition, if you take the time to study someone's contributions you might get a very different picture from the one you had via your interactions with them. You might have three interactions with a person, have one of them be negative, and think they are a jerk, when in fact you just caught them on an off day and in all their other interactions they were great. On the other hand, I've seen people I thought of as ok, based on limited interactions, be banned by the arbcomm. You should only vote for people you feel you know well enough to vouch for, or whose contributions you are willing to have a seriouis look at. People don't, but additional rules aren't going to solve that. Guettarda 18:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

and what exactly is IRC? Giano | talk 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Internet relay chat. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

IRC is an internet 'chat' structure, based around the concept of channels (in this case, the main one is #wikipedia). The article takes about many of the software to get in that channel better than I ever could. It's supposed to be an informal way for Wikipedians to communicate in real-time. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So can only people who interact there become admins, or do just those people there stand a better chance? Giano | talk 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have never participated in any Wikipedia IRC channel, and rarely use IRC at all, and I'm an admin. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an unfortunate side-effect that people who hang out on wikien-l or #wikipedia stand a better chance of passing RFAs. "Unfortunate" in the sense that it over-emphasizes a non-wiki part of Wikipedia's community, and fosters a feeling of cliqueishness, even when it's unwarranted. The discussion above about WP's failure to scale is probably the root cause, though. It's just not possible to "know" all your candidates anymore; I don't know what the solution is. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I reluctantly have to disagree with this proposal, as worded. I don't think I should have to have had direct interaction with a potential admin to vote yea/nay, but if I can post a diff from anywhere that supports my position, that would VASTLY improve the quality of voting that goes on. Obviously only unique diffs would count, though that puts an additional hassle on the bureaucrat in charge. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds nearly good to me now. One diff, from anywhere, a brief comment on what the diff is to make it easier to tell by a quick scan whether the diffs are unique. But there's still a problem: that scheme makes sense for voting support. For voting oppose, though -- well face it, one really terribly awful recent diff *should* in some cases be enough to scuttle a candidacy, but with this rule, only one person could vote oppose based on a singe heinous edit. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2006

(UTC)

Hummm, good point about the inadvertent de-emphasizing of a single huge problem. I think the goal of informed voting is an admirable one, just not sure this is the way. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

But it's not a vote. If the diff is very bad, wouldn't other people be able to change their view, it's not a vote but a discussion. Because all comments require a diff, there are going to be probably less editors offering a view, thus making a concenssus (I can't be bothered to spell check that) easier to obtain. Giano | talk 22:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, probably the last thing RfA needs is less voters.... -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What we need is less candidates, admins are two a penny, a few weeks ago some twit admin (nameless) threatened to block me because he objected to the quality of a tiny PD image demonstrating a unique architectural feature and wanted to delete it. I'm going to stick my neck above the parapet and say being an admin should be a big deal at the moment the whole thing is debased. An admin should be some-one whose name at least is known to those who have been around a while. The problem I have is I seldom stray outside my own field and interests (I don't no how to write about rocket science), and I suspect in that I'm not alone, but often the new admins seem to have no particular field, and one wonders why they are here. There's no conclusion to my ramblings, just a few thoughts to share with you but whatever conclusions we reach here only the dedicated and informed should have their names submitted and be permitted to vote. Giano | talk 21:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Giano is one of the most brilliant editors in this project, therefore the threat cited by him above made me sick. I still try to recover from User:Mikkalai's block just before the New Year, when he happened to violate 3RR fending off anonymous vandals and trolls. The blocking action by a newly-promoted admin led to one of the most prolific contributors ever (50,000+ edits!!) being scared from editing even now. People seem to forget that the number of users making more than 100 edits per month remains virtually the same since June, whereas the number of admins rose 60% for the period in question. These figures speak for themselves. I don't have enough time to proceed this subject today, but requirements for adminship surely need to be revised in order to prevent valuable contributors from leaving the project under pressure from clueless/boorish admins. --Ghirla | talk 21:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The lowering of RFA standards (Archive 46)[edit]

Ok this is probably one of the biggest issues on Wikipedia that people may not realize. There has been RFA's as of late that have hade great support but for users that have been here for 1-2 months and that have a great number of edits but in nothing but vandalism reverts. I propose, per voting if nessecary, that there be a guideline to when a RFA can be put up. Something like:

The nominee must have been here for, at the minimum, 3 months to have a nomination.
The nominee must not have a recent "record". Meaning, they can't have any blocks recorded in thier block log in recent memory.
The nominee must have, at the minimum, 2,000 edits to to have a nomination.
Thier contribution's can not all (meaning about 90%) be reverts of vandalism which can be checked using Interiot's Contribution tree edit counter.
They must have a clear knowledge of Wikipedia policy before they can nominate themselves/be nominated.

I think we should make a set of rules like that to make Adminship not so obtainable. I especially think the one about vandalism reverting edits only is important because anyone can revert vandalism. It's having a working knowledge about what the WP policies are is what's important. I know adminship is "no big thing" but passing it out like candy isn't acceptible either. — Moe ε 01:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's anti-wiki and m:instruction creep, in my opinion. Also, "This should be no big deal." (By the way, adminship standards have been on the rise.) —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why raise standards at this point??? Are there bad users being promoted??? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'm not anti-wiki. That's why I'm trying to help out. I hardly think it's instruction creep either. It's not to many things to keep up with considering how many RFA's are up at a time. It wouldn't be to long to figure out if someone is eligible for an RFA or not. I know it "should be no big deal" but giving it out to every person doesn't help. Also, I don't think that anyone "bad" was promoted but just way to early. It's better for users to wait until they are clear of the Wikipedia policies before they are handed the mop and bucket. — Moe ε 02:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not 'bad' users, but users who, I have concluded, were pretty clueless about some pretty important aspects of adminning. Presumably a tenure longer than 6-8 weeks would have helped with that. I've decided to harden my personal standards to making 3 months a pretty 'bright line'. -Splash^talk 02:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's my idea. Just hardening some of the standards. It's just users with 1-2 months experiance have been nominated for RFA with little to no oppostion. Not saying that there wasn't any oppostion but there was more support than oppose. I don't think there's any harm for users to wait 2-3 more months to have admin tools. — Moe ε 02:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with 3 or even four months for personal standard. Strongly opposed to making this an official rule. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I have never supported someone who has not been here 3 months or above, I feel that this is a personal opinion, and thus should not be an official policy fo Wikipedia. Olorin28 03:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Four months is my "bright line", however interwiki years count as well, although I do expect at least a two months at English.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd definetly like to see 'recent memory' (of controversial edits/blocks/actions/etc.) cleary defined. If a user has done something considered inappopriate 3 months ago but has been a perfect Wikipedian since, is this ground for a criticism? What about 1 months, or 1 year? A clear rule would ban any possibility of double standards.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't clearly define recent memory but when I said recent memory I meant like a week. Like, if a user was just blocked a week/a week and a half ago for 3RR that wouldn't exactly help in an RFA they would be starting. So we might suggest waiting for a bit for things to cool down around the topic or conflict they were around and then put up their RFA. — Moe ε 03:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that if even a small number of users really feel that this is necessary, it wouldn't be necessary in the first place because people who didn't meet these standards wouldn't be passing their nominations. This particular proposal doesn't make a strong case for making adminship less obtainable, in any case; personally, I've seen little or no correlation between being promoted fairly early and taking poor administrative actions. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A number of charges have been laid at the feet of RfA with little or no substantiating evidence that RfA is the source of a problem. I'm not saying there isn't a problem; just saying nobody has provided evidence that there is. --Durin 15:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is true. However, I get the impression that, while many people decry the "brokenness" of RfA, and seem to be trying to fix it on that (mistaken, imo) basis, there does remain the possibility that what RfA does can be done in a better way than at present, without the present way actaully being broken. -Splash^talk 15:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)`
- Certainly. Even if it is working well at the moment, there is no reason why we shouldn't be trying to improve the process. Raven4x4x 10:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree personal standards should include all of the above except the edit count. I'd much rather see an editor that has been here for 3mo plus and made 500 large, important edits, including discussions and demonstrating understanding of policy than someone that has made 2000 category additions and reverts. I'm on the fence about making the rest a harder guideline, but what keeps me from it is that the RfA process isn't terribly broken. Such a small % of problem admins shows the process is pretty good. What needs to be done is make it easier to remove adminship from those that abuse it, as per the admin accountability poll. - Taxman ^Talk 14:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA standards going up?? (Archive 48)[edit]

Are they going up? I have only been looking around this place since late jan06, but it appears that in the past, a lot more editors got through with only about 5-10% projectspace edits, on the basis of doing good work? I have noted the % of successful RfAs has dropped significantly in the last two months, are they because the candidates in question weren't suitable, or do we expect more these days??Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've also noticed this trend. I'd also say that I have contributed to some of this as the more familiar I have become with Wikipedia, the more that I have felt that my own standards must go up. I also think the number of RfA nominations has increased in the past few weeks. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

They very well may be, but the point is that the standards of consensus (other than the numerical markers) are whatever the participants at RfA think they are. If tomorrow everybody thinks that new admins need 50% workspace edits, or edit summaries on 99% of edits or whateve, and vote accordingly, that will be the standard until other perceptions comes down the pike. -- Cecropia 06:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As the population continues to grow and it becomes more and more impossible to actually know most admin candidates well, one would expect that cheap signalling factors like edit summary usage or project space edits would become more important. I agree that there has been a recent burst upward in standards, though, and I'd attribute that mostly to the scrutiny of RfA raised recently, especially at the accountability poll. It is quite likely a temporary deviation from the expected long-term trend of rising numerical standards. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if they're rising, or just weirding. Recently we've had one unsuccessful nom due to an alleged insufficiency of project namespace edits (though there was a lot of strangeness with support-socks/newbies on that too, it seemed to me), and one successful, with barely any main namespace edits, other than vandalism reverts (though also, only barely successful). As Cecropia says, they is what they is, but that's not to say some rumination on where the de facto standard seems to be headed is necessarily amiss. Alai 06:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe they are weirding in some sense - I personally believe that if we have a well-established editor who wants the adminship for convenience (rollback, blocking, image deletions etc.), the community shd give it to him rather than stress on project space edits. I came across a situation recently where an image vandal was adding morphed soft-porn pics of Indian actresses, and in such a scenario, ability to block really helps, even if the person performing the block primarily remains an editor, using the admin tools very sparsely. --Gurubrahma 07:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The trend is not just over the last two months. In fact, if you look at the trend over the last two months alone, we're actually increasing the RfA success rate slightly (~10% or so). Going from July 2005 through February 2006, there is a very clear decline in RfA success rate (see chart at right). Please keep in mind that the rate of RfA success is just one measure. There are many, many other factors to consider.

Has the average candidate been decreasing in quality (subjective, hard to measure)?
Are we promoting admins fast enough for the purposes of maintaining Wikipedia? Hard to know. Some measures to consider;

the ratio of articles to number of admins has remained essentially constant, rising just 1% over the last year.
The ratio of users to admins is a poor figure; a huge number of our accounts are sockpuppets, unused accounts, etc. The ratio of users to admin has more than doubled over the last year.
Another possible measure; the ratio of edits per day to number of admins. I think this ratio is perhaps most revealing; the more edits admins have to watch, the less likely admins will see all edits that need to filtered for vandalism. This last ratio has risen more than 95% over the last year. In other words, admins are nearly twiced as burdened with maintenance as they were a year ago.

I think one of the major threats that faces Wikipedia is an overburden of maintainance that continues to worsen over time. The project as a whole needs a better ability to deal with vandalism before it happens. There are a number of potential ways of doing this such as new user edit throttling, or making only registered users able to edit and have them be forced to acknowledge a confirmation e-mail. We have no hard measure of evaluating how much vandalism is happening on a given day, and as a result we have no means of evaluating how well we are doing in undoing vandalism. It is disheartening to go to the back a few hundred edits on the recent changes list and see how much vandalism isn't being caught. Though I have no specific measures to cite, I believe this problem is getting worse. If we reduce the burden on admins, the rate of success of RfAs over time matters less. --Durin 14:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You might consider instituting a mentoring program to help new admins learn the details of things that need maintenance from another experienced administrator. Reading the policy is something I think a lot of people (administrators) avoid, even when it is about simple mainteinance stuff, because it can get labrynthine and confusing. If volunteers were there to help new admins find niches where they could help out, and train them so they are solid and confident in their actions, it might go a long way toward helping out with some of the more needed maintenance stuff. --DanielCD 14:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's virtually impossible to mentor admins on what is proper behavior. Recently, Jimbo and ArbCom effectively vacated all policy. Policy is now based on "common sense" and tradition at Wikipedia, and not what is written down in Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is generating a great number of problems within the project, but the powers that be insist on maintaining this party line. I had hopes that the recent ArbCom elections would help to rectify the situation. I am not ready to conclude that the new ArbCom is not making headway on this, but I have so far been disappointed. --Durin 15:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe WP:IAR has been around for a logn time before the powers that be "vacated all policy". (Which they didn't, btw; they just clarified that you can ignore process if the encyclopedia is immediately threatened by following process. The problem is that some people took this to mean they can IAR on everything.) Johnleemk | Talk 17:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been heavily discussed elsewhere regarding policy being vacated. There's been precious little direction from the powers that be on the issue, nor indeed much disagreement. Even Jimbo has stated that "common sense" rules. If you want to debate this further, feel free, but this particular talk page probably isn't the best forum for it. --Durin 18:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you appear to be assuming that common sense didn't rule prior to Jimbo's declaration. He was just restating existing policy, not creating a new one. (Btw, you're right -- maybe it might be best to take this discussion to our own talk pages.) Johnleemk | Talk 18:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The success ratio also only correlates to "admin standards" if the inputs to the process remains constant, which is by no means necessarily the case. In particular, we seem to be seeing quite a few "early" nominations, and a number of "repeated" noms (and indeed, noms that are both early and repeated). I don't know if that's a significant factor, or just an anecdotal impression. Alai 16:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it in reading these posts over, but hasn't it occurred to anyone that the promotion rate may be going done because the candidacy rate has been going up? There have been continuing advocates of much broader adminship over quite some time, and this seemed to reach a crescendo last August or September or so, just about the time I took a Wikibreak, when the number of consecutive candidacies went up considerably. I think a lot of editors are being put up, or putting themselves up, before they are really ready for the community to accept them. I also sense that potential admins no longer worry about being rejected in terms of future success, and that some candidacies go up "just to see if they might succeed." -- Cecropia 16:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As I noted, there are quite a few potential factors in the rate. There's no definitive way to identify how much weight each of these factors has. I could generate a chart showing the number of noms per week, or the number of successul noms per week, etc. But, I don't think they'd shed any more light. We can conclude the success rate is going down, but why is a much, much broader question. --Durin 17:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, asking for edit summaries and project space edits are frivolious requirements to a degree. On the other hand, cases of abuse of admin powers pop up every now and then at the ArbCom (now we have at least two) so I guess people would like at least some signs that the candidate is a serious person. Also, using edit summaries say 3/4 of the time and having say 100 project edits ain't that much to ask. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think edit summaries are a frivolous requirement by any means, though clearly many people consider them an optional extra (or worse), and indeed many actual admins don't bother with them. OTOH, requiring project space edits is to some degree dictating to admin candidates what type of editing they have to do to be considered "adminable". Granted it would be problematic if someone inexperienced in the project space suddenly went berserk with a number of controversial process-closures or the like, but I think that's rarely a serious for long-standing contributors of "fixed and conservative habits". What I find more troubling is over-eager nominations of people purely on the strength of being a "bonny vandal fechter" after about two months. Those tend to be the people who attract the attention that leads to an early nomination, and it's a very limited type of experience on which to judge someone's suitability. OTOH, if someone's been around doing uncontroversial work for a year, it seems reasonable to presume they're likely to remain uncontroversial, without artificially demanding a different type of editing altogether. Alai 22:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got to ask: what does OTOH stand for? JHMM13 (T | C)

05:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OTOH = On the other hand Naconkantari e|t||c|m 05:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Seems kind of odd that someone would write a long, well-written paragraph like that and seemingly arbitrarily pull out odd short-hand usage! JHMM13 (T | C)

07:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Since it has survied AfD, this should be required reading for you ;-) NoSeptember ^talk 16:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm 21, a child of the internet age, and I've heard 'em all...but never OTOH. Seems a bit much to actually use in intellectual conversation :-D. JHMM13 (T | C)

02:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My statistics also show quite a drop in the success rate. In terms of growth in admins, it looks like we went through a growth spurt in late 2005 (Oct to Dec). The last previous spurt was in early 2004 (March to May). So seeing a downward trend may overlook the fact that it could just be a return to normal slower growth. NoSeptember ^talk 17:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say the standards are going up based simply on the editcountitis. If you take a look at some of the older guys' standards, they will say, "at least 500" or "at least 1,000," and those were the tops! These days, it seems it's unreasonable to promote someone with less than 2,500, and 4-5,000 is a sure bet. This isn't based on any statistical survey or anything, just my own perception. I think a lot of this has to do with the older folks wanting to keep roughly the same rate of admin creation (or at least a slower-growing rate) as the rate of new user signups increases. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

When I went up, over six months ago, the standard was roughly 2000 edits and three months of activity; people were opposing then for not using enough edit summaries, for not having enough project space edits, for being too active/inactive at VfD (as it was called in those days) or for being inclusionist/deletionist/mergist, and a host of other reasons, just as they do today. I don't think the standards have risen that much since then; rather, I think it's that a lot more underqualified candidates are going up.

It has never been required that a user be active in every nook and cranny of the project to become an admin, but most in my time had at least touched on most of the high-profile areas. With broader use of godmode-light, popups, and AWB (which were unknown in my time; godmode may have been around, but wasn't well known), users are able to rack up 2000-3000 edits in a matter of weeks, without having ever looked at some of the big areas of Wikipedia, or having any interaction with the policyspace. As a result, they appear to fit the "standards," while having very little that actually demonstrates what kind of admin they would be, or indeed, that they have any idea what adminship is about.

I don't think it is a bad thing that we have these tools available, or dedicated volunteers who are willing to use them; we need every RC patroller, every dedicated stub-sorter or image tagger armed with AWB that we can get. However, we also need to acknowledge that what used to be considered evidence that a user had seen much of what was to be seen can no longer be considered such. I think the simple answer is: With the advent of so many tools that make editing easier, "voters" have begun to look more closely at the quality and diversity of the individual's edits, and are making their decision based on these subjective criteria, rather than on the old formula of edit count + tenure + not banned yet = admin. And this trend towards more informed voting is a good thing. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm..I do see your point. It seems the old vetting process wasn't too intense, and I haven't been around forever behind the scenes, so I don't really know the rationale, but I suppose there were instances of abuse, so the standards went up a bit. I agree with you, more informed voting is more gooder. JHMM13 (T | C)

02:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just another point of data; over the same time period as the chart above, the average # of edits per nominee has trended upward about 7-10%. That's just one indicator of potentially many, but total edits is frequently used and this appears to indicate that the average candidate has been improving, at least in edit counts. --Durin 16:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with both Essjay and Durin here - the changing ways of Wikipedia means an inevitable shift in RfA trends. Just as Essjay said - with new tools it's possible to rack up 1000 edits in two or three days; does this automatically qualify someone for admin? Something that I've also noticed is the increase in support votes for successful candidates - back when Essjay and I were promoted, 30 to 40 support votes was considered high; now, there's been quite a few RfAs surging into 70s, 80s, or even triple digit support votes. Perhaps it's just that there are more RfA voters? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. I look at the history of RfBs, new bureaucrats have come in clusters (several in Feb 2004, several in June 2004, then a long almost one year gap until late 2005 without any promotions, and then several promoted in the last 6 months). The point is, the community responds to the situation and the perceived need. If we feel we need a lot more admins, our standards will relax a lot. Right now it appears it is more important to the community that we don't promote mistakes, so we are rejecting some people if we are at all unsure, and many who would be good admins get flunked because of it. But thats the way it goes, and why we need to keep the human element in the process - there is no correct standard, just varied and changable opinions about it. NoSeptember ^talk 16:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Over the last 9 months, the average # of support votes for successful RfAs has indeed risen rather dramatically, by more than 60%. Most of that 60% gain has been in the last 3 months. Counting all RfAs (including withdrawn and fail), the upward trend is much more muted, only about 25% increase in the same 9 months. --Durin 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Formal standards for voting (Archive 53)[edit]

Ok, so the problem is basically that anyone can vote for or against any admin, for any reason they like. Think we need 10,000 more admins? Vote for everyone. Don't like Christians? Vote against Christians. However, this is at odds with the way most things work on Wikipedia. AfD has rules: We only delete when an article topic is not notable, contains no sources to allow it to be destubbed, is a copyvio, and so forth. We generally discourage people from voting delete simply because they dislike the subject, for example.

