This page was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep but alter. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Requests for adminship/Standards page. |
|
I want to note an objection to the use of edit count as a way of judging adminship. It's a completely arbitrary measure, taking no account of the size or quality of the edits, and certainly has no bearing on whether they're responsible and trustworthy. -- Khendon 09:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For no particularly good reason, I've compiled a set of statistics about the standards stated on this page. Note
Note also that the figures given may be out-of-date and not everybody sticks to them anyway.
Edits | Time | |
---|---|---|
mean | 1060 | 3.81 |
median | 1000 | 3.00 |
mode | 1000 | 3.00 |
max | 3000 | 12.00 |
min | 3 | 0.25 |
Thryduulf 17:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Er... why the age thing? This is what Jimbo says: "To me the key thing is getting it right. And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor; it's the work that matters.". Why does age matter? Does it matter if I'm 5 or 105, or does it matter whether my edits are good and I am seen to be responsible and of good intent? The N e okid talk 17:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This page seems to be a bit out of date. There's people listed here I've never even heard of (and I'm an admin now), and some very low standards which surely don't represent current thought. I wonder if it might be an idea to archive this page and start again? -- kingboyk 07:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I went through all the names on the list and only the following six users have been inactive for more than three months (almost every other editor on the list has been active within the last two weeks...the great majority within the last 24 hours.)
I removed these editors. The longest inactive editor now on the list as of March 20, 2006 is CryptoDerk ( talk · contribs) with two minor edits on 24 January 2006 and 30 January 2006 and the last active contributions on 27 December 2005.
— Doug Bell talk• contrib 03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I would not support deleting any editor's standards from this index. Perhaps the oldest standards are the most informative, even if Elvis has left the building. John Reid 01:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Rm historical tag. This is not a policy page, proposal, nor anything remotely in this vein; nobody has ever (so far as I know) attempted to translate this index of purely personal standards into a group consensus. Historical doesn't apply. The page has a perfectly clear introduction that explains just what it is. John Reid 01:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that this page lacks a category. Perhaps, we should include this in a particular category, but I am not sure which category would be most appropriate. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 04:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
What if a user called Standards wants to nominate himself/herself for adminship? This space has been taken up. We should move it.-- Tdxi an g 08:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is 90 kilobytes long - does anyone else think it should be split into three sections, like A-G, H-P, Q-Z? Picaroon9288| ta co 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
What with 2 editcountitis columns, and a single box for everything else, there's not much space for serious adminship criteria outside of edit and time counts, I'd think.
Perhaps we could make the page more free-form?
-- Kim Bruning 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Might I suggest breaking the table down alphabetically into several tables, setting each table in its own section and having a TOC to navigate the sections? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have categorized this page finally. If anyone has any objections to which category this page belongs to, please inform me about this. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I see this pages as counter to the original intent of RFA, which was that "adminship is not a big deal". - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 22:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we work torwards replacing these out of date "standards" with a real standard for qualification, ie a true minimum requirement for adminship, as other languages have done.
The advantage of this is that we would then be able to:
Thoughts? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Individual statements are a good indicator of community standards -- not the only one by any means. To the extent that they fall short, they should be improved by encouraging editors who comment on RfA to make their standards public, extending the list. The difficulty here is that there is presently no consensus on these standards. The matter is under intense discussion.
I oppose any effort at present to impose top-down standards for RfA. It may be a very good idea to summarize discussions of the issue -- in 6 months, if any consensus emerges. John Reid 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
How about instead of mandatory standards, we have suggested qualifications to consider for a nominee. 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:
— Malber ( talk · contribs) 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
In the MfD for this group of pages (see banner at top of page), the result was keep. Xoloz commented, closing the discussion:
My nomination followed from the feeling I had, upon encountering the list of "standards", that it does no favor to the project - instead lending credence to the common view of it having a bureaucracy of positively Byzantine (or Kafkaesque, perhaps) complexity. Here are my issues with this page (let's call it that, rather than a group of pages), as it stands.
I come to Wikipedia after some considerable experience as an editor on the venerable WikiWikiWeb, the mother wiki from which all other wikis descend. I state this not as an attempt to hold myself over anybody else, but only to use it as a basis for mentioning a concept developed there way back when, called refactoring wiki pages.
The WikiWikiWeb does not have separate content and talk pages, and each page exists as a mixture of document mode and thread mode. As a consequence, as discussion accumulates, in order to keep the site usable, editors will apply a process of converting thread mode to document mode. Unrefactored pages full of discussion are known as thread mess. That, in a nutshell, is a large part of the problem of this page: it is an unrefactored mess. With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that we replace the current content with a wiki ballot box. The wiki ballot box comes in several varieties, and my proposal works as follows: A numbered list of propositions is made. Each has a vote count associated with it. If you agree with one, you increment the number. For example:
If you agree with proposition 1, you change the vote count to 54. No subtractions are allowable; if you have another opinion, add it as another criterion with one vote. This way, all opinions are recognized, a picture emerges of what people really agree on, and the need for all the space-wasting similar entries in the list we have at present is removed. The full edit history of the page makes ballot stuffing impossible and provides verifiability.
Any dubious criteria should be removed after consensus is achieved on the talk page for the list, as usual. Additionally, if people wish to indicate what propositions they've voted for (strictly optional, as anonymous voting is very much in line with the humble wiki nature and to be encouraged), there should be a subpage for them to do so on, with a list like:
(Note that the names would be user page links.) There could also be links for each person on this subpage, should they wish, to a subpage of their own wherein they make a fuller statement of their criteria for adminship - in other words, exactly what is currently contained in the existing list!
Finally, I suggest that the new format page is named Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Suggested criteria.
