This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
RfA reform 2011/Candidates page. |
|
(Thread copied from WT:RFA2011. Please continue the discussion here)
When exactly did RfA break? Looking back to 2003, when Jimbo Wales said becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. the process of becoming an admin was very different to how it is today. It looks to have been an almost entirely stress-free process, with people who would be WP:NOTNOWed today passing with 3 supports and 0 opposes. But then it was a very different encyclopedia back then. Is it realistic to expect RfAs to be stress-free when we also expect a certain level of competence from our admins? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, Worm! That's a heck of a task - I had no idea that there really were that number of essays to go through! You have my unbounded admiration for taking this one on - not something that I would have wanted to tackle! Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 04:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It might be worth factoring in automated edits in there, as it's something I've noticed brought up in RfA and on various peoples' RfA criteria... For instance, percentages from this year:
(might be worth checking some of those zero values) Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, the edit count roughly shows the experience in editing. But to have enough experience, you don`t need 10000 edits. Good behaviour, edits of good quality, enough experience(in the article and other namespaces of relevance), Knowledge of the rules, exspecially of Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and no indication of possible power abuse; that is what you should look for if someone wants to be an adminstrator.-- Müdigkeit ( talk) 05:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
A high edit count is never indicative of how productive an editor someone is. It is incredibly easy to make massive numbers of edits using automated or semi-automated tools. Take for example the Mhiji ( contribs) sockpuppet of John254 that racked up 28,077 edits in 4 months (October 16, 2010 - January, 16 2011) using a modified AWB ( note) and scripts.
Similarly, a low edit count should not necessarily count against someone. Instead of making many small incremental changes to an article or page, an editor might instead draft large sections of material offline and add it to Wikipedia in one large edit. I myself tend to do this.
The best way to sum this up is edit count or quantity of edits should not matter, the only thing which should matter is the quality of the edits. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 16:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This page should shortly be populated with information from User:Worm That Turned/RFA criteria (what people say about RFA) and User:Worm That Turned/Successful RFA (stats about successful candidates). Now, the interesting things I've found.
Now that we have some solid information, perhaps we can come up with a pre-admin checklist, to help prevent NOTNOWS. If we can show that all successful admins met the checklist without issue, I think we can possibly put it forward as a proposal (based on data, not emotion). WormTT · ( talk) 14:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I have compiled and posted a sortable table based on unsuccessful candidates from 2011. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems like the actual pass rates are dependent on article-writing and growing more so. Even if there is not a majority that feel this way, there may be a substantial minority that do. And that's what I see in discussions btw. Basically it's different from the essays, which tend to be older and/or tend to have a different point of view on the importance of articles. TCO ( talk) 06:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus on the criteria for a contributor to be eligible. Thus, all registered contributors can access the administrator status.
However, in view of recent results, it seems advisable to have:
The bold text is mine.
-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
More:
Guidelines for Nominations for Admin
Note: This thread has been copied from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Possible proposals . Please continue the discussion here.
Several good ideas on this page, but the idea I'd most like to see proposed is a set of minimum requirements for RfA candidates. This year, there have been 22 NOTNOW closures, plus multiple SNOW closures due to activity level. In the last year, the successful candidate with the lowest edit count was RHM22, who had about 3,900 edits. This is an exceptionally low edit count, and was the only successful RfA with less than 4,000 edits. While it's good that we can close RfAs early, frankly, it's ridiculous that absolutely anyone can run in the first place. It would save time, effort and stress if there was an edit count level that candidates have to meet before they are allowed to run. It would also filter out trolls. Swarm X 02:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Candidates that do not have a significant four-digit number of edits are mostly rejected. The proportions of the edits in different namespaces is often critically examined.:
Suggestions:
Before transcluding this page, please be sure to have read all the instructions and advice pages.
If the user does not check the box but tries to save the page, a simple script that will load a notice declining the transclusion: "Sorry, but as you have not read up on all that is required to become an administrator, it will not be possible to process your request this time."
Enter theses details: 1. Total number of edits to date: [field 1] 2. Total number of recent consecutive months edeiting: [field 2]
if the software detects less than 4,000 for field 1, and/or lest than 6 in field 2, a simple script will load a notice declining the transclusion:
"Please note that candidates with less than 4,000 edits and/or 6 months continuous editing are most unlikely to succeed. If you wish to continue please click here, but be aware that your application is unlikely to succeed." if the software detects less than 2,000 for field 1, and less than 3 in field 2, a simple script will load a notice declining the transclusion:
"Sorry, but you do not appear to have sufficient experience to become an administrator at this time. Please read the pages at xxx and xxx, and xxx, and discuss your request with an administrator before applying again."