So, how about we refine the exact qualities and numbers of admins we're looking for? It seems really counterproductive to have some people voting support on the basis that they want more admins in general, and others voting oppose for the reverse reason - when neither is particularly interested in the individual candidate in question. It would make much more sense to have the discussion about how many admins we want in one place, build an RfA policy out of that, then vote according to how well we believe each candidate meets the criteria we've defined.

So, a very tentative set of guidelines, which are totally open to discussion:

Edit count. An admin must have at least 1000 edits. It is not reasonable to discriminate against a candidate for low edit count if s/he has more than that.
Edit summary. An admin must have 75% edit summary usage for major edits for the last 150 edits. Again, anyone who passes this requirement is satisfactory.
Edit wars. An admin must have had no veritable edit war in the 3 months prior to the RfA. Minor edit wars prior to that are forgiven. Major edit wars in the 12 months prior can be used as a reason to vote oppose.
Featured articles. Absence of featured articles is not a reason to vote against a candidate.
Admin demand. At various times, there may be a surfeit of available admins. At such times, the RfA process will be placed on hold. Any other time, voters should consider that Wikipedia needs all the qualified admins it can get.

And so on. The idea is that the voting process should simply amount to a review of the candidate, making sure they meet the criteria. As opposed to a popularity contest. Comments please! Stevage 14:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Won't work, everyone already has their own guidlines, in fact we have pages full of different people's guidelines. JoshuaZ 14:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And they're all different. My proposal is to make them one. Stevage

Responding to the measures:

Edit count: I could make 100 edits that contribute more verifiable material to the project than 10,000 edits of another user. Edit counting is not a valid way to measure the worthiness of anyone at Wikipedia. The value of a particular edit (outside of vandalism) is 100% subjective.
I mostly agree, but that's not the point. I'm proposing ruling out editcountitis above 1000 edits. Once you've done 1000, you're good, and people should not keep you out because you haven't reached 2000, for example. Stevage
Edit summary: I'm a big fan of good edit summaries. But, that's subjective. If I see a person with 100% edit summary usage, but uses them poorly I'd consider that a negative. It's not just the numbers.
Ditto. These are reasons not to vote no. They're not reasons to vote yes. Stevage
Edit wars: Some edit war participation is 100% acceptable. Heavy POV fighting, vandalism fighting, etc. For example, if a user keeps trying to push "George Bush is an extreme conservative christian" into an article on George Bush, and another user keeps reverting it and attempting to engage the person in conversation on the article's talk page or the user's talk page without success, the revert warring is perfectly acceptable. I'd personally try to get some admins involved to help stop the POV pushing, but revert warring in that case on a temporary basis is acceptable until the cavalry arrives, so to speak. It can be very difficult to untangle such messes and determine who was in the right and who was in the wrong. So, who does it? Also, how do you define "major" vs. "minor" edit wars?
Just on that last question, *that* is something I'm leaving up to voters. Rather than making the whole question totally subjective, I'm just making definition of terms like "major" and "minor" subjective. Stevage

This in itself is highly subjective. I recently observed an editor edit warring with a troll only to get punished himself when the 'calvery' arrived. (Not that the admin who did the punishing was bad. He did it with good intent.) -- 127.*.*.1 14:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin demand: How do you measure whether we need more admins or not? I'm very interested to hear your response on this.
People seem to have their own ideas on this, but they don't discuss them much. We should have the debate, then at least we can all just agree to follow the policy. "I think we don't need any more admins, but consensus says we do. Guess I have to follow the group decision". Better than mavericks fighting against each other. Stevage

There's some comments for you :) --Durin 14:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
ta. Stevage 14:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some amount of confusion as to what you propose. Are these minimal required conditions, or rather sufficient? Either way, you still run into the fact that ultimately some people which meet all the requirements wouldnt make good admins, and some people who dont meet them would! Its all a pretty subjective matter any which way you turn it imho. The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 14:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually my edit count guideline is both a minimal condition (you must have 1000 edits) and a sufficient condition (1000 edits is enough - you can't ask for more). Note that you can still find another reasons to vote against people (eg, vandalism), but you should not cite lack of edits as a reason if they have met the agreed minimum standard. Stevage 16:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-factoring in a sense, in pulling conversation back together. Steveage, if someone had 5000 edits and virtually all of them were to their userpage, I'd most definitely oppose. Sure, that's an extreme case, but it serve to highlight that some people, regardless of their edit count, are just not qualified to be an admin. If a user has 1,000 edits and not one single edit to the Wikipedia project namespaces, you'd censor my oppose vote because it's not a valid oppose? I'm sorry, I'm 100% against that. Regarding admin demand; I've yet to see any argument that supports (much less strongly supports) the idea that we have, have had, or ever will have enough admins. It's an unending demand. There's constant backlogs all over the place. --Durin 14:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't been clear. I would oppose that person to. But you wouldn't say "5000 edits, not enough!", instead you would say "doesn't seem to be interested in actually building an encyclopaedia". But if you did for some weird reason say "not enough, I need 6000 edits", then (according to this guideline) your vote could be discounted. ~~

I think the answer to minimum standards is what is going on here in this discussion. Let ideas be thrown out so we can all think about them and maybe change our view on how important different things should be in evaluating RfA candidates, but in the end rely on the human factor of each individual voter making their own choice of whether the candidate passes muster. Our standards are set and our standards change over time in the collective minds of the active participants in RfA. No formal standards are needed, and there is no need to bring the few users who have standards out of line with the majority of us into line with us either. NoSeptember ^talk 15:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As it is now, it is within crat's authority to discount votes they consider to be poorly based. If one wrote "Oppose Because he is in reality the anti-christ and is working with his UFOs to subvert Wikipedia!" the vote would be most likely be ignored. Similarly, if one wrote "Oppose Must have at least 10,000 edits" I suspect that would also be ignored. JoshuaZ 15:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A bureaucrat who does too much of that is not doing a good job. If a well established editor has unusual standards, so be it. There are just as many (probably proportionally more) support voters without good reasons as well. It can have a slight impact on close contests, but we didn't pick bureaucrats to replace our opinions with their own, but only to judge community consensus. NoSeptember ^talk 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I simply disagree with this. The AfD equivalent would be "let's chat about what we want in this encyclopaedia, but in the end, everyone make up their own mind". The music:notability equivalent would be "different people have different ideas about what bands are notable. it's up to you!". The manual of style equivalent would be "use whatever style you like, but if you come into conflict with another editor, try and talk it out". It is precisely because there is so much freedom in voting here that we have these bizarre situations where voters try and exercise power over candidates by making them jump through hoops such as answering 20 questions, hypothetical questions about god, or eternally raising the bar on the number of edits an admin is supposed to have. Stevage 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

- Admins are not encyclopedia content. And how a candidate handles questions says more about them than what their answer is oftentimes. Comparing RfA to content or MoS issues doesn't work well. While everyone can make up their own mind when casting a vote, it is all those "normal" people in the middle that make the actual decision as to whether someone passes or not. You become an admin whether you have 0 oppose votes or 15 oppose votes, as long as you have consensus. Unlike with articles, each editor can not make someone else an admin or revert someone else's making someone an admin, we wait for community consensus and make the decision once. It is not an edit war. We don't need to worry about the unusual voting and questioning behavior of the few. NoSeptember ^talk 15:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- The problem with that analogy is that human editors are more complex than an article, so naturally there will be more complex criteria on which they can be evaluated. So complex that we let other human editors decide without restricting what they can object to. It results in silly oppose votes, but I haven't seen a candidate killed by unreasonable votes alone. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Votevotevotevotevotevote. It's not, and so if someone is being completely spurious, they can be overlooked by a skilled bureaucrat. The skill of course, is in making sure you don't overlook someone simply because you disagree with them, and in being able to tell the difference. RfA does not often produce bad results. This is in large part because of the great freedom editors have in their participation here, and the ability that imparts to be quite detailed in ones assessment of a candidate prior to deciding which way to go. It allows for the 'rules' to change as they need to, and allows us to avoid having to promote someone who meets your favourite criteria but has some bugbear lurking somewhere. It also allows us to promote someone who misses some number somewhere but is nevertheless an outstanding editor. It is not reasonable or sensible to impose one person's, nor one small group of people's personal preferences on everyone. You can have them and hold them yourself, and participate in line with them. The rest of us can make our own decision as to whether we agree with them or not. -Splash^talk 15:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  Agreed, but these guidelines would be drawn up with normal consensus process. Ultimately the whole community has to deal with the effects of each admin getting promoted. Therefore the admin should be promoted by a process that the community agrees with, rather than the whims of the few people who actually vote on any individual RfA. I'm quite specifically arguing *against* imposing personal preferences on the group - it should in fact be the other way around :)
  
  I do also have to disagree with "the ability that imparts to be quite detailed in ones assessment of a candidate" - yes, this happens sometimes. But "Come back in another 1000 edits" happens a lot more often :) Stevage 16:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

- I would point out that Presidents and Prime ministers get elected without all sort of rules like You must have X years of foreign policy experience.... Voters take such things into mind without our need to tell them what exact standards they should use when voting. RfA should be the same way. NoSeptember ^talk 15:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  Presidents are quite openly elected in a popularity contest. No one would disagree with that. The point is that adminship should not be about popularity, but instead trust. It's not about representation, it's about risk management. Stevage 16:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  Good people skills tends to make one popular, and good people skills are useful in the job of admin, so the fact that popular editors do well is not surprising. But I see people voting against popular candidates all the time, in RfAs because they don't think they would be a good admin, and in political elections because the popular guy belongs to the other party. You can't eliminate subjective factors in RfA voting, because there are legitimate subjective factors that matter in the making of a good admin. NoSeptember ^talk 16:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA Floor (Archive 55)[edit]

Hi All - may I have your views on a possible floor for requests for adminship, in order to prevent the onerous processing of inherently futile RfAs? Virtually every week there are some good faith and poor faith nominations of inexperienced Wikipedians, many a times by naive nominators. For example:

Floor Proposal

Users with fewer than 1,500 edits may not be permitted to create or receive a nomination.
Users with under two month's presence on Wikipedia may not be permitted to create or receive a nomination.

These qualifications are based on the basic consensus that has emerged amongst Wikipedians on what qualifications and experience an admin should possess. Looking forward to your views. Rama's Arrow 06:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we need more rule creep? The community seems to work these problems out themselves pretty quickly without legislation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't see anyway the community can solve this problem without a simple, 2-point rule like this. It is becoz these guys are not part of the community that they don't realize the need for better work and experience. If these guys would hang out on the RFA page a bit more, or converse and work with experienced users, they'd realize this. Rama's Arrow 06:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In general it would work, but it would on rare occasions eliminate excellent users such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joke137, who had only 1500 edits would be eliminated because most of his edits were quite large paragraphs at once, on a difficult technical subject such as Quantum field theory, where every exact word usage makes a technical difference. Speaking for myself, the Vertex model article which I created in two edits, actually took me 6 hours to do, including the images, whereas in that time I could glue about 1500 templates such as {{City of Burnside suburbs}} onto the relevant page - it possiblt to do 3 edits a minute using cut and paste. So it might encourage people to slice their edits thin, whereas if they had only 1000 edits and 50 solid article creations, this may be the same as 6000 AfD "votes".ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in pointing out that editcounts don't reveal the true worth of a user and his/her work. In response to this, I have reduced the numerical req by 500 edits. But I also feel that this should be an ideal floor which good potential candidates must wait to cross. Its not that hard to cross the line for good users, even as futile RfAs are prevented. Rama's Arrow 06:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I picked and stressed these two venues of qualifications becoz this is the best option we have in making a general rule on RfAs. If one suggests that futile RfAs may belong to people beyond this floor, I would reply that in that case the community is obligated to give the candidate a properly analyzed opinion. But this is the least good users can do in terms of a general requirement. Rama's Arrow 06:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to this. Amgine only has 1300 edits, and while his RfA failed, it was probably one of the worst mistakes in RfA history. --Rory096 07:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Several current members of the arbcom, as well as several of those approved for arbcom duty would likely not have become admins under such a rule. Just for context. :-) (Oh, and it's closely related to one of our foundation issues.) Kim Bruning 07:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect how much would history have changed if these persons had waited for 200-300 more edits? The problem are naive, young users. Wikipedia won't lose the good ones by asking them to wait for 200-300 more edits, or a few weeks more. I'm talking of now, and the kind of futile RfAs that have been launched. I don't know why Amgine's RfA failed, but its certainly not relevant here and its purely a matter of opinion if it was good or bad. Rama's Arrow 07:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter? We shouldn't be arbitrarily overriding consensus just to get rid of a few joke noms that are gone in a few hours anyway. --Rory096 07:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, because there were a lot less edits before someone applied for admin, it was actually still practical to read *all* (yes ALL) the edits a candidate had ever made, and see how they were doing. Past 2000 or 3000 or whatever the number-du-jour is, that approach becomes rather impractical. (1500 would be the maximum limit, not the minimum, and it's a lot of hard work).

People just aren't bothering to check anymore. Knowing this, would it surprise you to know that on average, the quality of current admins is probably lower than the quality of admins who were given the admin bit in the past?

I've heard actual administrators asking things like :

"what are the foundation issues?" (5 basic practically none-negotiable rules, which form our "constitution" of sorts) or
"who is James Forrester?" (A founder of the arbitration committee, expert on policy)

Old hands simply don't make those errors! Goodness forbid if one of the current crop of admins ever makes it to the arbitration committee by accident.

Kim Bruning 09:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So raising the floor doesn't actually do what you'd expect it to do. This can have funny consequences, from a system perspective.

It's a bit like a problem I had with my car recently. It turned out that there was a faulty fuel sensor someplace. Normally, when you press down on the gas, a car will go faster. But due to the sensor bug, my engine was actually getting too rich a mixture. So pressing down on the gas past a certain point would flood the engine, and the car would actually slow down! Driving long ago having become instinctive, my foot would automatically push the gas pedal down further, causing the car to slow even more. Before I knew what was wrong, I would end up flooring the gas... and the car would roll to a halt.

Kim Bruning 08:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how lack of knowledge of who Jdforrester is makes someone a bad admin or would throw arbcom into shabbles. Even if they don't know it by m:Foundation issues they probably know it as Wikipedia:Five Pillars (which is almost the same). Would an actual judge or legislator not make a good arbcom member because they do not know who Jdforrester is? One can easily read about the past and any precedents as needed so lack of knowledge does not mean they are unsuited for the task. Arbcom can certainly benefit from people with different levels of experience and history with the project. The important parts are thoughtfulness, good judgment, communication, etc--not knowing Who's Who of Wikipedia. Kotepho 17:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

These joke noms are only eliminated when 3-4 users make the effort to point it out the obvious. And let me add, that by making such a rule, you'll be making aspiring and young users to study the system, Wikipedia policies and work with the community instead of getting discouraged or developing wrong ideas. Cheers, Rama's Arrow 08:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the proposal, but could it be formulated softer, like RfAs of all appicants with fewer than 1500 edits should be approved by a bureacrat? This way we could still discuss reasonable appications from users with low editcounts like AzaTooth and filter out the newbees? abakharev 08:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the second time this week this idea has been proposed on this talk page. Maybe we need a floor proposal for floor proposals. -lethe ^{talk +} 08:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_54#Low-edit-count_welcoming_template -lethe ^{talk +} 08:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the rule is necessary: will it really save all that much work? It might be useful, however, to point out to potential candidates that different wikipedians have differingminimums and that many of the criteria used are qualititative rather than quantitative. Bucketsofg✐ 11:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to these requirements. --Durin 12:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Strongly opposed also. More rulecreep, with no benefits. Let anybody who feels like candidating for admin do so. Being here for that many months and having that many edits is not either necessary nor sufficient condition for somebody to submit his/her candidacy. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the recognized sig. article edits, that percent is 2-4 times most people's...Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 15:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Joke137 (sysop) (over the 2521 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 434 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 15hr (UTC) -- 12, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 4, February, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 63.52% Minor edits: 93.11%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 80.25% Minor article edits: 93.84%
Average edits per day (current): 5.81
Recognized significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 14.36%
Unique pages edited: 737 | Average edits per page: 3.42 | Edits on top: 5.43%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 35.26%
Minor edits (non reverts): 32.88%
Marked reverts: 7.97%
Unmarked edits: 23.88%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 53.63% (1352) | Article talk: 23.76% (599)
User: 0.67% (17) | User talk: 7.14% (180)
Wikipedia: 10.35% (261) | Wikipedia talk: 2.78% (70)
Image: 0.28% (7)
Template: 0.83% (21)
Category: 0.08% (2)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.48% (12)

That number tends to help eliminate some of the usual editcountitis problems...additionally, people should be aware that edit count is not everything.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA's (Archive 60)[edit]

I know that is not a very desctiptive title, but I think RfA standards are dropping. I have noticed that everybody is becoming an admin. If that continues, the position "admin" will mean nothing because everybody will be one. I just have noticed that more people are voting support in rfa's. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, look at Kimchi.sg. There is a lot of scrutiny of one terse comment. In the old days people just said : "I nom this person. he is good. he has 3000 edits". You will get into trouble for that now. See also Sam Vimes2. I disagree actually. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't supposed to be "mean something" except that we have confidence the user will use the tools for the good of the wiki. I don't believe our admin pool is growing faster than our number of users or our number of articles, either; if anything, I'd suspect it's growing slower. -- SCZenz 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