I sincerely believe that this proposal would resolve the current issues with this page. What do you think? — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This page was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep but alter. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Requests for adminship/Standards page. |
|
I want to note an objection to the use of edit count as a way of judging adminship. It's a completely arbitrary measure, taking no account of the size or quality of the edits, and certainly has no bearing on whether they're responsible and trustworthy. -- Khendon 09:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For no particularly good reason, I've compiled a set of statistics about the standards stated on this page. Note
Note also that the figures given may be out-of-date and not everybody sticks to them anyway.
Edits | Time | |
---|---|---|
mean | 1060 | 3.81 |
median | 1000 | 3.00 |
mode | 1000 | 3.00 |
max | 3000 | 12.00 |
min | 3 | 0.25 |
Thryduulf 17:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Er... why the age thing? This is what Jimbo says: "To me the key thing is getting it right. And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor; it's the work that matters.". Why does age matter? Does it matter if I'm 5 or 105, or does it matter whether my edits are good and I am seen to be responsible and of good intent? The N e okid talk 17:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This page seems to be a bit out of date. There's people listed here I've never even heard of (and I'm an admin now), and some very low standards which surely don't represent current thought. I wonder if it might be an idea to archive this page and start again? -- kingboyk 07:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I went through all the names on the list and only the following six users have been inactive for more than three months (almost every other editor on the list has been active within the last two weeks...the great majority within the last 24 hours.)
I removed these editors. The longest inactive editor now on the list as of March 20, 2006 is CryptoDerk ( talk · contribs) with two minor edits on 24 January 2006 and 30 January 2006 and the last active contributions on 27 December 2005.
— Doug Bell talk• contrib 03:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I would not support deleting any editor's standards from this index. Perhaps the oldest standards are the most informative, even if Elvis has left the building. John Reid 01:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Rm historical tag. This is not a policy page, proposal, nor anything remotely in this vein; nobody has ever (so far as I know) attempted to translate this index of purely personal standards into a group consensus. Historical doesn't apply. The page has a perfectly clear introduction that explains just what it is. John Reid 01:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that this page lacks a category. Perhaps, we should include this in a particular category, but I am not sure which category would be most appropriate. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 04:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
What if a user called Standards wants to nominate himself/herself for adminship? This space has been taken up. We should move it.-- Tdxi an g 08:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is 90 kilobytes long - does anyone else think it should be split into three sections, like A-G, H-P, Q-Z? Picaroon9288| ta co 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
What with 2 editcountitis columns, and a single box for everything else, there's not much space for serious adminship criteria outside of edit and time counts, I'd think.
Perhaps we could make the page more free-form?
-- Kim Bruning 21:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Might I suggest breaking the table down alphabetically into several tables, setting each table in its own section and having a TOC to navigate the sections? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have categorized this page finally. If anyone has any objections to which category this page belongs to, please inform me about this. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I see this pages as counter to the original intent of RFA, which was that "adminship is not a big deal". - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 22:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we work torwards replacing these out of date "standards" with a real standard for qualification, ie a true minimum requirement for adminship, as other languages have done.
The advantage of this is that we would then be able to:
Thoughts? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Individual statements are a good indicator of community standards -- not the only one by any means. To the extent that they fall short, they should be improved by encouraging editors who comment on RfA to make their standards public, extending the list. The difficulty here is that there is presently no consensus on these standards. The matter is under intense discussion.
I oppose any effort at present to impose top-down standards for RfA. It may be a very good idea to summarize discussions of the issue -- in 6 months, if any consensus emerges. John Reid 15:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
How about instead of mandatory standards, we have suggested qualifications to consider for a nominee. 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:
— Malber ( talk · contribs) 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
In the MfD for this group of pages (see banner at top of page), the result was keep. Xoloz commented, closing the discussion:
My nomination followed from the feeling I had, upon encountering the list of "standards", that it does no favor to the project - instead lending credence to the common view of it having a bureaucracy of positively Byzantine (or Kafkaesque, perhaps) complexity. Here are my issues with this page (let's call it that, rather than a group of pages), as it stands.
I come to Wikipedia after some considerable experience as an editor on the venerable WikiWikiWeb, the mother wiki from which all other wikis descend. I state this not as an attempt to hold myself over anybody else, but only to use it as a basis for mentioning a concept developed there way back when, called refactoring wiki pages.
The WikiWikiWeb does not have separate content and talk pages, and each page exists as a mixture of document mode and thread mode. As a consequence, as discussion accumulates, in order to keep the site usable, editors will apply a process of converting thread mode to document mode. Unrefactored pages full of discussion are known as thread mess. That, in a nutshell, is a large part of the problem of this page: it is an unrefactored mess. With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that we replace the current content with a wiki ballot box. The wiki ballot box comes in several varieties, and my proposal works as follows: A numbered list of propositions is made. Each has a vote count associated with it. If you agree with one, you increment the number. For example:
If you agree with proposition 1, you change the vote count to 54. No subtractions are allowable; if you have another opinion, add it as another criterion with one vote. This way, all opinions are recognized, a picture emerges of what people really agree on, and the need for all the space-wasting similar entries in the list we have at present is removed. The full edit history of the page makes ballot stuffing impossible and provides verifiability.
Any dubious criteria should be removed after consensus is achieved on the talk page for the list, as usual. Additionally, if people wish to indicate what propositions they've voted for (strictly optional, as anonymous voting is very much in line with the humble wiki nature and to be encouraged), there should be a subpage for them to do so on, with a list like:
(Note that the names would be user page links.) There could also be links for each person on this subpage, should they wish, to a subpage of their own wherein they make a fuller statement of their criteria for adminship - in other words, exactly what is currently contained in the existing list!
Finally, I suggest that the new format page is named Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Suggested criteria.
I sincerely believe that this proposal would resolve the current issues with this page. What do you think? — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)