Basically, we've discussed setting a bar before, but every time we have, people have assumed us to mean either raising it or loweriing it. This is not the case here. What we are doing here is making both the time wasters not waste their or our time, and encouraging others who may not be time wasters, but have little chance of passing, to take more advice and get more experience - such as those who would pass in another six months or so.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 08:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll just add that a lot of people here probably are not aware of the number of RfAs that don't make it to tranclusion, and I don't see a way of tracking those deleted or reverted applications for the stats. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Note: This thread has been copied from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Possible proposals . Please continue the discussion here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The table I made was really only to to show what the other Wikis have for minimum qualifications for candidates and voters, but I threw in the rest of the data for good measure. I think our theoretical bar is perfectly alright where it is and generally the right people tend to pass. However, we need to set a low minium to prevent SNOW and NOTNOW. There was another one on 10 July which need not have been if we had one. We seriously need to resolve our civility issues and do something about the electorate. Other Wikis have a similar turn out of voters in spite of their much lower numbers of registered users, and demanding minimum qualifications for voters. This may be due to the fact that they notify their VPs and other venues of current RfAs. Voting is generally a straight vote with very little commenting if any, and no set questions. Neutral votes are not taken into consideration. All in all I was left with a sense of embarrassment at what a mess our RfA often are compared with the orderly fashion the others go about it. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Table has been updated to 10 July 2011 at Unsuccessful candidates. Still shows that in spite of all our advice pages and the blatant edit notice on the transclusion page, there are still some silly attempts demonstrating that a minim number of edits should be set at 1,500 - 3,000 and activity of 3 - 6 months consecutive months. Article space edits are important and should be taken into consideration because at these low levels many edits are to own user space, specially fiddling with own user page. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
A script is available here that could easily be adapted for users and candidate's to check on candidates' eligibility. This script could also be automatically triggered by an attampt to transclude. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
RfA reform 2011/Candidates page. |
|
(Thread copied from WT:RFA2011. Please continue the discussion here)
When exactly did RfA break? Looking back to 2003, when Jimbo Wales said becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. the process of becoming an admin was very different to how it is today. It looks to have been an almost entirely stress-free process, with people who would be WP:NOTNOWed today passing with 3 supports and 0 opposes. But then it was a very different encyclopedia back then. Is it realistic to expect RfAs to be stress-free when we also expect a certain level of competence from our admins? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, Worm! That's a heck of a task - I had no idea that there really were that number of essays to go through! You have my unbounded admiration for taking this one on - not something that I would have wanted to tackle! Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 04:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It might be worth factoring in automated edits in there, as it's something I've noticed brought up in RfA and on various peoples' RfA criteria... For instance, percentages from this year:
(might be worth checking some of those zero values) Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, the edit count roughly shows the experience in editing. But to have enough experience, you don`t need 10000 edits. Good behaviour, edits of good quality, enough experience(in the article and other namespaces of relevance), Knowledge of the rules, exspecially of Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and no indication of possible power abuse; that is what you should look for if someone wants to be an adminstrator.-- Müdigkeit ( talk) 05:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
A high edit count is never indicative of how productive an editor someone is. It is incredibly easy to make massive numbers of edits using automated or semi-automated tools. Take for example the Mhiji ( contribs) sockpuppet of John254 that racked up 28,077 edits in 4 months (October 16, 2010 - January, 16 2011) using a modified AWB ( note) and scripts.
Similarly, a low edit count should not necessarily count against someone. Instead of making many small incremental changes to an article or page, an editor might instead draft large sections of material offline and add it to Wikipedia in one large edit. I myself tend to do this.
The best way to sum this up is edit count or quantity of edits should not matter, the only thing which should matter is the quality of the edits. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 16:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This page should shortly be populated with information from User:Worm That Turned/RFA criteria (what people say about RFA) and User:Worm That Turned/Successful RFA (stats about successful candidates). Now, the interesting things I've found.