SCZenz is right. I was looking at WikiMedia statistics yesterday, the English Wikipedia has one of the highest articles/admin ratios of all Wikipedias. It's something like 1588 articles for each admin, whereas other version among the top 10 versions have something like a 600 article per admin ratio. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Which means, we aren't promoting enough admins? Kimchi.sg 06:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably an indication that en.wiki is getting loaded with cruft and the like. Most people who would add questionable articles will just cruise in, put some stuff on their favourite band, their CDs, favourite computer games, and then leave again - whereas in the other wikis, they are less populated so only serious people who put noteworthy info are there, so there is more admin material. I just can't see where to find another 1300 editors who are ready for RfA to get the ratio working.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your analysis, but not the diagnosis. If other wikis have more committed users, there is less need for *fds, deletions, protects etc and by extension, less need for admins. If en.wiki is getting loaded with cruft, it calls for more, not less, intervention by admins and hence we are woefully short of admins (assuming that other wikis have the right no. of admins, which need not be true). There are several people working dedicatedly in the nooks and crannies of WP, some of whom could definitely be good admins in future. --Gurubrahma 08:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We do need more admins, but I think that we will never get enough, as now that WP is a part of culture, we will get more dumps, and the increase in the number of dumpers will outstrip the increase in serious contributors at any rate. It will simply mean that the serious users and admins will have to spend more time clearing the dump rather than putting proper info into noteworthy topics.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed, if you look at the page history there a lot of admin candidates that are opposed by everyone. To be honest, I think if every trustworthy user was an admin, it wouldn't be a problem, it would be the way it was inteded to be. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 06:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, dear George. I've been looking at old successful RfAs from October 05 til now, and the editcountitis has severely increased both in the quantity of edits required and the importance given to numbers by many voters. New objections have appeared, like Mailer Diablo's test, and several candidates are being opposed because of a single incident in their entire WIki career. Combining this with the extremely high admin per article & non admin users that we have here at en.wiki, and the very big number of inactive admins, and I humbly believe that the current rate of successful RfAs is more or less appropriate to our needs. Just my 2 cents. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 11:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Very ig number of inactive admins" appears to be just a myth, and one that I used to believe too. 89% of sysops are active (this month); I've anaylized the stats. Thats means there are about 840 active admins, if "active" mens "edited this month". 73% of admins are active if you define it as "edited 3 days ago at most". How active they are is another question. As Durin's stats suggest that the top active few admins do the majority of the admin tasks here.Voice-of-All 20:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

how about carried out an admin action this month?Geni 02:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of admins only use them if somebody "attacks their territory" - that's a bit of a problem as putting up rubbish which needs to be deleted isn't really attacking anyone's territory. The problem is not cleaning vandalism or blocking vandals, but mainly cleaning up rubbish dumping.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the monthly stats (Admin stats) it seems clear that admin approvals are going down and rejections are going up right now. Over the history of the project it has gone in cycles, so at some point we may start cranking out admins again (like the record 67 admins that were promoted in December). NoSeptember 11:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the candidates aren't changing. If anything, we've had less stupid noms recently (and User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) seems to agree), and tons of perfectly good candidates getting rejected or barely passing (a userpage that displays your religious views too much isn't a reason to fail an admin). Look at Wikipedia:Recently created admins. There's 77% (Mtz206), 79% (Herostratus), 78% (Sam Vimes)— then immediately 99% (Pilotguy), 100% (Gwernol), 100% (DVD R W), then a bit shaky 87% (Cuivienen), but then 90% (IanManka), 100% (Silence), 98% (Samir (The Scope)), 96% (Fir0002) and 99% (Crzrussian). Coincidence that we're just having candidates that aren't as good recently? I think not. Even in the past week, our standards have noticeably risen. --Rory096 14:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The number of users is clearly increasing. That would imply that the number of users meeting any given criteria is increasing, which would in turn imply that we should be promoting more admins. This is not happening, in fact the opposite is happening. The only reason I can see for that is that standards are, in fact, rising. (The other possibility is that the distribution of users is shifting as total numbers increase, and we're actually losing admin-worthy users faster than they're getting replaced from the pool of users still learning. I can see this happening enough to hold promotions steady rather than increasing, but I can see it actually decreasing them.) --Tango 12:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that we don't promote many people who have been here under 4 months. So whenever there is a sudden surge in new members, we have to wait for a number of months before a bunch of users from that group are qualified to become admins. Right now, we are still mostly promoting people who arrived in 2005. The number one factor in how many people we promote is how many qualified people apply for the job. At this moment there are only 7 candidates listed at WP:RFA. NoSeptember 12:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Have we had a sudden surge? I thought numbers were increasing steadilly, so the delay before people are ready shouldn't make much difference. --Tango 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello? DLJessup was just denied adminship despite over twelve-thousand good edits, because he didn't have enough in wiki or talk spaces. Standards slipping? I think not! bd2412 T 21:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I share this concern that the standards are being ratcheted up, or appear to be. Some standards are good, but people almost seem to be coming up with new standards every day and I think it's a bit disheartening. ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The question I would ask is "Are there enough admins to keep up with their responsibilities?" Does it really matter if standards are going up or what the statistics are if we have an answer for that question? Sxeptomaniac 23:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

From my experience there are a too many people manning the vandal bot output like VP and CDVF, but non-blatant vandalism is a problem due to not enough watchlisting. Also there is a general shortage of "investigators" who look out for hoax articles or examine articles for nn.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing im finding a bit dis-conserting are pepole applying hard rules as to wether someone gets there support or not, take for example the 1FA, sevral holes have alredy been pointed out in that theroy, im not saying an rfa regular having guidelines is a bad thing but when your opposing a candiate that you belive would help improve the wiki because they dont 100% fit your hard and fast rules that is wrong, as is the opposite supporting an rfa when you believe they wont use there admin powers effetivley because they fit within your hard standards. Now personally i take great time in analysing someone before suporting or opposing an rfa and take great care not to be a pile on opposer here, consequently i dont ~~vote~~ comment on a lot of rfa's, but id like to think when i do its not because the stats look pretty. Benon 01:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So it sounds to me, from the above two comments, that some of the concerns are not that the standards are too high, but that they are misdirected, tending to only promote certain types of admins (vandal-fighters). I have noticed that combatting vandalism seems to be particularly emphasized in RfAs. Sxeptomaniac 16:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Pure vandal-fighters often don't get promoted. A lot of people oppose for not having a balanced enough edit history. You need to do a bit of everything, really, or at least explain why you concentrate on what you do. --Tango 17:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to RexNL, he was a pure vandal fighter and made 20,000 contributions in month or so and was promoted instantly, he didn't have a lot of edits before that. — The King of Kings 07:16 June 24 '06

And me. I've never really written any articles. I've added information to articles, copyedited, but never really written any. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 08:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

RexNL got quite a few opposes for not doing anything else, but I think he work on the Dutch wiki was enough to counter that. Deskana, you might not of written many articles, but looking at your contribs, you're very active in the WP namespace. You don't just revert vandalism. --Tango 13:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me... (Archive 62)[edit]

Is it just me, or does the success of many RfA's depend primarily on name recognition? I ask this because my RfA did not reach consensus, as too many people felt I was too new (I'd been around since the end of January), but Kylu's current RfA is snowballing to success, and she's been around since April. I know she gets around more than I do, but still, I feel that many RfA's depend on popularity rather than how well they'd use the tools. Anyone else think so? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC) (Not that I think Kylu would abuse the tools, nor do I think less of her, it's just an example.)

No, I wouldn't say primarily on name recognition. I'm sure it is a contributing factor though, and yes people who appear a lot in high visibility admin areas do tend to have a successful RFA earlier than otherwise. People are more likely to support if they recognise the name and see lots of good work associated with it. If you've less experience in the 'admin areas' then you are likely to be less recognised, but you will also have less edits in those areas for people to look at and judge you on- experience shouldn't be counted just on time around, or edit count- it's what you've done, how many different situations you've experienced. Also looking back at your rfa I see there were other reasons that it failed (like that page move incident). That make sense? Petros471 17:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely does, in a big way - and in some cases has descended into a populatiry contest rather than a measure of potential to be a hard-working admin. To be honest, the difference between a person who passes 25-0 and another at 100-0 may be misleading, because I can think of some cases where the more supported admin did little admin work, whereas the other may have been gnoming around a lot. The same goes for barnstars. Having said that, any appropriate candidate will pass, although the percentage is important, not the raw number of votes. Anyway, Kylu had done less than Srikeit - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Srikeit, who got pummeled. Also compare Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrownHairedGirl to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the number of supports (and therefore how likely an RFA is going to reach WP:100) is very strongly related to name recognition. That's obviously very nice for those people being supported, but shouldn't be used as an indicator that they will make better admins. On the other hand I generally think that the right result (promote or not) is made in most cases, especially if you don't consider making someone wait a few more months if their first RFA is a bit on the early side to be a major problem. As with anything, there are exceptions... Petros471 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, very true - there is a massive block vote to be had at Esperanza as well as marketing yourself on IRC. I did create an Open Office spreadsheet to she which of the new admins did the work, and compared them to their "support" and there are massive disparities in the popularity stakes and actually doing work. File:Admin.sxc. This has basically lead to a glut of cosmetic admins, but also seems to have left guys like Sam Vimes and Christopher Sundita under a very harrowing process, whereas some others don't ever get questioned at all due to their popularity.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would go along with the fact that name recognition probably has more effect on how early a candidate will be promoted, rather than whether they will be promoted. Incidentally this is also why I believe requirements have been steadily rising. As the number of active editors increases so the mutual familiarity amongst these editors decreases, I am here assuming that people are more willing to cut some slack to people they know at some level than people they have never encountered - I am not questioning this practice, it is only natural. From personal experience, I think the major contributors were better known to each other in the past than they are now, therefore admin standards were lower then than they are now. This is also why regulars on IRC probably get in earlier than other editors - rather than being a cabal, it is just people supporting people they personally know aren't jerks. Having said all this, the cream will eventually rise to the top; just because the process is systemically flawed, it doesn't mean all those who are rejected are necessarily incapable, unwanted, or worse. Rje 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of overwhelming the thread with entirely too topical examples, I would say that User:Wknight94, as a guy who edits relatively obscure articles and does a lot of maintenence, has very little name recognition (the dead giveaway is that no one has given a "thought you were already an admin" support yet). But he's currently unopposed anyway. So it's not purely "voting for people I've heard of", although you might say editcount is the other key factor. And so what, really? We tend to remember people's names if they either do something we really like, or really don't like. It's only natural that without name recognition, a "great" edit count, or a small number of really stand-out article edits, noms will struggle. --W.marsh 00:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also Edgar181 with his 140 chemistry articles - I was the first (of only two) person to give him a barnstar - and I randomly hunted around for unsung heroes. He's done a lot more procedural and article work than 95% of the people who are more popular than him. Some people seem to do 3000 small edits with only 3 or 4 articles and seem to get coronated very with much fanfare.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Time to counter the drift in standards? (Archive 64)[edit]

I've observed over the past few years that this process has drifted towards increasingly higher (sometimes unreasonably and unrealisticly high) expectations of prospective admins, and that worries me. In particular, those participating in these discussions are often fixated on edit count, rather than other more important factors like an user's trustworthyness and ability to work with others. We are far from the the original intent of granting adminship except where there's a reason not to, and while that isn't entirely bad, I think that the standards should be set only as high as necessary to protect the project from blatent abuse of admin powers - they were never intended to be an "elite" class of users. - - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In particular, I think the questions that we need to answer are:

How tough do the standards need to be to protect Wikipedia from malicious admins?
Do the current level of informal standards make enough of a difference in preventing abuse that they are justifiable?
Are current informal standards reasonable or unreasonable given the goals of the project and WP:AGF ?
Would we be better served with formal qualifications so that the standards for adminship can remain consistant?
- Should edit counts factor into those qualifications?
- Should time as a contributor factor into those qualifications?
- What other factors are involved? History of relations with other users? History of conflicts?

Also, I think we need to be asking ourself different questions regarding adminship candidates:

If promoted, will the user use their admin powers to pursue their own POV or to influence edit conflicts they are involved in?
If promoted, will the user intentionally harm Wikipedia?
If promoted, will the user be capable of exercising restraint and neutrality?
Does the user have a history of conflicts that calls into question their ability to work with others?
Does the user have a history of abusive editing that calls into question their motives?
Has the user been around for enough time to demonstrate their commitment to the project?

Really it boils down to one question: is the user likely to abuse the tools? bd2412 T 09:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the only reason we need any consderation af all on time or edit count is to make sure that they have put enough effort into the project that we have a reasonable idea of who their are and their level of commitment - basically, look at it this way - it only needs to be enough to make sure that the amount of time and effort the candidate has put into the project outweighs the time and effort that would have to be spent cleaning up after them should they turn out to be a problem as an admin. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "misuse" to "abuse" - that way it includes unintentional damage an admin can cause simply by not knowing what they're doing. Abuse is always in bad faith. --Tango 11:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying... I did actually consider wording it "misuse", but realisticly, to do serious damage generally requires intent. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 12:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps time to think about something in the line of adminship on probation? (I don't know if this has come up before). And there already is this. Lectonar 10:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mboverload has a great essay in their userspace called "Zero Featured Article" that states that people should not use standard metrics for measuring the worth of the user. The page then goes on to list standards for admins, putting more and more emphasis on certain points. —this is messedrocker (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I like that. I can agree with that essay. Unfortunately, I think that we do need some form of arbitrary standard if only to keep from having 50 million different arbitrary standards. What we are trying to determine by a RFA is whether giving someone adminship is more likely to help Wikipedia or harm it. Thats it. No Roman Inquisition required. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It all comes down to trust right? Do you trust the user, regardless of your personal feelings, to use the tools responsibly and for the good of the community? If so then they deserve a vote... -- Errant^talk(formerly tmorton166) 11:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for comparision an early version of RFA. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Somehow, I prefer the plain and simple days when RfA was like this. No indication of silly metrics there. :) Kimchi.sg 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thought. If we are concerned about bad admins, maybe we should make it easier to remove them too. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 12:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is very true that people sometimes use silly reasons for supporting and especially for opposing. One can always write under such a vote challenging the voter for as to why he/she voted that way, but I guess that's as far as one could go. I think it would be a bad idea to discount frivolous votes, or to institute a policy of criteria people can and cannot vote upon.

In short, while we can all invariably complain on this talk page about unhealthy trends, I guess the best one can do is let people vote however they feel and hope that due to the large number of voting people frivolous votes would cancel each other or become insignificant to the ultimate promote/not promote decision. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If one perceives that another editor's standards are not as good as they might be, one should make a comment in the RfA of one's own using one's own, assumedly better, standards. One should not seek to impose those standards on everyone. Doing that would be a surefire way to break RfA. The reason it so rarely promotes bad people and so rarely fails to promote good people (no system can ever be perfect, remember, and someone else's grass is always greener) is that people have an almost completely free hand to guide a given RfA according to the detail of the circumstance of the particular candidate. -Splash - tk 16:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, well said. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I could care less about the standards for supporting an RFA - I do find problematic the percieved standards for opposing one. I think opposition should be limited to demonstrating that it would be harmful to Wikipedia and its goals to give someone adminship - if you can't show that someone is likely to use the mop and broom to do harm, then theres no reason why they shouldn't be an admin. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The older version of RfA, here, looks much more welcoming and less over the top. It is driven into the head of candidates that ADMINSHIP IS NO BIG DEAL!!!, but there is an utter rigmarole, (odd word ;), you have to file a huge application, cross reference your credentials, and sell yourself in the intro. And then 100-so people you've never even heard make a snap judgement of you, and pile it on. RfA shouldn't be a vote, it should be a discussion. The whole system is screwed in the head, personally I'd much prefer the above option. Obviously it's not applicable since Wikipedia is bursting at the seams with user haters, but I think we should aspire to that. But it isn't going to happen, so why complain. H ig hway ^Batman! 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well RfA still is no big deal...all the technical actions can be reversed, so in the technical aplication it isn't. However, lack of diplomacy and incivility cannot be undone as it can damage trust, etc. so this is one of the big points in RfA. It would be the main point why your RfA failed, not because people think that your writing skills are bad or whatever....I haven't written any FAs....I think it would be better for you to not assume that people hate you.... Secondly, I feel that it is important to take RfA seriously as admins need to be good role models, and it doesn't take more than 20min to prepare a standard RfA, although for me it is more like three hours....Blnguyen | rant-line 00:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh no no no. While Adminship may not be a big deal, getting it (RfA) most certainly is. In this climate, candidates are expected to just through hoops to become Admins, but if they succeed, there's very little to actually being an Admin. -- Ec5618 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I have a hate crowd. I actually know better about Pokémon grammar. Which makes me a prime target. People don't check a user, or read an RfA. They look at the first oppose and see if it is worthy to oppose. And generally it's who opposes, not what they say. Numph. H ig hway ^{Return to Oz...} 13:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats true to an extent, alot of people do look at the opposes (or supports) that are there and base opinions on that; but to be honest that will happen anyway. I think there are enough regular or semi-regular voters around to ensure that a hate (for want of a better word) doesn't undermine an RFA! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Adminship is, in essence, a security guard and a custodian blended into one job. Why do so many wikipedians think that becoming an administrator is the answer to getting power and becoming popular on wikipedia? Perhaps it is because so many administrators are influential and heavily involved—yet a normal user is not prevented from participating in discussions or requesting a block, protect, or delete, or helping change a policy (and as a side note, there are a decent amount of admins, even crats, who don't participate a lot in the community). We have processes so non-admins can work easily and get things done. Cabals do not control the system, a cabal is only created by one's lack of civility, communication, and/or knowledge of process and policy. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No offence Ikiroid, but what 'pedia are you on? New users who disagree with me on policy often have a go at me, until they find out I'm not an admin, and then it turns into, "you aren't qualified to tell me if I'm doing something wrong!" I also have a harder time at things like FAC, but that may be because I'm not popular, but when we're being frank, is why most people aren't admins. H ig hway ^{Return to Oz...} 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that we should grant admin status to anybody who wants it, unless there is a good reason NOT to, not that we should grant admin status to anybody only when there is a reason to. In a way, much like the old system which is efficiently linked to above. Seivad 16:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing set in stone (Archive 65)[edit]

I was amazed, excited, and shocked to know that I was nominated for RfA. However, I was displeased with the information I found after reviewing and participating in a few other RfA's. I found that there is no set guideline or requirment for RfA outside personal criteria. This strikes me as very strange, as I have turned more recently into a process wonk, and feel that there should in fact be such a criteria for handing out the mop. I cant believe that there isnt one already. I take adminship very seriously, and believe that supporters and opposers do the same. I would never abuse such a privelage, but looking over my current RfA, it seems that there are minor mistakes which hold a serious and hard working candidate back, which are based off of either personal views or POV criteria. So my main questions is, and this does not reflect my RfA, can we propose such a guideline (even if it means I fail it)? SynergeticMaggot 12:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's notoriously hard to narrow down RFA criteria among RFA participants, and usually trying to do what you suggest during your own RFA hurts the RFA. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-31 13:12Z

Hard criteria has always been rejected in favor of just letting people (and b'crats) decide on a case-by-case basis. There's simply no objective criteria that determines a good admin. You can set the editcount bar as high or low as you want, and there will always be a glaring example of someone who has a zillion edits yet would make a terrible admin, and someone with relatively few edits who makes a great admin. The main criteria (should be) that a user is unlikely to abuse admin tools... and yet there's no real way to quantify that. --W.marsh 13:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition to what Quarl says, what would a set of RfA criteria look like? The current process is intended to be a debate, focused on editors' evaluations of whether the candidate will make a good admin (or alternatively, would they abuse the tools, which is not quite the same thing). That has to be a fairly subjective judgement call. It would be possible to have objective RfAs: the criteria would ultimately have to be based on edit counts. Do we really want a system where all editors over a certain edit count (or number of months editing, or with a certain percentage use of edit summaries) automatically become admins? It has some advantages, but any such system would automatically be open to abuse. RfA is about judging a person, so it has to be subjective and to some extent POV. To me its the lesser of two evils. Gwernol 13:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont mind that it hurts my RfA, Quarl, as I previously mentioned. This is neither a complaint nor reaction to anything that is specifically mentioned in my current nom. I'm merely concerned, and its just a thought I wouldnt mind having feedback on.

W.marsh: I dunno. I've seen great minds across all areas of Wikipedia. And more great minds reaching consensus to suggestions and proposals. So I cannot share the opinion that it is all together out of our reach from creating a proposal that lists and requires at least a few notable qualities in admins. Clearly if there are so many people willing to add their personal criteria to the current RfA standards page (linked as a sub page :) ), then I believe we can all work together in agreeing on these criteria.

Any such criteria as edit counts, helping others, responding in a civil manner in disputes, and many other qualities can be gone over in the proposal. This just requires effort. And I wouldnt mind being the first to slap my signature down, in efforts to create such a proposal. I feel that this is a must have for editors wishing to make the leap, in an interest of conensus among editors. And I thank you for responding.

