 | This page in a nutshell: Aiming to reduce the nuber of WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW transclusions, this proposal draws on statistics gathered at Unsuccessful candidates and Criteria for candidates. It is also based on policies, guidelines, users' criteria for RfA, and other Wikipedias. |
Read the main page first, then join a discussion on the respective page.
Please do not start a new thread or a new sub page on something that is already under discussion - see the TOC on each talk page.
One of the perennial suggestions regarding adminship is that there should be some sort of minimum requirement for candidates. The thinking behind the proposal is that it will reduce the number of WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW closures, and will make it clear that a modicum of experience is needed to become an administrator.
I therefore propose a minimum requirement of 2000 edits and 6 months since registration before an editor can self-nominate for adminship. Any editor who fulfils the minimum requirement may nominate an editor who does not.
The number has been set intentionally lower than it could be, because it draws parallels with the Journeyman service award and by 2000 edits and 6 months tenure, editors should have enough experience that the can fully appreciate the role of adminship and the community's requirements to bestow the role. It should also be made clear that this is a "bright line" minimum and passing the criteria does not automatically mean you will be qualified for adminship.
Having analysed all adminship promotions since 1 Jan 2009, we have only one promoted administrator who had less than 3000 edits (and he requested a temporary adminship because of that shortfall, although he had over 1 million edits across all wikis). We also have 0 editors promoted with a tenure of 6 months or less. Looking at the 114 editors who were unsuccessful in the past 12 months, 41 (36%) of them do not fulfil the criteria. All but 6 were closed NOTNOW or SNOW, the remaining 6 were withdrawn by user.
An analysis of user essays regarding personal criteria for adminship gives a general feel for how a vocal portion of the community vote. Looking at all essays (including ones that were unchanged for years and ones from blocked users), gives an average expectation of approx 2800 edits and 6.6 months editing. If we look at the more relevant essays, we have an average expection of 3700 edits and 9 months editing.
Other wikipedias have a minimum set of requirements before a candidate can nominate themselves, both of the other encyclopedias with over 1 million articles (French and German) have strong recommendations that editors have a thousands of edits.
In conclusion, I believe this change is descriptive of the way the community currently votes, matches the current user essays and is in line with other wikipedias. What's more, it will not stop genuinely good candidates with less than 2000 edits or 6 months tenure, as they can be nominated by other editors.
The task force
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is a list of those who feel they can collaborate with each other to move this RfA reform project along. Just sign your name the normal way. No comments other than your signature are needed. Outside views are more than welcome on the various talk pages.
Coordinators?
The Coords keep the discussions tidy, on track, and on the right pages, and check for signatures and page links, and develop sub pages and templates as required, etc. They offer their own suggestions and opinions in the normal way. Italicized names are inactive or on an extended Wikibreak. Participants
Long message list for Message Delivery Bot. Includes task force and all users who have posted on the project talk pages
|
| This page in a nutshell: Aiming to reduce the nuber of WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW transclusions, this proposal draws on statistics gathered at Unsuccessful candidates and Criteria for candidates. It is also based on policies, guidelines, users' criteria for RfA, and other Wikipedias. |
Read the main page first, then join a discussion on the respective page.
Please do not start a new thread or a new sub page on something that is already under discussion - see the TOC on each talk page.
One of the perennial suggestions regarding adminship is that there should be some sort of minimum requirement for candidates. The thinking behind the proposal is that it will reduce the number of WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW closures, and will make it clear that a modicum of experience is needed to become an administrator.
I therefore propose a minimum requirement of 2000 edits and 6 months since registration before an editor can self-nominate for adminship. Any editor who fulfils the minimum requirement may nominate an editor who does not.
The number has been set intentionally lower than it could be, because it draws parallels with the Journeyman service award and by 2000 edits and 6 months tenure, editors should have enough experience that the can fully appreciate the role of adminship and the community's requirements to bestow the role. It should also be made clear that this is a "bright line" minimum and passing the criteria does not automatically mean you will be qualified for adminship.
Having analysed all adminship promotions since 1 Jan 2009, we have only one promoted administrator who had less than 3000 edits (and he requested a temporary adminship because of that shortfall, although he had over 1 million edits across all wikis). We also have 0 editors promoted with a tenure of 6 months or less. Looking at the 114 editors who were unsuccessful in the past 12 months, 41 (36%) of them do not fulfil the criteria. All but 6 were closed NOTNOW or SNOW, the remaining 6 were withdrawn by user.
An analysis of user essays regarding personal criteria for adminship gives a general feel for how a vocal portion of the community vote. Looking at all essays (including ones that were unchanged for years and ones from blocked users), gives an average expectation of approx 2800 edits and 6.6 months editing. If we look at the more relevant essays, we have an average expection of 3700 edits and 9 months editing.
Other wikipedias have a minimum set of requirements before a candidate can nominate themselves, both of the other encyclopedias with over 1 million articles (French and German) have strong recommendations that editors have a thousands of edits.
In conclusion, I believe this change is descriptive of the way the community currently votes, matches the current user essays and is in line with other wikipedias. What's more, it will not stop genuinely good candidates with less than 2000 edits or 6 months tenure, as they can be nominated by other editors.
The task force
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is a list of those who feel they can collaborate with each other to move this RfA reform project along. Just sign your name the normal way. No comments other than your signature are needed. Outside views are more than welcome on the various talk pages.
Coordinators?
The Coords keep the discussions tidy, on track, and on the right pages, and check for signatures and page links, and develop sub pages and templates as required, etc. They offer their own suggestions and opinions in the normal way. Italicized names are inactive or on an extended Wikibreak. Participants
Long message list for Message Delivery Bot. Includes task force and all users who have posted on the project talk pages
|