Now that we have some solid information, perhaps we can come up with a pre-admin checklist, to help prevent NOTNOWS. If we can show that all successful admins met the checklist without issue, I think we can possibly put it forward as a proposal (based on data, not emotion). WormTT · ( talk) 14:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I have compiled and posted a sortable table based on unsuccessful candidates from 2011. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems like the actual pass rates are dependent on article-writing and growing more so. Even if there is not a majority that feel this way, there may be a substantial minority that do. And that's what I see in discussions btw. Basically it's different from the essays, which tend to be older and/or tend to have a different point of view on the importance of articles. TCO ( talk) 06:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus on the criteria for a contributor to be eligible. Thus, all registered contributors can access the administrator status.
However, in view of recent results, it seems advisable to have:
The bold text is mine.
-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
More:
Guidelines for Nominations for Admin
Note: This thread has been copied from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Possible proposals . Please continue the discussion here.
Several good ideas on this page, but the idea I'd most like to see proposed is a set of minimum requirements for RfA candidates. This year, there have been 22 NOTNOW closures, plus multiple SNOW closures due to activity level. In the last year, the successful candidate with the lowest edit count was RHM22, who had about 3,900 edits. This is an exceptionally low edit count, and was the only successful RfA with less than 4,000 edits. While it's good that we can close RfAs early, frankly, it's ridiculous that absolutely anyone can run in the first place. It would save time, effort and stress if there was an edit count level that candidates have to meet before they are allowed to run. It would also filter out trolls. Swarm X 02:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Candidates that do not have a significant four-digit number of edits are mostly rejected. The proportions of the edits in different namespaces is often critically examined.:
Suggestions:
Before transcluding this page, please be sure to have read all the instructions and advice pages.
If the user does not check the box but tries to save the page, a simple script that will load a notice declining the transclusion: "Sorry, but as you have not read up on all that is required to become an administrator, it will not be possible to process your request this time."
Enter theses details: 1. Total number of edits to date: [field 1] 2. Total number of recent consecutive months edeiting: [field 2]
if the software detects less than 4,000 for field 1, and/or lest than 6 in field 2, a simple script will load a notice declining the transclusion:
"Please note that candidates with less than 4,000 edits and/or 6 months continuous editing are most unlikely to succeed. If you wish to continue please click here, but be aware that your application is unlikely to succeed." if the software detects less than 2,000 for field 1, and less than 3 in field 2, a simple script will load a notice declining the transclusion:
"Sorry, but you do not appear to have sufficient experience to become an administrator at this time. Please read the pages at xxx and xxx, and xxx, and discuss your request with an administrator before applying again."
Basically, we've discussed setting a bar before, but every time we have, people have assumed us to mean either raising it or loweriing it. This is not the case here. What we are doing here is making both the time wasters not waste their or our time, and encouraging others who may not be time wasters, but have little chance of passing, to take more advice and get more experience - such as those who would pass in another six months or so.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 08:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll just add that a lot of people here probably are not aware of the number of RfAs that don't make it to tranclusion, and I don't see a way of tracking those deleted or reverted applications for the stats. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Note: This thread has been copied from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Possible proposals . Please continue the discussion here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The table I made was really only to to show what the other Wikis have for minimum qualifications for candidates and voters, but I threw in the rest of the data for good measure. I think our theoretical bar is perfectly alright where it is and generally the right people tend to pass. However, we need to set a low minium to prevent SNOW and NOTNOW. There was another one on 10 July which need not have been if we had one. We seriously need to resolve our civility issues and do something about the electorate. Other Wikis have a similar turn out of voters in spite of their much lower numbers of registered users, and demanding minimum qualifications for voters. This may be due to the fact that they notify their VPs and other venues of current RfAs. Voting is generally a straight vote with very little commenting if any, and no set questions. Neutral votes are not taken into consideration. All in all I was left with a sense of embarrassment at what a mess our RfA often are compared with the orderly fashion the others go about it. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Table has been updated to 10 July 2011 at Unsuccessful candidates. Still shows that in spite of all our advice pages and the blatant edit notice on the transclusion page, there are still some silly attempts demonstrating that a minim number of edits should be set at 1,500 - 3,000 and activity of 3 - 6 months consecutive months. Article space edits are important and should be taken into consideration because at these low levels many edits are to own user space, specially fiddling with own user page. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
A script is available here that could easily be adapted for users and candidate's to check on candidates' eligibility. This script could also be automatically triggered by an attampt to transclude. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)