Gwernol: Its subjective only because, as the header says, nothing it set in stone. The only way to make it objective is to reach a consensus as to what the exact requirments would be. To achieve this we need only look over the AfD standards sub page, and start a poll, adjusting to specific concerns. I fail to see how anything like this can be abused, since we have a number of guidelines already in place, that we reached through consensus. SynergeticMaggot 13:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

(de-indeting for clarity) Here's an example of why objective criteria are a bad idea. Let's say we chose 2500 edits over at least 3 months with no blocks as the criteria. Yes, its simplified, but just for argument's sake let's use those. So every editor who passes those requirements automatically becomes an admin. Let's say I'm user User:HairyVandal. I set up a new user account User:SmoothAdmin and plug away vandal fighting (look, I even blocked nasty old HairyVandal once!) and generally racking up edits. 3 months later I become an admin. Are we confident this is a good idea?

Of course, the current system can be abused as well (no system for RfA can be perfect). But, the advantage with the current system is at least we have a lot of eyes on the candidates and there is a better chance we'll find something suspicious. Maybe SmoothAdmin got a couple of warnings on the way, or there are suspicious timing coincidences between HairyVandal and SmoothAdmin; at least there's a chance to spot those during the RfA vetting process. Any set of fixed, objective criteria make it much easier for someone to cheat a sockpuppet into adminship. Gwernol 13:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of the hypothetical, we should also require a check user or ip then, to avoid complex problems such as those. But on another note, do you honestly think that arguing an editor into adminship is any different? A criteria would only serve to express the desires of mutiple users through conensus, either way, there will be issues of who is who. It wont stop by adding a proposed criteria, or leaving it like it is. It my understandin if anything can be proven, then admin powers are taken away, and I agree with this. But to deny a user adminship just because so and so did something here or there is not helping the system. Who knows? What if the editor that was refused went on to do a better job of securing the values and principles of Wikipedia? I'd hate to be one to oppose.

With regards to the current system yes, nothing is perfect. But I wish to contribute anyway I can, and I believe a proposed criteria will help regulate such tasks as admin requests. We can only go so long without one, and fear of this circumstance is no excuse for there not being a criteria already when it could happen with the criteria. Everyone has at least one eye on them on Wikipedia, I'm not worried. SynergeticMaggot 14:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Who would you run CheckUser against? At the moment that SmoothAdmin crosses the threshold (s)he automatically becomes an admin. Because no-one is looking at their record we can't know that we should check them against the IP of HairyVandal. The only way to spot this would be to run CheckUser against every IP in the system. That would be technically unfeasible, not to mention a violation of several privacy-related policies.

I don't know what you mean by "arguing an editor into adminship". What I do know is that in a typical RfA somewhere between 50 and 100 editors go through the contributions of the candidate and look at the breadth, depth and quality of their past work. No doubt some do this more thoroughly than others, but we do sometimes turn up disturbing evidence on candidates who on the surface appear good (I'm not referring to your specific RfA, by the way).

Setting up a criteria would indeed express the consensus of multiple editors, as you say. The problem is it would quickly become either ignored or something that would be subject to wikilawyering. Let me expand on that. If we have a policy-level criteria, then any candidate who passes it would have a case to say "I must be made an admin" regardless of anything else in their record. What do we do then in the case of SmoothAdmin where someone discovers they are a sockpuppet of HairyVandal? We have to give them the tools, because the policy says "this is the criteria for making someone an admin".

To get around this we could include a clause that says (something like) "editors expressing an opinion can oppose candidates who pass these criteria if they have reasonable grounds to do so". But now we're right back to where we are today: subjective loopholes. The only thing a fixed criteria would guarantee is a minimum standard for adminship. No-one who didn't meet the threshold could ever become an admin. once they passed the threshold, we have the system that's in place today. Is that better? Perhaps, but I don't think it addresses the issues you are raising. Gwernol 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting kind of long! I'm glad to have generated such a response.

Who would I use a check user against? Your hypotheical RfA candidate, that is, if there is reason (only if ther is reason). I never implied we should check their history or contributions. Your hypothetical RfA candidate would become an admin regardless of the proposal.

What I meant by arguing into adminship, is this. It appears that since there is no criteria, although I have since found snippets on pages, its soley based on an arguement to oppose, or support, and others will notice this and say "support per him/her" or "oppose per him/her". And I take none of this the wrong way, and will not, and have no inclination to suspect this reflects my RfA :) (no sarcasm at all).

Ah. No one should just walk up and say "I should be an admin". They should in fact be humble about it. And I wouldnt par with the term wikilawering, more like adhering to so and so, whichever policy or guideline apply. I always side with policy in the end. And who says that we should leave these loop holes in that you are bringing up? I'm happy you have found them, and exceptions can be made, and we should not ignore large mistakes in a users history, nor make a big issue out of small mistakes. We dont have to give out the tools just because they meet x amount of the requirements. Its the same judgment call that gets made on AfD's, and these RfA's. Any of the opinions editors may have, can be worked into the proposal, based on said situations, like aformentioned loopholes you already brought up.

And lastly, the only issues I bring up, is that a proposal be at least attempted. We need only start with the personal requirements listed on the sub page, and work them all in :) Doesnt seem that hard at all. SynergeticMaggot 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm all for you making the attempt. But you should be aware that similar proposal have been made (several times) before. They have always been rejected by the community because they attempt to make an inherently subjective process into an objective one. You'll need to overcome the objections outlined above (and others) if you want the attempt to succeed. These attempts tend to fail because you have to put so many subjective loopholes into any proposed set of criteria (to avoid cases like my hypothetical HairyVandal) that you end up back where we are today - editors making subjective judgements - but you've added an extra layer of rules which don't achieve what you want and make the process overly complex and open it to wikilawyering. If you can solve that, then more power to you. Gwernol 15:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I take all feedback into consideration. SynergeticMaggot 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally objective criteria are impossible; there must be some case-by-case evaluation. But I think that we, as a community, should work out strong guidelines on what sorts of criteria people should use. Principles like (to give some examples, ignoring the specifics):

Having contributed only slightly to certain specific tasks, such as article content or vandalism reversion, should not be held against a candidate, except insofar as they may correlate with knowledge or ignorance of policies relevant to admins.
Admins should be civil.
Overall edit count should not be held against an admin with over 1000 edits, and time spent here should not be held against an admin who's been here for at least three months.
Although edit summaries should be used extensively, this is not relevant to adminship unless the candidate fails to use summaries even for major or controversial edits.
Admins should be willing to discuss their actions with others.

Assume further that some kind of rationale is required for every RFA vote (even if it's just "per X"). Then if someone clearly ignores these principles and gives a rationale in violation of them, their votes could be discounted by a bureaucrat. I expect such votes would become rare, however, with the guideline in place. Of course, people might try to evade the rules, but that's true for any kind of rule, and can be dealt with by a bureaucrat if necessary. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. They way I see the possibility of a proposal such as this, would be the same for any other, with the exception of the case specific. But if I were to list all of my suggestions, this talk page would get pretty long. One such suggestion, would be somewhat similar to how you choose which speedy delete tag to put on, or under which area of say, WP:NOT your basis of deleting an article is, etc. etc. It would be like "Support per this section, this section and this section", or "Oppose per this section of the criteria or A7". This would cut back on alot of "Sorry but..." and "Try again next time and..." or "I'll support you later if..". It would be a straight decision, still based on their personal views mind you, but specifically stating the number under a specific area of the criteria they either most see in the candidate, or dont see. The only difference is, we reach a consensus as to what exactly should be on these lists. SynergeticMaggot 21:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We have had candidates who appear to meet commonly-stated criteria (high edit count, reasonable amount of time spent on the project, not Willy on Wheels, etc.) but who nevertheless would quite possibly make Dave Letterman's "Top 10 Really Terrible Candidates for Adminship". I recall one particularly woeful candidate actually wiki-lawyering when it appeared his RfA was going down the gurgler; even complained to Jimbo that the words at the top of WP:RfA guaranteed him adminship, and us miserable peasants were breaking the rules by refusing to give it to him.

Even in less extreme cases, there's nothing wrong with a somewhat nebulous criteria being used. Personally I don't support unless I believe a candidate possesses (or will obtain before he does any damage as an admin) Clue. How do you legislate that? More rules invariably leads to more attempts to use the exact wording of the rules to damage Wikipedia; I don't want people who are inappropriate candidates for the role of admin squeaking in because they found an obscure loophole. I want the freedom to oppose any candidate, simply because I do not believe they will be good admins. I trust the bureaucrats here to disregard my opinion if they feel I'm being unfair to any particular candidate, but I don't trust the idea of a group of users forced to support if they can't pick acceptable "oppose" reasons off a list to prevent RfA being unfair to Wikipedia as a whole. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. We elect our presidents and prime ministers without strict criteria or technical requirements. Each voter gets to make their choice on whatever they want, and many will vote on their gut feeling that candidate X is trustworthy or has common sense or many other very subjective measures. We also need to allow for very subjective gut feel voting in RfA. I suspect many people who say "not enough WP edits" are just being polite, they may actually be voting on the basis of "I don't trust this guy". Let's continue with the nice flexibility and ambiguity of the current RfA process. NoSeptember 13:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My, uh, new RFA criterion (Archive 65)[edit]

Dude, I just came up with the perfect way to tell if someone will make a good admin! Witness User:Szyslak/200MWTE. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Love it! I'm going to adopt to it as well. This, along with 100+ portal talk edits, will be excellent criteria. — Deckill e r 07:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Racking up a big edit count in the MediaWiki talk namespace is a great way to show that you understand Wikipedia policy, the software behind Wikipedia, and Wikipedia in general. All things being equal, it might suggest that you're likelier to understand such stuff than are people who don't have such big edit counts. But one trouble with such a standard, once it's announced, is the way it may encourage some people to inflate their counts; another trouble that it's likely to get in people's way. I don't understand Mediawiki very well (I've gone no further than digging around in the stylesheets), I don't think this has crippled me, it hasn't caused me to waste others' time (my only participation was description of a bug and filing of a bug report), and I suspect that people doing good work in the MediaWiki are quite happy not to have people like myself cluttering up the talk namespace with comments ("Yes, I too agree with that. ~~~~", "Sorry, could you explain that once more, this time for non-techies like myself? Thanks. ~~~~", etc.). -- Hoary 07:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC) PS Aha! [Sound of palm slapping forehead.] -- Hoary 08:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. You will find the majority of users will not have MediaWiki edits. Your new criteria seem to reserve adminship for those with more technological inclinations while a more pertinent point with adminship is an understanding of Wikipedia policy. I agree with Hoary. Prospective admins will be flocking to MediaWiki to say things like, "I agree with the above user." or "That is true." It would be pointless. Michael 07:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this criterion was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.... — TKD::Talk 07:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Especially since Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace is old and dusty: it still has unarchived messages on it from 2003. I'd be very surprised if Szy's "new requirements" weren't a clever joke.--Firsfron of Ronchester 07:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And doesn't MediaWiki require a different type of account? How would you check? Michael 07:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

An eerie glow of self-satisfaction as the user goes on to make 150 help edits over at mo: in order to demonstrate an awareness of the wider community would be a good indicator I feel. Rje 07:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've got one edit to MediaWiki talk (from before this was posted), but seeing as it was an {{editprotected}} request I suppose I can count one to the MediaWiki namespace as well. 200MWTE seems a bit excessive; technical knowledge is needed to make any useful contributions there. Perhaps the criterion should be 'at least one edit that resulted in a change to the interface, which wasn't reverted/shot down in flames/got the user indef-blocked', which I'm calling 1MWE. This still only applies to prospective admins trying to get in on a 'technical' remit. And yes, I suppose 200MWTE was meant to be humourous, but there's a possibly good idea here. Extra points if Deckiller can explain why the Portal talk namespace has to be handled differently by my edit counter, and in response to Michael, all MediaWiki pages are on permaprotection and can only be edited by admins (which is why I used {{editprotected}}). --ais523 08:08, 4 August 2006 (U T C)

I would certainly hope this was a joke. Michael 08:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's a joke. I was tired of seeing those inflexible rules some RFA regulars go by, with comments like "Oppose, you have only 5,967 edits. My minimum edit count is 6000" and "You must have 200 template edits and 100 category edits, and half that many for each corresponding talk namespace. You have 289 template edits, but only 92 category edits, so I must oppose". So as a reaction to this trend, which I hereby dub "criterionitis" or perhaps "standardsitis", I came up with the most ridiculous RFA standard I could think of. (How many of us have one MW talk edit, much less 200? And who even watchlists a MediaWiki page, except perhaps MediaWiki:Blockedtext?)

However, I don't criticize those who choose to hold high standards for adminship hopefuls. While I don't agree with the tighening of standards we've experienced lately, I think it's understandable. Early this year we witnessed a series of scary incidents involving adminship: the pedophilia userbox wheel war, the Freestylefrappe fiasco and Guanaco's failed resysopping. And inflexible voting standards aren't anything new. But now it seems like just enough are using inflexible standards that it's causing a few more RFAs to fail where they would otherwise succeed. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of your comment, but I must admit that I stick to my standards pretty rigidly, as I believe they are easy to meet. Some of the standards some people set (6000 edits, etc.) are unrealistic for straightforward editors who aren't using vandalproof or some such edit-count-booster, and who have full lives with jobs/sports/ect filling up most of their time... I watch some people come in here and rack up more edits in one month than I've gotten in over a year and I can't even get my head around it. Themindset 18:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Your criteria are reasonable and simple, and ones almost anyone could agree with. (Someone with fewer than 1000 edits has no chance of passing, anyway). szyslak (t, c, e) 22:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And today's game can be figuring out if anyone actually does have over 200 MWT edits. I've got 27, Geni has about 110, and none of the likely devs seem to have racked up more than a couple dozen. I suppose it could be that in the entire history of Wikipedia no one has gotten to 200 MWT. Dragons flight 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is a joke...? --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[1] ~ PseudoSudo 22:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Makes 200 times as much sense as all the 1FA's running loose biting RfA's in the hindquarters. :) Dlohcierekim 04:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Requirements for RfA (Archive 66)[edit]

I know this has been discussed 1000 times before, but I want to know right now when the new requirements that a user has to have been here for 6+ months and have accured 2000 edits was put into effect?

It took me over 3 years to achieve 6000 edits, did that make me a bad admin? — Ilyan e p (Talk) 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Just before someone discovered how to enforce them. It's a full time job to keep up with the new rules. Edit: average failed nom has over 3,000 edits. Stephen B Streater 17:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not everyone requires that. It is usually a good amount of time and enough edits to judge. Other than your lengthly signature, there should be no complains about you :) -- ReyBrujo 17:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the average edit counts of failed noms is not a good way of measuring changes in standards. If you remove failed self noms from that equation, it comes out to an average edit count of 4,742 edits per failed RfA nominee since 1 January 2006. I think a better way of measuring this is where the failure rate stablizes, i.e. the point past which the number of edits does not seem to influence the outcome of an RfA. This point seems to be around 2,000 edits (see above chart). --Durin 17:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I too am disheartened at the standards being put into place at RfA. I see people with over 10,000 edits being opposed because they don't have enough talk page eidts. When I ran for adminship, I too was criticized for not having enough talk page edits. When I pointed out the the vast majority (60 - 70%) of the articles I worked on had talk pages with five of fewer comments on them, and that no less than one-third of the articles on my watchlist has no talk page at all, people suggested I put more active pages on my watchlist so that I can take place in debate! I worked as a German translator prior to my adminship. Most of the articles on my watchlist were articles I had written from scratch, and also were articles where I was the sole major contributor. People were literally telling me to put pages on my watchlist that I wasn't interested in so I could argue with people on those articles' talk pages! It was one of the most ridiculous things I have ever encountered in my time at Wikipedia. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 18:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA is becoming the laughingstock of the Wikipedia community. My friends mock some of the opposes and now think their edits will be reverted because they do "not having enough portal talk edits" (taken out of context, but that's what people do). Something needs to be done; otherwise, Wikipedia is going implode because of a massive backlog of upkeep work. What we're doing here on RfA is similar to Wal-Mart hiring only people with X number of dollars in the bank. I propose another ammendment to WP:NOT — Wikipedia is not a place to put people on "statistical trials". — Deckill e r 18:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan's statements above. And now it appears we will have a failed RfA for a user with 13,000 edits, who has a featured article, who works on many WikiProjects, who uses vandal-wacking tools already, and who has no civility issues within the last eight months... because of "not enough talk page edits". There is such a thing as standards, and then there's such a thing as going overboard with requirements. :( --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are you referring to as the failed candidate? JoshuaZ 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agentsoo's, whose current RfA hovers at 69%. Although the RfA still has several days left, the first 48 hours are usually pretty indicative of how an RfA will turn out.--Firsfron of Ronchester 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was aware of how that RfA was going but was confused because it hadn't been closed yet. I agree that the way it is going is a bit odd (although one of the opposes is Masssiveego and that hardly counts). JoshuaZ 18:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only vote my opinion. I fully encourage Wikipedians to excerise their option to vote. Any vote I place will absolutely count, and any new voters should know their votes will also equally count. --Masssiveego 05:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to the above (and its accompannying editing summary of "response to belittling personal attack") I believe you have misinterpted what I said. My point was that since you generally vote oppose, your vote could plausibly be removed if one was trying to treat the first few days of an RfA as a sample of how things will proceed. This particularly makes sense when (as the case was when I had written the above comment) only a small number of people had voted in the RfA. JoshuaZ 05:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agentsoo's is the second-most-recent RfA to be added, and with only 17 voters so far, it's a little premature to be casting doom and gloom on it (also, he's now up to 76% as of this writing ;) -- nae'blis 20:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jumping in, perhaps it would be a good idea to come up with something like what's used for featured articles whereby we have a set of community standards (like Wikipedia:What is a featured article?) and that any objection should seek to relate to one of those standards. That might help eliminate some of the oppose votes that don't really relate to Wikipedia:What is good administrator?, like some of the things mentioned above. It also wouldn't mean automatic promotions once someone reaches a certain edit count, contribution time, etc. Just a thought. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting thought, and I like it! Problem though is that what makes a good administrator is very subjective. If we can get around that... --Durin 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No more subjective than what makes a good FA. FAC is not much less contentious than RFA though, and there are plenty of bad faith/useless objections at FAC from people that don't understand the FAC criteria. But who knows, maybe having a community criteria would be a good thing. It may help make bad faith votes harder to make and or easier to see/ignore. In FAC Raul654 can just ignore the bad faith opposes or those that make it clear they don't know the criteria. It's worth a shot. - Taxman ^Talk 20:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is about to implode because RfA is not promoting enough people to handle backlogs. If we look at Category:Administrative backlog, the list isn't all that long. Also keep in mind that two different studies have shown that approximately 50% of the administrator work is done by the top 20 most active administrators. Even if we doubled our promotion rates, having a better chance of finding a "top 20" administrator is not necessarily a definite conclusion. --Durin 18:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- True, I was purposely going a little overboard. I still think RfA is becoming ridiculous to a degree (and my friends have laughed about it :) ). I agree with Tari's idea, except for the fact that some questionable users may still get promoted using that system. — Deckill e r 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that there are votes that are absurd. I know there are. I do doubt that such votes are predominant or indicative in any respect of the general nature of RfA. --Durin 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they are though. The general nature of RfA is that people can oppose for whatever reason they want to even if it doesn't help the project. There are large numbers of uninformed votes that make no attempt to truly identify if the candidate would make a good admin. - Taxman ^Talk 20:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But, I don't think we can conclude a particular case of vote as being indicative. The core problem here is that we passed a scalability threshold of the system a LONG time ago. People don't "know" each other on RfA anymore for the most part. The project is huge now, and virtually ever candidate that comes up is going to be one that we don't know from first hand experience. To review each candidate in detail, to come up with an informed vote....that's very hard. I conduct reviews of candidates against a set of standards I have for people whom I intend to nominate. It takes hours to complete the review. It's only after such an extensive review that I feel comfortable nominating someone. To be honest, I don't feel 100% confident in people that I haven't nominated, but voted support because I can't see spending hours doing a thorough review to come up with an informed vote. It's very hard. Very few people (if any?) are conducting thorough reviews of people prior to voting. Nominating, there's a few of us that do in-depth reviews. But voting? Probably less than 1%. --Durin 20:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hours long completely thorough review is not needed every time, but a complete lack of an effort to review a candidate at all beyond, "no portal talk edits" is a problem, and it seems to be a systematic one. I don't think it has anything to do with the RfA process other than the fact that we prominently paste in edit count summaries that are completely irrelevant to determining if an editor would make a good admin. - Taxman ^Talk 20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(Excuse me for barging in) I completely agree and I'm glad people like Taxman feel this way too. I have been rudely shocked by some of the most useless and irrelevant objections. "Too few edits given the time he/she has spent here"; "not enough talk page edits"; "speaks too few languages"; "hasn't made any edits in the last 5 minutes" - too name a few. And what's worse, some of these are from admins. Can we please de-admin such people? :-) - Cribananda 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Over at Wiktionary (disclaimer: which has a small community where everyone knows each other), it is more or less up to the Bureaucrats to recognize absurd "no portal talk page edits" oppose votes, and to ignore them. I understand that it may not be that obvious here on Pedia, so adopting community-wide standards may be a better idea. But then, doesn't it become very obvious when someone will fail or will succeed? Are there any votes still needed then? I have never voted on RFAs for people that I'd never heard about, but that's an equally bad stance if everyone were to adopt that. — Wildrick 21:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe any vote from Wikipedian that qualifies to vote is counted regardless of the reason. --Masssiveego 06:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The one that shocked me, on my RfA, was the person who opposed due to not having 7/24th in WP space. Although the opinion was stuck out, that level of scrutiny makes no sense to me. Portal and help space edit requirements also make no sense whatsoever.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is one way to look at controversial RFA that are not passing.

Controversial RFAs can be broken down into at least three types. Some RFA's do not offer a view of nom that reassures people unfamiliar with them that the nom is trustworthy and capable. These should be the easiest to fix. A few tweaks to either the nom record or RFA can make a stronger impression. Other times the RFA may provide a good view of the nom, but the particular people viewing the RFA have rigid standards that sink the nom. Still other RFA's have noms that some reasonable people think are prepared to be admins and other reasonable people disagree. The situation is worse when all three problems co-exist. --FloNight ^talk 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there are silly votes on RfA sometimes. But that's why there is a 75% threshold, you can't fail unless at least a quarter of voting people believe you are unfit to be an administrator. I would like to see an example where a candidate failed primarily because of frivolous votes. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My Rfa was going down before Taxman came in and called my detractors "unreasonable". RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 23:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And for that matter, I consider this to be pretty frivolous. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"We have enough admins" ... and yet there's practically fights breaking out between the different wikipedia "departments" over each single qualified admin (we basically just see one or two pop up every month). See also below. Kim Bruning 04:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Either the situation has gotten more dire over the past few months while i've been inactive or there are more alarmists. I think a combination of both. Anyways, g'day and I'll try to do a couple more promotions in the future — Ilyan e p (Talk) 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain it this way. The shield from lawsuits for Wikipedia is the Admin who must select which information must be censored from the public. Too much censorship, and somebody who is doing a research paper will not get the information they need. Too little and we invite legal problems. I obviously do not want a vandal slipping through and misusing admin options to severely damage Wikipedia, or it's reputation. Given the long and difficult process of removing Admin, the only quality control toward preventing a system wide shut down by a renegade admin is to screen them before they can do damage. Remember people are donating their money, time and their effort. I rather not see such gifts go to waste because a few bad admin. It only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the barrel. Quoting one actor. "...choose wisely..." --Masssiveego 05:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me of another line, "He chose....poorly". Too many RfA voters are looking for the holy grail. --Durin 12:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it's ridiculous because if an admin did do something to "severely damage Wikipedia" it could be no worse than many trolls do, and that admin would almost immediately have their admin tools removed via WP:OFFICE.--MONGO 13:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agentsoo now stands at (31/5/2). See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Agentsoo2 :) Dlohcierekim 02:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Admins coming off this page are useless, promote different admins. (Archive 66)[edit]

I knew you'd look at such a provocative title! ;-) Actually, it's not quite true, the vandalbuster and volume editor admins coming off this page *ARE* useful, and you're doing a great job! It's just that we are running very very very short on admins in all the other categories of admins we can have. (personally I'm running really short on mediators, but I know other people are complaining too)

A couple of people who really need that admin flag are folks like:

Featured article writers
(potential) mediators
Policy experts

Are all not getting the admin flag.

The properties of these people are:

Low numbers of high quality edits in the relevant parts of wikipedia.
Reluctance to become an admin.
the ability to stand their ground when they have to.

These criteria are selected *AGAINST* by the current rfa process.

RFA selects for high number edits per-se. Many people currently don't even look at quality of edits, and looking at quality is strongly discouraged due to the high number of edits required by edit-count criteria in the first place. Please look at things like featured articles most carefully.
RFA selects against people who don't want to be an admin. if you say "I don't wanna" , nowadays people on rfa will just say "ok"... while they should be going the extra mile to drag this person across the line, kicking and screaming if nescesary ;-)
RFA selects against people who stand their ground in a conflict, even when prudent. This is because it's like "ooooohhh.... there WAS a conflict...Oppose". You can't be a good admin if you deal with conflict by simply running away all the time. You have to stand up for yourself and wikipedia, but do so in a calm, polite, friendly and professional way. If you demonstrate that, Great!

Each group needs the admin flag for different reasons:

Featured article writers need the flag to help maintain featured article pages themselves. This is very very important, as the goal of wikipedia is ultimately to create as many featured articles as possible. They will hopefully not need to use their flag often, but when they need it they *really* need it.
Mediators need to flag mostly to protect pages and read deletion histories. Also: "sit down, shut up, and LISTEN to each other, or I'm banning BOTH your asses for a week" , can be effective in a pinch ;-)
Policy experts need the admin tools to be able to continue to work on and build their understanding and experience with policy. Some policy only works for admins, and it gets rather hard to test at times, if you can't use it, as you might imagine ;-)

So could everyone look at their criteria and see if you're not selecting against these categories of people? Please ask your friends to look too! Kim Bruning 04:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The process is also failing to identify people who understand copyright issues.--Peta 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe an admin test is in order? —this is messedrocker (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I honestly hope we have not reached that point. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think featured article writers need to be admins unless they need to be admins. Adminship is the set of tools any given article writer doesn't need. Admins do more of the cleaning so the content creators can create. It's a burden to try to do both. Or something. --Keitei (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Those tools are helpful for article writers. Also though, it doesn't help that when we get excellent FA admins that we run them off by letting editors insinuate they are neo-nazis when they just try to improve articles. pschemp | talk 04:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Or worse, when they come in to an ongoing disagreement, edit war, or even worse, breeching experiment, and try to do the job we asked them to do by restoring order and then get labed with a POV label and their block is dragged through (tens of) thousands of words of analysis. ++Lar: t/c 07:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a statement that proves true for administrators, regardless of which project: once they get administrator status, they focus much more on things like the Wikipedia namespace. —this is messedrocker (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not useless (I'm not saying anyone is saying that I am), but I agree we do need more varied admins. One of the things I laid out in my candidacy was that I wanted to work behind the scenes. I didn't want to go for the (relatively) glorious job of being a troll fighter and a vandal blocker. I earned several support votes for this position, but also several opposes ("I don't see why he needs the tools...") Troll fighting and vandal blocking are both admirable, but what we need to do is promote people who will work. Everyone likes to block trolls, but who is going to close TfD, RfD, SfD, etc.? All are less glorious than AfD and many have admin backlog. We need to promote the type of people who work quietly, behind the scenes. We need more people who will recognize that the symbol of the admin is the mop, not the broadsword (and yes, I got an oppose vote for having that comparison in my RFA candidacy text.) RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, we need those too. I just really really REALLY need people who can learn to be mediators, policy makers, and general organiser types coming out of RFA too, and I've seen them being opposed several times now. Kim Bruning 05:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your ladder is on the wrong wall. We need the minimum overhead possible to produce the final product: an encyclopedia. Diverting resources to the social problems probably gets us farther from that, not closer. And by the way, it's generally better to assume whatever roles you believe are important and do the work until people recognize you as a leader, rather than continually reminding us that you believe you are one. - Taxman ^Talk 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I really didn't deserve that. :-( Stupid social issues and stupid overcomplex rules are draining an overlarge part of wikipedias resources, and more every day. I've been doing so much of the work on solving these issues all along, especially since many of my old friends have moved on to other things. I can't do it on my own, the wiki is too big. Can you help me? Can you find people who will help me? Kim Bruning 15:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish they'd actually go through with their CSD promises. They forget about CAT:NR, Category:Images with no copyright tag, CAT:NS, CAT:NL, and CAT:ORFU. Speedies, but with time delays to fix the issues. Few admins ever touch them, and they build up until some poor sap has to spend their entire day deleting or cleaning tags off of hundreds upon hundreds of images off of the CATs. I'm not quite sure who those admins are(and if you're reading this, good job), but this is just another backlog that sits and languishes. Kevin_b_er 05:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I have been working on a new tracking bot to help identify backlogs like this and call more attention to them. See User:Dragons flight/Category tracker and User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary. Dragons flight 07:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! It's a great thing to have on my watchlist to remind me of which categories need work. Kusma (討論) 07:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as you stop calling for featured article writers/wikipedia ambassadors to edit fully protected pages like MediaWiki:Common.css and {{cite web}}, I'm fine with sysopping the FA writers. Adminship should be no big deal. The only question should be: "Do we trust this person not to abuse the tools?". Anything else is ridiculous admin-cult (as we have it at the moment). Maybe an inverse-blocking feature could also be helpful: admin A gives user U the right to edit fully protected page P — an "ambassador" delegates his trust to a specialist maintenance staff member for a specific job and surveys how that job is done. It's like giving the key of your appartment to the plumber. If the plumber does a bad job (site looks like shit after user U edited MediaWiki:Common.css and U has no striking explanation for the botch) then you'll never call this plumber again (A disables U from editing protected page P). --Ligulem 08:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of people who really need that admin flag are folks like:

Featured article writers
mediators
Policy experts

These are all important jobs, but they can be done without the admin flag. Using 'admin' as a marker for 'respected knowledgable person' isn't really appropriate. The later is a precondition for the former, but not (yet) vice-versa. I'd like to keep it that way for a bit longer yet. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There's another job which we can't have too many Admins for: educating new users. The more education that goes on, the smoother everything runs later. Stephen B Streater 09:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:-) Kim Bruning

These jobs used to be doable without the admin flag, as you'd just call on a clueful admin to help out. Nowadays it can take over an hour to find said clueful admin. So no dice. We need admins on hand to make sure people do not disrupt these activities. Also, I believe I already pointed out which admin abilities are important to each group? Even if I hadn't, it is so that typically more and better tools are always a good thing.Kim Bruning 15:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To Kim's original point: If the regulars of the FA, mediation and policy areas are not participating in the voting at RfA, you should encourage them to come over here regularly and tell them why they are needed here. As long as it is not linked to a particular candidacy, I don't consider that vote stacking. The ultimate purpose of RfA is to produce good admins for the benefit of all of Wikipedia. The regular voters at RfA are not representative of the whole community, but don't blame them, at least they are participating in the process. Instead bring over here the people that are not participating and they will bring with them their perception of what types of admins we need to serve the areas of the project they participate in. NoSeptember 09:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to say it, but NoSeptember beat me to it. This appeal to RFAers is good and all, but getting a wider range of the Wiki community to participate in RFA and the shaping of its standards should be the goal - rather than trying to change the standards of those already participating. Themindset 19:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I have only recently started to vote in RfAs, and I found this discussion extremely enlightening; it's given me quite a bit to think about. My own standards do include edit counts, because I am judging by my own familiarity with policies -- at 1300 edits or so I feel there are plenty of policies I haven't even read yet, much less understand. Hence I feel that someone with 1500 or 1800 edits is also likely to have gaps. But what I found most useful in this discussion is the list of areas where more admins are needed. I'll be thinking about revising my standards and taking a more careful look at edit histories. Thanks. Mike Christie 19:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with NoSeptember. The admins are there to facilitate the environment for productive writing of articles, creating diagrams, audio recordings etc. Unfortunately I see that there aren't enough article writers who actually want to have a say in who becomes an administrator, because this is what the administrators are there for. As for the policy, edit count doesn't really tell you whethere the person is well versed in how to do things unless they demonstrate it by doing it, or by reading the policy. Some guys with 15000 edits don't know the 3RR policy because they simply edit quietly in a corner without ever edit-warring. Also, because OrphanBot does most of the image tagging, most people don't learn about how all the image categories like unsourced, unknown copyright, unused fair use, etc, work, because the bot processes them, but only a few read the CSD for images and participate in deleteing them. I'd guess it would be maybe 10 admins doing 90% of the image deletions or something like that, a greater imbalance than the usual admins tasks and the pictures are oftern backlogged 5-6 days. as far as the coaching at WP:ESP, I don't think anybody does image policy tutorials, and that really needs to change, because what we need is people to delete images and also check them, as there are surely many pictures out there with bogus {{GFDL-self}} and fairuse tags. I'd simply say there are not enough people training themselves with the skills required to be an admin; not enough people do NP patrol or cateogry cleaning and doing notability analysis, and likely there are gigabytes of cruft festering around the place, etc. I get the impression that there are a lot of people simply piling on at AfDs to get name-recognition for RfAs "per nom", rather than researching on dubious articles and AfDing them or making comments which add to the debate knowledge. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike Christie, joining the discussions on this page counts double for Wikipedia talk page edits. ; - ) --FloNight ^talk 00:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL Tyrenius 09:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Peoples' voting criteria worry me (Archive 66)[edit]

So, I just made my opinion known at The Thadman's RfA, but I wanted to expand upon it a little here. In cases such as these, I'm pretty worried by the large number of users that mark their opinion as (something like)...

Oppose, not enough article contributions. We're building an encyclopedia, here.

... without even bothering to check whether article contributions would be at all relevant to their intended administrator activities. In the case of User:The Thadman, I'm disappointed that so many people have opposed his RfA on the basis of his low article contributions, despite his extensive experience (and proposed future involvement) in mediation. I guess this is an extension of my dislike for some peoples' FA requirements, applied to users' contributions to writing articles.

Am I alone in thinking that a user's ability to write fluent prose is totally disconnected from their ability to maintain the encyclopedia that hosts it? This is really quite frustrating, at times. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 11:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

They don't have to be able to write great prose, but many of us do believe that in order to understand the various policies that affect the most important thing we do here, someone needs significant experience in actually working on what we are here to do: write an encyclopedia. Prose mistakes are not a problem, but someone that has no experience writing articles also doesn't know how to negotiate sources, break deadlocks and move an article forward. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to mediate. - Taxman ^Talk 15:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Then again, if all we were here to do was write an encyclopedia, we wouldn't need admin rights. --Kbdank71 15:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that ignores the fact that there are people whose efforts are not helping to build an encyclopedia. Many of us believe article writing skills and experience are important to knowing how best to do that, and build the encyclopedia. - Taxman ^Talk 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this really make sense? How do you react to an individual with enormous experience voting in AfDs, noting 3RR violations and the like - but has a tiny number of article space edits? A user's suitability for adminship isn't utterly dependent on their ability to write articles: it's dependent on their experience in activities specific to adminship tasks. Why else do we consistently vote against users whose sole need for admin powers are "wikification" or the like? RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 12:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're assuming I think it's the most important or the only thing. I don't, but it is an important part. A person not participating in creating articles is missing what we do here. If they have exceptional other characteristics I will support them and so will many other people. It happens quite often that people get promoted without much article contributions, but they have to have something else that more than compensates for that. Also note I don't look at number of article edits. If someone has 100 article edits but they are very high quality, then that covers that fully for me. Others unfortunately focus on edit count and that's part of the problem. - Taxman ^Talk 14:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure I understand how The Thadman's mediation efforts require admin powers like block, unblock, delete and undelete. It seems to me that if comes to blocking users and protecting articles that mediation has failed. His answer to question 1 did no mention those needs. And I'm not sure how his mediation work prepares him for the top admin needs like *fD-DRV, vandalism fighting, and copyright issues. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 16:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that experience in article creation should be paramount when considering a potential admin. Would you hire an umpire who had no experience with baseball? Or a traffic cop with no experience with driving? The most common RFA standard is 1000 article edits (which happens to be my standard as well) which is in fact not that difficult to achieve. With even just 5 article edits a day one would achieve that in just over 6 months... to me this is a rather low bar, one that simply ensures that the potential admin has the basic amount of experience in the primary activity on Wikipedia. Themindset 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

""I agree. Article creation/improvement is most important. :) Dlohcierekim 20:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm in the minority here. I had almost no experience in the primary activity on Wikipedia when I became an admin, nor do I today. My day-to-day activities have zero to do with article creation/improvement. So I understand where Randy is coming from, and that's why I don't have a RFA standard that is based on editcount. On the other hand, I definitely understand the need for experience, and with everyone else editcounting as a standard, it's not that hard to hit. --Kbdank71 21:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The main issue I see with the logic that people only base their criteria off of the main namespace is that there are many _many_ other areas needing administrator attention - it does not require sysop tools to make a featured article, either. By restricting administrators to only those who focus on the main article namespace, then we'd have none who focus on backlogs and the Wikipedia namespace. The notion that it's an automatic oppose unless a cadidate has a certain amount of contributions is simply editcountitis. What if a user actually heavily contributed to policy in the wikipedia namespace instead of creating articles? Now, I'm not saying making a featured article is a bad thing. That of course is very helpful and does show that the user is likely familiar with key policy such as verifiability. However, it is not the only way to determine whether a user is worthy of being an administrator. If anything, sysops deal a lot more with deleting articles than with creating them. Sysops are the framework that keeps the encyclopedia together behind the scenes, blocking users harmful to the encyclopedia, protecting pages from edit wars, closing deletion discussions and managing backlogs. The single most important factor in a candidate for adminship is 'Can they be trusted with the tools?'. I'm very curious to go deeper into the reasoning as to why people have such strict criteria involving main article contributions and featured articles. Is it the fear that users will make mistakes early on due to a lack of experience? Well, administrators are meant to make mistakes. They're supposed to - I would be surprised if an administrator made no mistakes. And, just like anyone else, they're meant to learn from them. Cowman109^Talk 21:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would have to say I completely agree with your last point... And yet I feel it actually supports a certain degree of edit counting. Yes, the new admin will make mistakes, but wouldn't it be better to make sure less new admins make less mistakes? And if that can be done by setting a minimum amount of participation in the encyclopedia, isn't that a positive thing? Like I've stated earlier, these edit count minimums that most of us set are not difficult to achieve - and if someone finds that hitting those numbers is an unnecessary burden, they are probably not going to contribute very much as an admin anyways. I don't believe in 1FA, but I respect those who do... and who knows? Maybe there is more than one user who was so intent on becoming an admin that he/she made sure to achieve 1FA before nominating themselves. If that's the case, then the 1FA criteria has helped the encyclopedia. And surely, the experience of 1FA was invaluable to the user themselves. So I believe there is room for understanding, if not agreement, with the variety of different RFA standards set by different users. Themindset 22:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that some problems stem from the fact that people usually leave no room outside of 1FA for supporting an adminship candidate. There _are_ other ways to determine whether people are ready. We have plenty of admins who have never and probably have no intention of ever writing featured articles who do plenty of work, so I feel that at least people should be aware that there are other ways of determining whether candidates are beneficial to the encyclopedia. Cowman109^Talk 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, I do agree with you - that is why I don't use 1FA as a criteria. I simply respect the choice to use it. Themindset 22:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Themindset, to my mind the 1FA is actually harmful to the project. Can you imagine what would happen if every RFA nom-to-be was pimping articles at FAC. FA is not meant to be a stepping stone to sysop. FloNight ^talk 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I definitely understand that feeling. Have you tried expressing your feelings directly on the talk pages of those who vote with the 1FA criteria? (Like I said, I agree and do not use 1FA as a criteria.) Themindset 23:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I see 1FA as a big plus for a candidate, but not a requirement and also not enough to get my support all by itself. I do see some level serious article contributions as a near-absolute requirement. If someone only participates in policy pages or AfD's or something like that, besides the issue of "traffic cop who doesn't drive", I worry that they might be here primarily for bureaucratic reasons, and are missing out on what the project is about. Phr (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As I already said somewhere around here, 1FA is nonsense. People who had never improved a Featured Article but had reviewed contributions at the Requests for Featured Articles should be as capable as anyone who had followed his advice. I agree, it is important to have a determined knowledge about editing, but 1FA is just too much. My personal (volatile) opinion is 1GA, which is much easier to achieve, demonstrates some knowledge at editing, and interest in expanding articles.

However, I don't really care with the "mails my criteria" motto. Like the story about the man, his son and the donkey travelling through towns, you will never make everyone happy. And luckily, most criterias found at Standards are relatively easy to achieve. -- ReyBrujo 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if perhaps we should just add "1. Oppose Fails my criteria. (Masssiveego's signature)" to the RfA template. It would save the poor lad some typing.

More seriously (as serious as I get), it's nice to have criteria to work with, but the fact is that, as above, a lot of the criteria people talk about are nearly unreachable. While I'm a long way from taking a shot at adminship myself, I've considered how to fulfil the various criteria; my edit summaries are near spotless, I'm trying to do work in as many aspects of the place as I can, I warn vandals, and so on, but working on a featured article candidate? That's tough. Most of the articles being considered for FA have a clique of editors working on them already, and with my skills being mostly targeted towards editing and polishing writing, around here I tend to fall into the dime a dozen category. I'll probably work it out at some point, but it's still a bit of a challenge.

As for my standards? If I've seen an editor around the project and they've impressed me in some way, then chances are if I see them here, I'll look at their background and comments and likely side with them (admittedly, I haven't participated in a huge number of RfAs at this point, but I'm getting there). Or the other way round. Certainly not complicated - and a lot easier than a spreadsheet for every candidate. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the massiveego idea! But, more seriously, i do agree with his criteria and i have seen him write weak oppose. He is not the only one with high standards but he is probably the only one with such high standards that bothers to research and vote on many candidates. With regard to the 1FA criteria, I think its impact varies greatly depending on the editor. For one with low article edits it would be very meaningful but for one with many article copy edits then it is less important. Flexability is the key since every editor is different. David D. (Talk) 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue with his criteria, I think, is that it's hard to see anyone who would actually *pass* it. I don't think God (alternately Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, etc.) is going to be requesting adminship anytime soon. (I think they'd pass anyhow.) Them's some tough criteria to meet. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC talk (Archive 66)[edit]

I am a little confused. Some editors demand !FA, which would necessitate/demonstrate communication skills in just trying to bring the article to that level. It appears some discount FAC talk in favor of user talk and article talk. Why would FAC not be enough to show a user communicates well enough to be an admin? (Pleae pardon any typos. I'm at work and don't have a spell checker to help me proof. :) Dlohcierekim 23:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Being able to develop an article up to FA-class demonstrates exceptional writing skills, which many users see as extremely important in the context of administering an encyclopedia. However, it's also fairly common for users (such as myself) to disagree with that particular standard, because one's ability to administer the encyclopedia does not depend upon the quality of one's writing style.

Personally, I'd say that while having a Featured Article or two under one's belt is pretty impressive, it means nothing in terms of one's ability to delete articles, block users and the like. A good writing style is an advantage to an admin, but should never be considered the sole basis on which to judge a candidate's suitability - AfDs, User Talk and other areas of participation are more relevant as examples of how a user communicates in other contexts, and are equally (if not more) important. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 09:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the above statement where you've only cited three points to being an admin. I'm not sure if you've participated in FAC before, but getting an article featured is a stressful exercise. For a newbie to get an article featured shows a lot of positive attitude in building consensus. Take a look at the FACs to judge how a candidate has responded to the oppose remarks. Secondly, adminship is not about just explicit vandalism fighting, if you're a dedicated wikipedian, reverting vandalism is part and parcel of your work here, admin or not. And being a editor-admin, it's a lot easier to judge if an article needs to be deleted or not. Lastly, an editor-admin can edit pages protected pages such as DYKs and ITN. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing that wikipedia admins don't administer any encyclopedias. Some of them seem to have enough trouble using the admin flag on a wiki. Kim Bruning 10:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA candidates are asking to be administrators, so they are not already admins (Archive 67)[edit]

I'll be honest with you, I want to see a discussion on this issue. I see a lot of recent pushes by numerous users to grant tools to only those who are already pretty much admins without the tools. Why oppose someone just because they don't act like admins yet? Administrators noticeboard isn't "editors noticeboard", so many editors assume that they shouldn't get involved in those affairs. We have to remember the core of adminship: granting the tools. We don't have a limit as to how many admins we have, so why decline people who are not already acting like admins? They're asking to become administrators, so of course they're growing interested in admin tools. The true question is this: can they be trusted with the tools? It's not "do they need the tools". I'd rather see that all trusted users get admin tools so that they can use them if necessary. Why use a strainer to only provide them to the people who need them the most? Let's push aside statistics and use common sense: most people can get a gun with a background check, etc; they don't decline you because you're not a cop or a hunter. Heck, what if, say, the USA was invaded, and nobody (except for the few elite) had guns in self defense? Why not grant them to everyone who is trusted and proven, so that the defense of that country has a greater chance of succeeding? I'm going to develop this comparison even further by stating that a major factor to the start of the nuclear age was that the Japanese gave every non-criminal defensive weaponry. I assume you can tell where this comparison is going. — Deckill e r 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I do not ask myself, "can they be trusted with the tools?" or "do they need the tools". i ask myself can they communicate? Do they show common sense? David D. (Talk) 03:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is not simply whether they have ill will, but if they also have a good idea of what they are doing. Since any regular user can do so many administrative tasks, why should they be made administrator before they have learned how to do the ones they are already capable of doing? The proper analogy would be only selling guns to someone who has gone to the firing range to practice shooting before. —Centrx→talk • 03:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely; a user should display common sense and a basic understanding, as well. However, I feel that too many voters are sending a message that they only want people who will use the tools a LOT, despite basic understanding and trustworthiness; a person should have shooting experience, of course, but they don't need to be a hunter or a cop to own that weapon. — Deckill e r 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with De on the specific issue of WP:AN. A candidate should obviously know what it is, but expecting them to have posted to it regularly doesn't really make sense. I have posted twice or thrice, but why would I follow it regularly if I cannot block people, delete/undelete articles etc? Similarly, I watch WP:DRV but it's pointless most of the time because I can't view the deleted article. Marskell 11:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a risk with no benefit in giving someone admin tools who doesn't need them. For the same reason admin tools are no big deal, it is no big deal if someone doesn't have them because they have no use for them. Also, if they have no use for it, that means they haven't worked in these areas and we can't evaluate their knowledge there; someone who would be roundly opposed for administrator because of their hasty decisions and strange interpretation of policy would easily get by, when they don't need them anyway. So, at best, they aren't going to use them, at worst they might make bad or disruptive decisions everyone disagrees with, and for candidates here only briefly, at very worst they may be a scheming vandal.

I don't see a problem. This criteria is often relaxed for long-standing contributors who are clearly reasonable and committed to Wikipedia as encyclopedia, recently Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MisfitToys and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Arthur Rubin, where "at worst" turns into "may make inaccurate decisions in their infrequent usage, but is without doubt friendly, intelligent, and open to discussion". —Centrx→talk • 19:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

RFAs getting too restrictive? (Archive 68)[edit]

A little over a year ago, according to user:NoSeptember's data, we had around 18 RFAs going at once. That number has dwindled considerably since then, as more and more qualifications and barriers ("too many userboxes", "annoying signature", "no featured articles", "must have 7/24ths of edits in talk space") have been erected. We currently only have 5 open RFAs, some of which definitely will not be successful.

It seems pretty clear from users' edits that they aren't applying in part because they feel they would never qualify (Small sampling to back up this claim: here or User:Elkman/In case of RFA (deleted page)).

We're rejecting editors who want to help, often for really silly reasons. and we're driving away people who might otherwise apply. The backlogs are growing. Feel free to draw your own conclusions. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In my point of view, the some Admin in Wikipedia are horrible. I believe any reason is a good reason. I encourage voting.

So please withhold your judgement about the reasons in question.

There are so many bots and programs running Wikipedia, we hardly need any more admin. I suggest quality over quantity. As per request, I will be listing myself for Admin shortly. As well as voting again in the RFA's. While it seems I was a disruption to the RFA process. It's not serious enough, nor possible to block me for voting in the RFA. --Masssiveego 09:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention, Masssive. BTW, I've refactored your comments because you added some stuff to my sentences above, like "heer aggrivation of having horrible admin hawking over you. I hareasons". I don't even know what that means, or why it was added to my statement. Anyway, I agree that, in principle, requiring a few extra things could be good for WP, but in practice, it is driving away good editors in droves. Going from 18 to 5 applicants a week means we lose hundreds of helping hands every year. and I do not agree that we have enough admins: out backlogs say quite the opposite. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: I don't think anyone's suggesting blocking you for RFA votes. Or if they are, that's news to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not always a proponent of idea that markets self-correct, but I wonder whether something like that will happen here. The admin growth chart section above implies to me that things are going to get worse before they get better. Presumably, as admins see the backlogs build, they (and to some extent non-admins) will start to wish for more admins, and to participate more in RfAs, and to be more inclined to support. That's not to argue that that's the best answer -- if we could promote good admins now, we could avoid the backlog, and the associated poorer quality of the encyclopaedia. But it may end up that way.

I should also say that as I gain more understanding of Wikipedia policies, my criteria for RfA are changing. I started voting less than a month ago, and my current standards ask for a minimum edit count (though I will waive that for the right candidate). I am now more and more convinced that what I care about most is whether (a) I trust the editor, and (b) they have learnt enough WP policy not to screw anything up while they are learning the rest. If the understanding of other editors of what it takes to be an admin changes, as mine has, then presumably the experience profile of the RfA voters makes a big difference to the outcomes. Mike Christie (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It definently does seem like RfA is promoting only those who are squeaky clean to the point where it seems like they've acted robotically for their (brief-but-not-too-brief) WP careers. It's been called a reverse turing test - the current RfA detects humans who act like robots. So understandably, few people qualify... and I think fewer people are apprently bothering.

My suggestion? Don't oppose out of spite! Just because someone rubbed you the wrong way in an argument doesn't mean they won't be a good admin. Don't assume bad faith! If a good-faith editor has apologized for a minor to moderate mistake and says it won't happen again, it's really pathetic if 20 people still oppose because of something the candidate has said won't happen again. That's punative, not preventative. Oppose because you think someone will misuse the admin tools, or there simply isn't enough evidence to make that determination. Don't treat adminship like some kind of prize, and act like creating more admins makes your prize less valuable.

Anyway, RfA simply boils down to the people involved. If their quality is high, the quality of RfA is high. And vise versa. Better participation = a better RfA. --W.marsh 14:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is just normal that standards advance as time passes. A 2004 FA article would have never been considered FA material today, as I noticed with Ford Mustang. Standards change, are polished, and usually become more restrictive. In soccer, 10 years ago, a player could pass the ball to a goalkeeper with a kick, who could pick it up with his hands. Now that would be a fault. Some years before, you were able to carry scissors on a plane. Now you are called a terrorist. I notice that now more people help with the requests (as in, comment, "vote", etc). Adminship isn't a big deal. If you are doing the things right, you are likely to get a chance. I feel it nice that simple edit count isn't enough to ensure your adminship. -- ReyBrujo 16:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's natural for editcount requirements to go up. But my point is that people are putting in new criteria by objecting to everyone they don't happen to like, or expecting people to have basically never expressed much personality at all, and refuse to accept an apology once they actually do. Others seem to oppose unless the candidate is of the same POV as them, etc. That stuff will never be a good "standard" to have, no matter how long wikipedia is around. --W.marsh 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to the original inquiry, I should have pointed that :) Anyways, yes, some disregard candidates because of very strange conditions. However, from what I see in the Standard page, there are only a few that seem to imply "Depends on my mood", thus I am confident most votes are still based on Wikipedia namespace edits, interaction with users, participation in admin duties, etc. -- ReyBrujo 19:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rey (and Marsh and Mike, above) for your comments. I agree with W.marsh when he says some of the "standards" do appear to be based on "Do I like this candidate", or "Do I agree with his views". That's a bad standard to follow. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So far I've notice all kinds of excuses to discount my vote. From WP:Point, to Personal attack. So for some wierd reason my reasons also must follow completely certain guidelines of Wikipedia. If I don't give a reason it's a disruption, if I do give a reason it's a violation of policy. Even when the reasons are valid all kind of trouble seems to pop up. Still once it's clear what the safe harbor is for voting, then I'll vote again. As I said before we have some horrible crappy admin that seem to love to make some users lives miserable. The only quality control to ensuring the Admin coming in is voting. Even then I'm getting threats from admin that I'm a disruption for voting when I disagree with the majority. When I clearly state my reasons in every vote. Until I can get a second for a arbcom complaint, which in itself is difficult. Which would better clarify when asking for a the higher standard becomes a disruption.. When clearly all other rules have been followed.

Please note my talk page about User:MONGO User:Cyde --Masssiveego 19:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Masssive,

I don't agree with those folks on your talk page who are saying your votes are disruptive. I'm saying that, in general, I feel RFA is becoming somewhat silly, with candidates forced to "tailor" their editing to match any number of criteria. We do need to "weed out" the bad candidates. But now we're weeding so much we've only got five veggies left in our entire garden!Firsfron of Ronchester 19:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Id kinda agree with this actually. Less people are being promoted and higher standards are needed. What was encouraging, I found, was that I failed my RFA mostly on the basis of my views on a certain policy. It was unfortunate it cropped up (I would have failed anyway I didnt self-nom and expect to pass really) but encouraging that few opposers cited edit counts. So policy approval is a good marker? well yes but then that view is subjective too. I think it all boils down to if you like and respect a user - and if you trust him with the tools. I really cant say if people are basing their !votes on that - but I fear (and I guess some of you do to) that they arent.

This is an issue that has been discussed before many many times and I dont think its going to change for the time being. In the future there will, I expect, be a sudden drought of admins and the revrse may happen (loads of unqualifieds passign through) but wee will have to wait and see. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of the topic. The standards seem unusual. One person's standards for support seem the be the next's standards for an oppose in some cases. Michael 03:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the direction of RFAs is inevitable, and it's because of flaws in the process. For instance; someone above mentioned selecting candidates based on trust, and another editor mentioned that their votes are called 'disruptive'. If I were to vote against a candidate and say the reason was because I 'didn't trust' him or her, my contribution would probably be discounted. So I will comb through that candidate's stats to find something I can glom onto that will make my vote count. That 'something' is probably going to be edit count, mainspace edits, some conflict that ended badly, poor edit summary compliance, block history, gaps in editing, or some other essentially irrelevant statistic that is necessary to bolster the validity of 'votes', because unsupported opinions are discounted. It's inevitable, IMO. 'Oppose' editors are hounded, IMO. So of course they're going to try to justify their contributions with statistics (which are hard to argue against). Which is going to end up becoming part of the basic criteria through passive consensus. Anchoress 03:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone mentions in passing that the only problem they see is a low user talk edit count, another user may clamp onto this, using this as an excuse if he or she just doesn't like the user or has had disputes with the user. Michael 04:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. And after 50 RFAs where 20 editors all said 'Oppose per so-and-so, poor user talk edit count', even if that wasn't the real oppose reason, all of a sudden low user talk edit count becomes part of the criteria for exclusion. I personally think that an (established) editor should be able to say that they don't like a candidate, they don't trust a candidate, etc, and their contribution should be counted. Otherwise it just becomes successively more process wanking and wikilawyering. Anchoress 04:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to add in my two cents, I agree with Firsfron that the standards nowadays tend to scare a lot of good editors off. In the last few months, I've seen several candidacies by outstanding editors fail (or face opposition), often because someone points out a recent, often well-intentioned edit that may be seen as questionable (i.e. writing "rvv" on an edit summary when reverting an edit that's not blatant vandalism but a new or anon user's test). From reading some random oppose votes, I do get the impression that the editor's (entire) (recent) history are scrutinized by occasional editors who are looking for the slightest mis-step to constitute an "oppose" if the nominee is someone with whom they are unfamiliar with or have had less-than-wonderful encounters. Furthermore, I see a whole lot more users who have posted their voting standards than regularly vote in RfAs. Perhaps the bulk of these users rarely visit the page nowadays or are occupied with other tasks, but it seems like this has encouraged a mentality of declaring a personal standard, based on the standards of others, in which one only supports users with ___ edits, ___ weeks/months/years experience, ___ Wikipedia space edits, a ___-colored userpage, etc., which has become the basis of many RfA votes.

In general, I think the candidate's answers to the questions should be considered most relevant when browsing an RfA. In my opinion, inexperience/suitability can be better judged by the quality and content of those answers than an editor's date of registration, number of edits, or other qualifiers. Barring a history of vandalism/stubborness/aggressiveness, an editor who comes off sounding knowledgeable and experienced in those answers and making a cogent argument that being given admin tools would substantially improve his or her editing ability will likely, in my opinion, make a good admin. Fabricationary 07:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I agree with you, I doubt that would work, because I doubt many would support promoting a user who has only been on Wikipedia for a month and has 50 edits. In that case, people would just accuse the user of stealing answers from successful RfAs (i.e. "X-user answered his RfA that he would clean up the backlog. This user must be copying.") Regardless of how trivial, people will do it. Michael 16:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Michael. I doubt any user who's been here for a month and has amassed 50 edits 1) will answer the questions so well that his relative inexperience isn't evident or 2) will be able to copy someone else's successful RfA answers without someone noticing the copying or that the new user's stats don't match the work he or she says that he or she has done or intends to do. Fabricationary 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are always trolls, so we need to see some type of devotion to the project to even consider supporting. Michael 16:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No-one's running, so up the guidelines (Archive 71)[edit]

There's a problem with no-one bothering to run for RFA any more; presumably completely coincidentally, the process is observably poisonous in several directions and the ~~requirements~~ guidelines keep being pushed up and up.

Is there anything useful (or anti-useful) to fixing or tuning RFA at WP:PRO? It's supposed to be a not-a-guideline to process maintenance. - David Gerard 09:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I guess the eight current candidates must all be mirages, then? Seriously it does appear that there are fewer candidates in recent months, but I'd like to see the real data before drawing conclusions. Also, which guidelines are you refering to? There are no RfA guidelines to get "pushed up and up". There are numerous editors who express opinions on RfAs' each has their own idea of what they are looking for in a candidate. Are you proposing that we add proces by standardizing RfA requirements and remove the element of individual judgement? I thought that was the opposite of what you were calling for in WP:PRO? Gwernol 09:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I see they're deliberately being phrased didactically, for example - David Gerard 11:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've actually lowered my "standards" to better conform with the rest of the community. I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to feel comfortable about supporting a candidate. And some who failed recently clearly weren't ready. Perhaps we need a way to develop and encourage some of the long term users who would not otherwise consider asking for the mop. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I interpret this differently. Wikipedia's growth slowed in the early part of this year after what had been several years of essentially exponential growth. I suspect that the fall off in RFAs (now several months later) is in part a symptom of this more generally slowed growth, and not necessarily a manifestation of changed standards (though that might play a role as well). I would hesitate about looking at one variable (number of RFAs) and conclude that it implies the RFA process is suddenly much worse than it was 6 months ago. Dragons flight 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Durin has some good statistics on the issue. I do agree with David that the RFA header is rather too verbose. But other than that, if the perceived problems are (1) too few candidates and (2) too high standards, the obvious solutions would be (1) to find someone suitable and nominate him, and (2) to support people on less high standards. Hm, come to think of it... >Radiant< 15:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if those are necessarily the problems. Other issues I can think of: For example, I hesitate to nominate Wikipedians for adminiship now, because I am not confident that they will want to handle the (sometimes unwritten) complexities of being one. Although being an admin can be simple, it is often not so. Many administrative actions (and even normal editorial actions) can be interpreted as ways to modulate behaviour, with the facilitator being the Wiki. This can be extremely sophisticated to handle, especially when the Wiki only presents an economy of partial information. Some Wikipedians I have talked to in person, say they do not want to deal with the consequences of being an administrator, even though they are confident they can carry the role. Additionally, after observing all the sorts of things that can occur as a consequence of using this Wiki, that has both myself, and other well meaning people constantly tiptoeing when contributing to this project. This feeling is relentless might I add, and to avoid exhaustion, it is sometimes more managable to be silent than to do the Right Thing. Concerning it is, and systemic it has become. We need a better mechanism of accountability and transparency, and we need better ways of seeking out those users who can carry administrative roles professionally to join the ranks. I might even cautiously suggest that administrators voluntarily classify themselves as being familiar with specific areas of Wikipedian policies and guidelines. These administrative communities would be effective at identifying current trends, and would provide the community with an implicit sort of leadership, without compromising the existing stratification of users. It could be as simple as setting up "WikiProject - admins who specialise with image deletions" et cetera. We have policy pages, but no cohesive and visible communities around them. It's probably more than time enough to grow them and recognize that such structures can complement that which already exists on Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 19:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an awesome idea, HappyCamper (classifying Admins into departments or whatever). Anchoress 19:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who I know is a valuable contributor but presumably has no interest in adminship as it's currently constituted (based on conversations and statements on your pages), Anchoress, do you see yourself changing your mind if one didn't have to pass a "jack of all trades" test, as it were? Or were you just saying it's a good idea but still not for you? One of the problems (and I have no cites, just gut) with adminship is that it attracts people who think it's a merit badge and scares off people who would be willing to do the hard things it entails if it wasn't so unpleasant. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anchoress, your comment made my day! :-) :-) :-) I thought it would be quickly forgotten in the digital ether. Well, that just might motivate me to start a WikiProject somewhere when I get the energy to do so. Stay tuned... - Lar, I find that some of the most interesting admins are the ones who are admin WikiGnomes. There are a handful who have been promoted, but have hardly used (or even completely not used) the tools at all. Instead, they use the perceived authority of an administrator to mitigate edit wars and diffuse complicated situations where the more vocal or abrasive approaches would not be effective. They also spend tremendous amounts of time helping new users, especially those who are struggling with the software, but are tremendously influential in real life. These admin WikiGnomes have such an capacity for patience and listening and work nicely in those niche places on Wikipedia, but would probably not survive the current RfA promotions process. The issue is that lack of perceived activity can be interpreted as inability in the current RfA climate, when this is not necessarily the case. The difficulty is that it is difficult and time consuming to properly identify and acknowledge these very different situations. --HappyCamper 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So how do we recognize, groom, prepare and nominate those who would be good admins but might not consider running?Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder...how important is it to think about what a "successful" Wikipedian/administrator is? How important is it for the candidate to be able express this? What about...whether they can do this in a way which adequately represents themselves, and their feelings about this project? Everyone should share notes next time if chance allows us to meet, say randomly, at next year's Wikimedia conference. Or for that matter, any of the future meetups. --HappyCamper 21:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

David, how does 14 == 0? -Splash - tk 18:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Lower limit of 3 months. (Archive 71)[edit]

Given that an RFA with less that 3 months of time on Wikipedia rarely succeeds, I'm proposing the following language: "Nominees for adminship must have, at the time of their nomination, 3 months of experience on the English Wikipedia" This would set into policy a lower bound that is already treated as a de-facto policy by participants in this process. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The same way there is no clear restriction about the number of edits and the type of participation in the community, there should not be a time restriction for presenting oneself. Would those three months be of active editing? Or since user creation? What is considered "active"? I believe there are maybe 1 RFA removed per week from someone who has no chances of success, either by lack of edits or time. On the contrary, there may be users with two months that have spent a good amount of time fighting vandals, maybe previously as anonymous and now registered, and if they believe they need the tools, and if the community trust them, why not leave them try? Also, I believe this will invite instruction creep... in some months the line would read "Nominees for adminship must have, at the time of their nomination, 3 months of experience, over 5,000 edits, at least 25% of edits in the Wikipedia namespace, a good knowledge about fair use handling..."

Since this is voluntary, and does not damage the overall Wikipedia, I believe it should not be restricted. -- ReyBrujo 05:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If we know for a fact that a given de facto standard is being enforced almost universally by the actions of participants, why not save some time for everybody concerned? Also, I think adopting "fixed" standards over time will probably discourage the reliance on much stricter individual standards nat may not be relevant or even desirable by the community at large. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw this for now, I still think it's a good idea, but we need to take a better look at the whole process - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for general qualifications (Archive 73)[edit]

How about instead of mandatory standards, we have suggested qualifications to consider for a nominee. Somewhat like a job listing basic qualificataions. This could be based on historically the qualities a successful ~~candidate~~ nominee has had and be suggested for consideration before someone is nominated. Example text could be:

Before nominating an editor or self-nominating, please consider the following factors that have historically been considered for a successful nomination for adminship:

Editor has had experience with the project for a reasonable amount of time. (Not sure on wording, may not want to be too specific, but it should be obvious that a newbie shouldn't be nominated.)
Editor displays a good understanding of policy and process.
Editor displays an understanding of the abilities, duties, and responsibilities of being an administrator.
Editor has a good balance of vandal fighting, article creation, article editing, and participation in article and policy discussion.
Editor displays skill in dealing with tendentious editors and resolving disputes.

These should be suggestions, not standards. I think if a nominator (or self-nominee) keeps these things in mind before proceeding, it could prevent some potentially snowball opposes and contentious debates.

—Malber (talk · contribs) 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is already covered under "nomination standards" on the main RfA page. --Durin 22:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it states no less than 2 months (not a bad number, one I would generally use) and no less than 1500 edits, a rather arbitrary number that could lead to editcountitis. But RfAs of late have been opposed for many of the reasons I've listed, which is why I think the suggested qualifications should be expanded. —Malber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  - Perhaps, yes...but where do we stop with adding suggested qualifications? What counts as a legitimate oppose and not a legitimate oppose? --Durin 13:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nomination standards have been the subject of a short edit war (Archive 73)[edit]

I copied this exchange from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter so that the discussion could get a wider exposure. User:Durin and User:Marskell criticize the edit that I made to the Front Matter as "lacking consensus". There was discussion on the topic but no formal consensus determination. Please read the discussion below and express your opinion if any.

Durin deleted the following statement which I had inserted a month or more ago:

In particular, candidates should be aware that it is highly unlikely that an editor with less than 2 months and 1500 edits will be granted adminship.

Durin's edit summary was "Removing arbitrary, no consensus 2 month/1500 edit slipper slope standard. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_69#Down_with_editcountitis.21"

Centrx reverted Durin's deletion with the following edit summary "It is not arbitrary, there was agreement on it, and it helps to stop newcomers from posting failing RfAs the inevitable result of which is the person being dishearted by the heavy opposition."

I figured I had best explain why I put the sentence there and also defend its continued inclusion in the section.

Actually, despite what Centx said, I don't think there was a formal agreement in the sense of a straw poll. However, I will comment that I deliberately put the numbers way below what I think are the real lower bounds as observed in recent RFAs. What I mean by this is that most people who care about edit counts set the limit in the range of 2000-3000 edits. Also 3 months is the usual lower bound cited by people who care about time elapsed since joining Wikipedia.

I inserted the text in question after a few very new editors submitted RFAs with very few edits and often very little time elapsed since joining Wikipedia. These editors were getting their RFAs turned down quite quickly but it seemed to me to be a big waste of everybody's time. Why not just tell people what to expect and suggest that they wait until they had at least some chance?

I deliberately worded the sentence so that it wouldn't be a statement of policy but simply a statement of fact. Does anybody challenge the truth of the statement "It is highly unlikely..."? If so, can you name an admin in the recent past who has been promoted with less than 2 months and 1500 edits? Frankly, even 3 months and 3000 edits only just barely passes the experience/edit-count Mafia. Some still look for 6 months or 5000 edits but they are not usually numerous enough to kill an RFA on those grounds alone. By comparison, someone with less than 3 months and 3000 edits will almost certainly get at least 10-15 votes against on those grounds alone. And 10-15 votes in opposition is enough to kill most RFAs (with the exception of unusual circumstances such as Carnildo, of course).

Recently, we've seen people like User:Hamedog get turned down with 1 year's experience and 5000 edits. So, we all agree that it's not just raw edit count and time elapsed. However, if a candidate has less than 3 months and 3000 edits, they don't even get the level of scrutiny that Hamedog got.

So, remember, the purpose of the sentence is to discourage those that have no chance of passing an RFA in the current climate.

If you disagree with time-since-joining-itis and edit-countitis, then please find another way to challenge this sentiment among the "RFA-junkies". I'm just trying to document the current climate in RFA-land. If the climate changes, I'd be happy to remove or change the sentence accordingly.

--Richard 01:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify; above you stated that I criticized your edit. That's technically accurate but does not convey the intended meaning. "criticize" has such a negative connotation. I disagree with the edit. :) yeah yeah, semantics shemantics :-) --Durin 20:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There are serious issues with this statement, not the least of which is that it is a slipper slope situation. As soon as you start to state standards like this, they will creep and creep and creep up. Two years from now that sentence, if left, will read "6 months and 5000 edits". Where does it stop? Where? Stating standards like this doesn't work to undermine the editcountitis types in ANY respect. No, it actually works to SUPPORT editcountitis by clearly stating a standard that people must be above. By adding this sentence you lend credence to the editcountitis types who now can say, "Aha! See? There really IS a standard!" We have been fighting long and hard against editcountitis. Putting this sentence in undermines that effort.
Worse, it's unlikely it's had any effect in the way that was intended. The intent was to get people who are making RfA requests with less than that standard to stop applying and wasting RfA watcher's time. I don't have the time to run the stats right now, but I would venture to guess that since this sentence was added on September 18th, there's been no change in the number of RfAs for candidates below this standard. If that be the case, not only is it feeding the editcountitis trolls, it's also not doing what it was intended to do.
I strongly disagree with Centrx's edit summary that there was consensus to include this. There clearly wasn't, and even the person who added the sentence said in their edit summary "Being bold..."
I would also like to point out that there have been some RfAs where the candidates have been very upset their RfA failed because they did read the standards and thought if they had >1000 edits they'd be ok and found they were raked over the coals for having just 1800 edits. They are rightfully mad. This provides strong impetus to keep tinkering with the standard until such complaints are not heard as often. Result; the standard will keep rising and rising and rising and rising.
This is bad medicine, for the wrong disease, without giving a cure, in the wrong hospital. If you must include it, then get some consensus at WT:RFA. --Durin 11:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Durin, particularly on the last point. The major problem with this is not that it suggests people below the threshold will fail, but rather that people above it will pass. Candidates with 2 mos + 1 day and 1501 edits are still ripe for failing with the current crowd. And, of course, choosing any number invites the "this, why not that?" problem. Marskell 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My general feeling is that we should have text which discourages those who are highly unlikely to get promoted. Above 1000 edits and 2 months, editors who apply for RFA should be encouraged and then shown the door if they fall below the "real" standard of 3000 edits and 3 months. Below 1000 edits and 2 months, I would really rather they just didn't bother applying at all.

--Richard 18:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The solution would be to do away with arbitrary numbers and rely on general qualifications. Look at my suggestions above. Anyone who has been with the project for a reasonable amount of time and can display broad participation in many areas of the project and have engaged in many discussions have the appropriate participation time and edit counts for people who care about those specifics. And again, these should not be standards they should be general suggested qualifications. —Malber (talk · contribs) 18:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we all understand that a person who has 30 edits and 1 month since joining is just clueless. However, someone who has several hundred edits and 2-3 months probably believes that he/she has plenty of experience. We need a way to get across the nature of the current climate which sets a much higher standard. Moreover, in the case Hamedog, it wasn't time or edit counts, it was lack of experience in Wikipedia space.

I'm fine with staying away from specifying a threshold as if going over that threshold somehow "qualified" you to be an admin. In this regard, I agree with you and Marskell. I'm just looking for a way to communicate the approximate nature of the promotion criteria so that only people with a reasonable chance of passing will apply.

Let's not just let this wither on the vine. I would like to see some proposed text that addresses this issue inserted into the Front Matter. My basic objection to your text above is that it is too long compared to mine but perhaps it needs to be that long. Let's work on putting together a version that is agreeable to everybody.

--Richard 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't "need a way to get across ...". If people don't at least minimally follow RfA, and take a bit of time looking through past successful noms and unsuccessful ones, then perhaps they aren't suitable candidates. That's fine, not everyone is ready yet. We want demonstration of trust. How can we trust that someone will read the policies if they don't read the minimum amount to get an idea of the standards? They don't need to know it by heart, but some checking of the standards is reasonable. Agree with Durin here, and extra points for the wit. - Taxman ^Talk 02:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Some disorganized and random rants over RfA (Archive 73)[edit]

It is sad to see what the Wikipedian RfA has become. It has become a wreck, and I don't think it is because of the system. The system works fine, perhaps the RfA as RfC system works better, but the current one has its own pros, it's perfectly fine.

It is the voters who are getting out of hand. In their eyes, the RfA is no longer a Request for Adminship, but a Request for Saintship, for Godship, or a Request for a-user-who-can-statisfy-all-the-contradictory,-non-admin-related,-and-insane-requests. A user no longer becomes admin because he can make good use of the good tools. Instead, they become admins because they pile up edits for editcount by making changes a-word-an-edit, thus making ten edits instead of one, or by writing 10 featured articles from scratch per day. As if the purpose of all the admin tools are writing featured articles. Avid Vandal-fighters are turned down because "as an administrator, you must edit articles more, make more images, stop making spelling mistakes, and do more of the stuff that any none-admin can do easily". Come-on, all the admin features, rollback, blocking, protecting pages, all are made for image uploaders and article editors. That's logical. Plato would have reasoned like that.

More rants coming up... stay tuned...

¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 11:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the conditions for adminship that some people set are ludicrous. I only just qualify to vote for some people (I have just under 1200 edits). Admins are people, they should be allowed to make mistakes and do people honestly think that someone who hasn't bumped an articled to FA will be unable to ban and delete articles? Many candidates want to be able to ban and rollback vandals being RC patrollers but they get oppose votes because they don't tag enough articles for speedy deletion or something, an admin doesn't need to use all their tools. I think people need to think about whether the editor would use the tools available to them correctly as opposed to simply seeing if they fit the ever harder criteria. James086^{Talk | Contribs|Currently up for Editor Review!} 17:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and agree with the comments above. If I were to run today for admin, I'd fail miserably. I can count on two hands the amount of non-CFD related edits I've made to articles. Does that make me a poor editor? You bet it does. Do I need to be a great editor to close a discussion at CFD and delete the category? Not on your life. Do I need to have an FA under my belt to be able to rollback vandalism? If I were such a great editor, I wouldn't need the tools because I'd be too busy editing. How about we decide if they will misuse the tools rather than how many national anthems they know [2]? --Kbdank71 19:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out 2 things - (1) You cannot circumvent or redefine human nature. People's political and competitive instincts will kick-in in almost every situation in life - especially in this situation, where they are free to "play" politics on a pastime-like activity. (2) What is the point in getting frustrated? There are some things that just cannot be fixed without DNA alterations. You can rant all you like, but its a waste of your precious energy and time (and that of others) - let's just focus on building an encyclopedia. Rama's arrow 23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And I think I am focusing on building an encyclopedia. How are we gonna make a good encyclopedia if people who edit articles has the admin tools, and people who don't have the admin tools do maintainence stuff instead? Editors have access to all the admin tools, while people who do admin stuff are treated as editors. Don't you think it should be the other way around? --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 00:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I've even seen oppose votes based on use of edit summaries (!) and silly editcount requirements. I like users to have a good amount of experience in building articles because that's the primary focus of Wikipedia, but I'm usually not concerned with spelling errors or the fact that they never brought an article to feautured status. That has absolutely nothing to do with admin tools. - Mike | Trick or Treat 23:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Rant continued

What I dislike the most is the questions. Adminship has become a stressful thing instead of no big deal because of them. Some of them are good, but too much of it makes the candidate exhausted. 21 questions is out-of-boundaries. Especially when a lot of the questions are tails-I-win, heads-you-lose. You just can't answer them without getting criticism. Like the IAR question. Don't awnser, you're dead. Oppose. This user is too lazy to awnser questions. --Clueless User. You say we should follow it and ignore rules, you're dead. Oppose. This user might abuse his tools and use IAR as an excuse. --Clueless User. You say we should stick to rules as much as we can, you're dead. Oppose. This user does not know the true purpose of rules --Clueless User. Another example: Is the role of Admin political or technical? Answer political, voters say you value adminship as a badge of honor, as a level of power. Answer technical, they say that you undermine how much more important effects on the community an admin's every action has than other users.

The questions that voters ask, in another sense, shows how nitpicky voters are. 吹毛求疵, we call it in Chinese. Sometimes, what a user does in their first 50 edits on their first week becomes a reason for opposition. Even if they no longer do such stuff, and are here for two years. Even spelling errors and 97% edit summary use becomes reasons for oppose that means if a user forgot to use ONE edit summary in 150 edits, their dead. Take a look at the torture of hamedog. He made a mistake, saying this AfD, which was an unfortunate mistake, because he meant the AfD that I just mentioned, and people thought he didn't know the difference between an RfA and AfD. Even when he explained, people still say, I'm still gonna oppose, because you aren't so good at communication. Nitpicky to the extreme. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 00:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Rama's arrow, I hope some people read this section and think more about the reasons that they are opposing and whether it is really a legitimate concern or just a silly condition they have made. It is important to look into their history and see what they have done but RfA isn't here to pick up everything the nominee has ever done wrong in the past, it's to decide on whether they will act properly with more power in the future. There could be a whole bunch of good admins right now (there are but I mean the bunch who had RfA denied) but they are out trying to bump up their edit count, tag more articles and write a FA. Now I admit, many people shouldn't be admins (like me, I'm just not ready) but a lot of the oppose votes I see are not for good reasons like my inexperience, they are saying people with 3000 edits are inexperienced. James086^{Talk | Contribs|Currently up for Editor Review!} 01:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring edit summary for the moment (since I believe it lends to communication, transparency, and ease of reference, among other things), I would like an essay started talking about this. (Perhaps call it Wikipedia:Voting criteria for adminship?) Anyone up for starting it? - jc37 02:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand and respect the motivations of James and Exir in expressing their feelings. But my take is that they are getting a bit too emotional about it. "Adminship is no big deal" - admins only protect the flanks of editors who are working to grow the encyclopedia. And its not the end of the world if a good editor (who is already doing some housework) is rejected in RfA. That person must not be discouraged and should improve themselves. The thing that thwarts the perfection of the RfA process is human nature. As people ascribe too much importance to being administrators, an RfA nominee will also become political and defensive. This leads to feelings of rejection.

Can you blame people for creating standards that lead to rejection of good nominees? I don't think so. We are a voluntary organization. We don't get paid to do anything, so we are not interviewed for the job nor required to possess degrees to edit articles, as is done in Britannica, Encarta, etc. People who work here are emotional, passionate about Wikipedia - they get protective and have their own visions of its growth. With more than 1 million editors in over 50-100 different countries, how do we judge who is capable of protecting Wikipedia's mission?

And once an editor gets the tools, it is very, very difficult to take those tools away. You can't just fire an employee as Britannica can. This means that the pressure on RfAs increases - it really is not up to the RfA process to hold admins accountable, which is what most voters worry about. Passing/Failing an RfA is the mostly the last chance of most editors to complain or influence the nominee's ability to administer.

The RfA is working well (I say this after laying out numerous ideas promoting its overhaul...). Each week there are 5-10 people added to the ranks of admins. This helps reduce backlogs, address problems at a slow, but steady pace. Sure there should be reform for its obvious failures, but these will be incremental and delicate, not overhauls. As Jimbo Wales said, an overhaul is likely to create more problems that we can't necessarily foresee or guard against. Rama's arrow 02:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

We must not, try to over-control the RfA. It is far more advisable to create a process of admin accountability if you want to reduce the pressues and failings of RfAs. Rama's arrow 02:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You make lot’s of good points here, I think people should start dialing back the rhetoric aimed at opposes. The nature of the Wiki and assumption of good faith means that we all get to make our opinion heard here. Calling unnamed editors clueless doesn't help, and the sweeping generalizations misrepresent how much of an issue it is. I doubt if these comments are relevant in more than 3 or 4 RFA’s a month (relevant in the sense that poorly thought out opposes actually effect an RFA's outcome). Rx StrangeLove 03:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And sometimes it's worthwhile to cast an "Oppose" vote just to make a point as I did with Jusjih's RFA. It was obvious that his RFA would pass and that he would probably be an OK admin but his use of Chinese law to justify censorship of a username really needed to be highlighted and subjected to some opprobrium so as to ensure that it would not happen on the English Wiki. For those who weren't involved in that RFA, he made an argument along the lines of "I would block user's with usernames that criticized a Chinese public official because it is against Chinese law". Made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. --Richard 05:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I would actually think that was a serious issue that needed some clarification and discussion. Rama's arrow 13:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so too but my efforts to raise the issue didn't seem to inspire anybody else to chime in on the discussion. In the end, Jusjih pledged to ignore Chinese law so I changed my vote to Neutral but I still think he and one of his supporters who is currently up for RFA just don't get it. I doubt that this "failure of imagination" will cause any serious problems with Jusjih or GeeJo but I don't think this sort of thing should be allowed to just slide by without comment. --Richard 16:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Minimum edit count before qualifying for RfA (Archive 75)[edit]

This was discussed (polled) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 14. At that time, a large number of people said "it depends" when asked for a minimum threshold of edit counts they would support as a requirement for an RfA candidacy, so no consensus was evident.

Instead of just reopening the discussion and asking for more opinions, I've done a small analysis, of RfAs closed in November 2006. There were 33 successful RfAs listed at Wikipedia:Recently created admins, and 30 unsuccessful RfAs listed at User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological). Stratifying by the number of edit counts:

If the threshold for candidacy were set at 1000 edits, 9 of the 30 unsuccessful candidate requests would not have been made; no successful candidate would have been ineligible.
At 1500 edits, 14 unsuccessful requests would not have been made; no successful candidate would have been ineligble.
At 2000 edits, 15 unsuccessful requests would not have been made; 1 of 33 successful candidate would have been ineligible.
At 2500 edits, 17 unsuccessful requests would not have been made; 4 successful candidate would have been ineligible.
At 3000 edits, 19 unsuccessful requests would not have been made; 5 successful candidate would have been ineligible.

One more bit of data: of the 14 unsuccessful nominations of candidates with less than 1500 edits, 13 were withdrawn (2 by bureaucrat, 4 by admin, 7 by candidate). Only one such RfA went the full seven-day period, with a final vote of 10/31/12. John Broughton | Talk 18:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you need more than one month's worth a data before you can draw conclusions. I don't think November was very representative.--Tango 19:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite: for the period April-October 2006, what month(s) would you say was (were) representative? John Broughton | Talk 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to look through the stats - I'm not sure any single month is likely to be representative of a longer period, and if it was it's probably just a numerical coincidence. In November, however, I remember multiple people commenting that RfA was going much smoother than usual and candidates that would usually get picked up on trivial things were being promoted unanimously (me, for instance - I have less than 2000 edits and didn't have a single "needs more edits" oppose). --Tango 01:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we keep the unwritten rule of "enough edits"; if a Wikipedia editor had only 500 edits, but was an admin on Commons, Wikiquote, Wikinews, and Wikisource (and was seeking the mop to clean up backlogs), I think most people would be willing to ignore their edit count. Most sub-1k RfAs seem to burn themselves out anyway. Nice stats to read, though; quite interesting. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2}I will personally consider an RfA if I see a user with over 2,000 edits and at least 4-5 months of experience on Wikipedia. Also, although you may be comparing edit count, you should also take a look at RfA's for people over 3,000+ edits. Some of those are successful and some are not. Why? It's all because of certain lurking variables such as decisions, editing patterns, etc. There is no minimum edit count threshold for RfA's, but at least this (even though it's not that representative of the overall RfA record) will show some users not to submit an RfA when they might only have a few hundred edits. Nishkid 64 19:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah those stats are interesting and I also do not thing there should be a written rule on how many edits a candidate should have. — Seadog 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly support a minimum edit count (with the exception of related experience Commons, Wikiquote, Wikinews, and Wikisource). It would lessen the resources expended evaluating unlikely applicants. TonyTheTiger 19:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good stats and all, but I definitely don't think there should be a written rule for the number of edits necessary for an RfA. If a user has, say, 1000 edits, but has one FA/GA, a good balance of edits to all namespaces, and handles conflict well, I would support. Since some RfA candidates have a ridiculously low amount of edits (<100), though, it should be strongly suggested that candidates have over 500 edits, though it shouldn't be a complete requirement. –The Gr e at Llama^moo? 19:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I support Llama man's idea; even if they have experience in other wikis, they have to get used to the english version too. Also, to use an example, I have over 3000 edits, but only about 600 to mainspace; maybe there should be a minimum requirement to mainspace instead/as well. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 19:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we ought to just present these facts as they are to the user. Many good faith RfA's are made with extremely low edits, simply because they don't know and don't know how to find out what is "enough". I think it would be a useful service to everyone involved to mention that currently, RfA's do not frequently succeed under 1500 edits. -- Renesis (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the need for this? Do the b'crats think it would save them time? I kind of doubt it, since these seem like the easy RfAs that wouldn't take much time or risk of controversy to close. People seem to like casting the 20th "per x, y and z" oppose in these RfAs so it doesn't seem like there's any shortage of participants. If you don't want to participate in these RfAs, obviously you aren't required to.

The only thing I could see is if promising contributers are leaving Wikipedia in frustration after a premature RfA, is that even happening though? Also, I can't see "Sorry, your RfA fails automatically since you don't even have enough edits, can't you read the rules!?" being all that more of a positive situation for newer editors to go through. So like the previous 50 or so times this has been proposed, I think it's still instruction creep. --W.marsh 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is sad to see very good newcomers leave after a failed RFA. — Seadog 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also the bad thing about a stone hard edit count requirement is the fact that I would be happy to support a user with 600 main edits but has a FA. — Seadog 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

People who leave the project just because their RfA failed probably were not too committed to start with, or did not understand that adminship is not a status symbol.

I would very much disagree to adding any rule based on edit count. One should think very carefully when adding new rules, and this rule has no merit. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't really do anything anyway. The only thing I can see it would do is save time. The people who nominate themselves with no chance of sucess obviously don't read very much, so they're likely to miss any rule as to minimum requirements, anyway. It's not going to spare hurt feelings, because I really doubt that it's less hurting to say "No, you're not allowed to do this, because you're not a good enough editor" than to just have an RfA fail. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...good point. — Seadog 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How about placing some sort of Before You Nominate Yourself or Someone Else page in front of the nomination page containing details and statistics like those which appear on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Statistics, giving those who might not know if the RfA they are submitting is likely to succeed. Perhaps somebody could rustle up a program like Wannabee Kate or Interiots Edit Counter where a prospective candidate could find their number of edits and length of time on project before calculating the chance of a successful outcome based on previous RfAs. I do agree that each and every editor needs to be judged on the merits of their contributions to the project, not just edit count or time on project, something that seems to leave !voters blind to the benefit so many candidates could bring to the project. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know how many times this discussion has been recycled, and what the period is for it. Personally, the problem I see with this is that it again puts the focus on edit counts, not edit quality. It's simply not needed, the current system is working. Ideas to make this point to people more obvious might have some merit, but the instruction creep is just not needed. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no. --Deskana talk 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not 150 edits even? No one is going to be administrator through RfA with that few edits and it also happens to be threshhold to vote in the Arbcom vote. This would at least eliminate the complete newbie candidates. —Centrx→talk • 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd support this only if I thought it would be the end of these discussions...but it won't because then people will just want to discuss raising the limit. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet another solution looking for a problem. There are very few noms with less than 150 edits, and any that do appear get either withdrawn or closed early within a few hours - they aren't an issue. --Tango 01:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but if someone thinks they can be an admin after 75 edits, do we really expect them to read all the requirements/suggestions? We'll just go from closing "joke" RfAs because there's no shot in hell to closing them because of some guideline; that is to say, it'll happen no matter what. We don't need an additional rule to go by (/me hugs WP:SNOW). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The irony is that we do have a policy in place - it's just not in writing. It's clear that over 30% of the people who vote in RfAs think that editors need more than 1000 edits, and will vote against them otherwise (and I'm being conservative here; it's more than likely that at least 30% percent have set their threshold at 1500 or more as one way to measure "adequate" experience). And, of course, it only takes 30% here to MAKE a policy about who isn't going to be an admin; it really doesn't matter much what the other 70% think, once 30% have decided to reject a candidate.

So with our unwritten policy in place, when an editor with less than 1000 or 1500 edits is nominated, we know it will take up a certain amount of time and effort to dissuade him/her, or to let the process run for a while until WP:SNOW can be invoked by a kind-hearted editor or admin. Sometimes, as with TehKewl1, in November, who had 1167 edits, the process continues to the bitter end (10/31/12). (Note: this was his second RfA.)

I'm all for avoiding instruction creep, but when a policy exists, I'm not sure what we gain by not actually letting anyone know. And yes, many people still won't read or notice a limit, but some will. For the rest, wouldn't it be simpler for the first knowledgable editor who notices such a nomination to invoke Wikipedia:You don't have a snowball's chance of becoming an administrator without at least 1500 edits and be done with it? John Broughton | Talk 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If anyone codifies this, a guideline (with its option for the extraordinary exception) would be a better bet for those who spend hours on each edit and make copious use of the "show preview" button. Just in case.--Kchase T 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My problem with this is that I think we don't need to add any more emphasis to edit counts than exist already. It is stupidly simple to run up the edit count doing pointless things (or even things with a point), but that doesn't do anything to make you a good admin candidate. It's not that someone with 100 edits is ever going to have a successful RfA, it's that there are lots of people with more than 1500 edits that are denied on experience qualifications. Putting all this focus on edit counts, without regard to either edit quality or edit content, is misleading. So guideline, no, essay, maybe. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I would have said, minus any of the many mangled phrases I tend to strew across my comments. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting) Fine - an essay, Wikipedia:You don't have a snowball's chance of becoming an administrator without at least 1500 edits, but don't just run up your edit count, which points out that a large percentage of candidates with over 1500 edits are still unsuccessful and that it matters what an editor does as much, if not more, as how much an editor does]]. John Broughton | Talk 13:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about RfA standards (Archive 76)[edit]

are you supposed to have a special amount of contributions to be requested for Adminship? IWishIWasASuperstar 9:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there are no official standards, but no one with less than 1,000 edits has made it in a long time. 2,000 is a more common minimum, and 3,000 puts all the edit counters to rest. That said, there are other factors that are more important than an edit count.--Kchase T 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I recall reading here some time ago that once a user had 2000 edits, whether they succeeded or not on RfA was unaffected by their edit count, statistically speaking. --ais523 11:15, 13 December 2006 (U T C)

That was one of the conclusions from Durin's stats. There was no correlation between edits and success rate once you got over 2000 edits. --Tango 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: see Image:SuccessRatevsEditsatRfA.png--Tango 16:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My number crunching (above) for November 2006 found that the success rate for those with under 2000 edits was 7% (one out of 15 candidates), and even that was a special case of sorts - the person had been an admin at the Simple English Wikipedia (that would be you, Tango). Above 2000 edits, the sample size was too small to draw much of a conclusion, except that it appeared that edit counts weren't a factor (for example, 3 of the 5 candidates with between 2000 and 2500 edits were successful). Certainly, as KChase says, once you hit 3000, people focus on what you've edited (AfDs, CfDs, user pages [warnings], etc.), not how much in total.

My sense, both from reading RfAs and the charts that Tango has pointed out, is that the number of edits that successful candidates have is rising. In November, the average (mean) number of edits for the 33 successful candidates was almost 9,000; the median was 6,880 (the mean was pulled up by a candidate with 22,000 edits and another with 30,000). That compares to an average of around 6,000 for February and March 2006. (Durin charted these figures by week, which increases the fluctuation, but the trend is clear.)

To me the most surprising thing about Durin's figures (for June 2005 through March 2006) is that candidates with between 900 and 1500 edits had a success rate of around 40% (around 30% at the low end, near 50% at the high end), compared to 0% in November 2006 (my figures). That's quite a difference, so perhaps November was unusual in some way. But I do think that as the average edit count rises, the minimal expecatation rises, at least for a sufficiently large number of editors who will prevent lower-count candidate from getting anywhere near the 80% or so support that is considered (admittedly, not in concrete) to be a benchmark of consensus here. John Broughton | Talk 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If November was unusual it was in that people were more willing to support borderline candidates (how else could a user with less than 2000 edits (ie. me) pass unanimously? Even with the adminship on simple.). 40% does sound quite high, but not enormously - once you get over 1000 edits, you stand a good chance. Maybe it's just a difference in who's standing during the different time periods - we used to get good candidates with low edit counts, we don't any more. Maybe we've scared them all off with the strict standards (I almost didn't stand because I expected my edit count to stop me succeeding). --Tango 23:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not "scared them off" as much as "delayed their candidacy"? Eight edits per day is 250 per month; four months equals 1000 edits at that rate. Someone who wants to be an admin should certainly have enough time to do 8 edits a day; they'll get to 2000 edits soon enough that way. John Broughton | Talk 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we need to make it clearer what is expected. (Archive 76)[edit]

I count five RfAs closed early in the last week, with opposes because of huge lack of experience. Either there's a massive, weird, sockpuppet invasion, or it is not clear enough to these candidates that we expect more than 2 weeks of editing. And there is really no reason to believe sockpuppetry. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The main RFA page should state that eventhough there is no standards, the community usually doesn't accept users who were only active for a few months, or have less then (roughly) 2,800 edits. // I c e d K o l a 18:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have said, we need limits: minimum edit count, time spent here etc. This would be needed for the voters as well, and nominators to avoid sock/meatpuppetry. It might sound like instruction creep, but it's so needed. --Majorly (Talk) 19:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just have the RfA Clerks deal with any WP:SNOW RfA's, that way we don't disqualify any candidates. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is minor, 5 a week is no staggering amount. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, short of popups and flashing 72 point font, we're not going to stop these from happening. And even then, I bet we'd still see a few every month. A certain type of person on the internet is just going to ignore instructions or assume they don't apply to them. The solution here is to improve our reaction... dealing with the hopeless RfAs in a way that doesn't waste the time of good editors or discourage new users. I guess we are basically doing that right now... though I encourage anyone who de-lists a good faith (but premature) RfA to make a reasonable effort to make sure the candidate understands what happened. --W.marsh 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be 0 a week. All requests should run the full time. --Majorly (Talk) 19:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That does not seem productive, a user who is brand new has no chance, it would simply clutter up the rfa page and cause week long pile-on opposing. This is actually alot kinder than allowing opposes to gather for the full time. What is needed, if one does not already exist, is a template to give users who have had their rfas removed. A nice encouraging one with kind words. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. And new users shouldn't even be requesting. --Majorly (Talk) 20:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In a perfect world new users would not do alot of things, but new users will apply to be admins. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why we need set standards for requests, and any requests made below these standards can be removed without warning. --Majorly (Talk) 20:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair when sometimes a b'crat or admin will close RFA's before it's scheduled to close, though it has already run for a few days, and the user is legitimate. I know mine isn't the only one. I think we should have a rule saying that unless that candidate withdraws their acceptance, or they have under 500 edits, they can't be removed until their request officially ends. I think keeping an RFA open for its full course, even though it looks like no consensus, will help the candidate fix their problems more than one that's closed in 2 hours or a day. T e ckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but leaving inherently doomed RfAs to the wolves (like me) won't do any good either. Every editor walking by will only rehash overrepeated advice and overindicated shortcomings. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you have some ideas as to why the "wolves" such as yourself act in this fashion, and what we could do to get them to stop? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The mentioning of "wolves" was an attempt at sarcasm. I apologize if I wasn't clear. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it's not helpful behavior and it would be good to put a stop to it. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we are hounding on helpless candidates, if that's the impression you are getting. I am exaggerating the typical "please withdraw" pile-on that woefully occurs all the time. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's hard to deny that RfA participants are hounding hopeless candidacies. This seems to happen with a fair degree of regularity. I'm just wondering what motivates people to note their opposition to a candidate who has already been overwhelmingly defeated. This seems like fairly unwelcoming and unfriendly behavior. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in some cases, they actually have other problems, so another oppose is justified there. The rest of the cases, I think, stem from the fact that RfA is a voting process, no matter how much it is denied, so people are conditioned to vote, whether or not there is any point. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Totally agree. Users with a fair amount of edits who request are usually aware of how RfA works so may be annoyed if theirs is closed early. Any less than 500 edits, well, seriously should do some research before requesting. Or we make standards that are clearly written on the main page. --Majorly (Talk) 21:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear for readers of this entire section, since you were in an edit conflict, you were agreeing with me, right? T e ckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can tell by the indentation. --Majorly (Talk) 21:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, your RfA was not looking like no consensus, there was a clear consensus opposing your request. I would hope crats don't close RfAs with no consensus early, but closing when there is a consensus against seems fine to me. --Tango 21:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Majorly, In the interest of fairness, you'll need to find the shortest serving editor to be promoted to admin and the admin with the lowest number of edits to be promoted and that's your minimum limits. Anything else is unacceptable, for example, you, like many other admins were promoted after less than 6 months, so imposing an arbitrary 6 month minimum period is totally unfair. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends where I start from. Check Angela's contributions (Angela is now a bureaucrat, and is/was a steward). A total of 83 edits, she was promoted without a problem. Obviously, times have changed. I could go back through every successful request, maybe, for this year perhaps and see what the minimums were. --Majorly (Talk) 21:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Would eliminating the ability to self-nominate help? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No. There are lots of really hard working editors out there who could use the tools but haven't stuck their head above the parapet for whatever reason and haven't been noticed, but for whatever reason have decided they could use the tools. Hell, pay a visit to the right users talkpage, follow a regular nominator around on Wikipedia or go and use IRC and people will fall over themselves to nominate you. There's a certain stigma about self-noms which is unfair, a self-nom for an experienced editor is likely to be a well thought out and articulate effort, and it requires balls of steel ! --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this got incredibly sidetracked. I don't think we should do anything other than make something like WP:GRFA more prominent. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. There shouldn't be any minimum standards, but people should realize that new users are going to continually push for adminship no matter how prominently the WP:GRFA guidelines are shown. It's clear to me from reading some of those RfAs that the self-nominators didn't bother to read anything related to the process (how to format the RfA, how to answer the nomination questions, etc.) so while making the GRFA a bit more prominent might help with some of the ill-fated self-noms, it won't end them entirely.--Caliga10 13:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

GRFA should be more prominent, and it probably doesn't hurt to tell people right at the top that if they're new and inexperienced, they're highly unlikely to pass the nomination. We don't have to define "new" as "less than X months" or anything. >Radiant< 12:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)