This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
RfA reform 2011/Possible proposals page. |
|
Note: This thread has been copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Candidates. Please continue the discussion there.
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 these details: 1. Total number of edits to date: [field 1] 2. Total number of recent consecutive months editing: [field 2]
if the software detects less than 4,000 for field 1, and/or less 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 to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Candidates. Please continue the discussion there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
have software stop it or have buros authorize transcludes. TCO ( talk) 19:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I will take any bar. That said, I recommend setting it high. Even if there are SOME editors who will do a great job with 3900 edits, it is just more efficient to set it at 10,000. Don't WORRY about excluding a small number of good candidates. Unis and companies routinely filter candidates. You can't obsess on the one that got by. Think about an efficient process. And if they really love the encyclopedia, they will keep editing, regardless of the "moderator hat". TCO ( talk) 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jonesey95! Thank you for your interest in wanting to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. However, at this time you do not appear to have been registered long enough or have made a sufficient number of edits. Please read the guidelines for adminship and when you have been registered for at least 3 months and have made at least 1,500 manual edits you may try again. You might also wish to join our Admin School and WIKIVERSITY has an excellent programme too.
Please read Administrators and the Guide to requests for adminship before you nominate yourself. Adminship is not for new or inexperienced users. You need to have made several thousand edits to articles and housekeeping tasks. You also need a good knowledge of deletion, copyright, and other policies, and to show that you can exercise sound judgment in awkward situations.
Applications from editors without considerable experience are often quickly declined as premature. If you are not sure that you qualify, please ask an admin or an established user for advice.
--
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 16:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, if we're looking for local consensus on what the bar should be - I'd suggest looking at the summary of candidate findings. Essays seem to agree that you should have 2000 edits and 6 months tenure minimum, so that seems like the right sort of place to put a software bar. Especially since we've only had one candidate since the beginning of 2009 who has had less than 2000 edits ( a special case, who could have got a nomination I'm certain). That would take out the NOTNOWs, and by the time they have 2000 edits, they should be savvy enough to know whether they should transclude. NB since 2009, removing MGA73, there were 0 successful candidates with 0-3000 edits, but 20 with 3000-5000 - so we should really pitch the bar below 3000. WormTT · ( talk) 09:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jonesey95! Thank you for your interest in wanting to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. However, at this time you do not appear to have been registered long enough or have made a sufficient number of edits. Please read the guidelines for adminship and when you have your Journeyman award you may try again. You might also wish to join our Admin School and WIKIVERSITY has an excellent programme too.
After reading through this proposal, I believe the community will immediately reject it. !Voters should not have to be qualified to !vote at an RfA, much like users who have discussions to try to get a consensus do not have to be qualified. We have to keep in mind that a request for adminship is aimed at getting a consensus from the community on whether a candidate should receive the tools or not. This isn't an election per se, but more of a discussion. If we limit who can participate, the number of !voters will surely decay over time due to lack of interest in "registering" to speak one's mind. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I have long held out the theory that grizzled old timers who've been here since, say, 2008 or earlier, are good to have at RfA. They are less likely to suffer from editcountitis and more likely to focus on what makes a good admin than being swayed by weak arguments in the oppose section. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I think that encouraging long-standing users to !vote at RfA would help more RfAs pass. And if more pass, more reluctant editors will step forward. It doesn't, of course, address the main problem, which is declining numbers of editors, but hey, at my best I'm good, not brilliant. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggested this on the Wikipedia talk:RfA reform (continued) but nobody really responded there (I think it got buried in the other conversations). On the topic of the civility problem, perhaps it would be helpful to modify the edit notice that people see when they're voting on an RfA. You could add material about the length of comments, badgering, civility, etc. Here's an example of how it might be tweaked. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 02:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
RfA reform 2011/Possible proposals page. |
|
Note: This thread has been copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Candidates. Please continue the discussion there.
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 these details: 1. Total number of edits to date: [field 1] 2. Total number of recent consecutive months editing: [field 2]
if the software detects less than 4,000 for field 1, and/or less 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 to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Candidates. Please continue the discussion there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
have software stop it or have buros authorize transcludes. TCO ( talk) 19:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I will take any bar. That said, I recommend setting it high. Even if there are SOME editors who will do a great job with 3900 edits, it is just more efficient to set it at 10,000. Don't WORRY about excluding a small number of good candidates. Unis and companies routinely filter candidates. You can't obsess on the one that got by. Think about an efficient process. And if they really love the encyclopedia, they will keep editing, regardless of the "moderator hat". TCO ( talk) 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jonesey95! Thank you for your interest in wanting to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. However, at this time you do not appear to have been registered long enough or have made a sufficient number of edits. Please read the guidelines for adminship and when you have been registered for at least 3 months and have made at least 1,500 manual edits you may try again. You might also wish to join our Admin School and WIKIVERSITY has an excellent programme too.
Please read Administrators and the Guide to requests for adminship before you nominate yourself. Adminship is not for new or inexperienced users. You need to have made several thousand edits to articles and housekeeping tasks. You also need a good knowledge of deletion, copyright, and other policies, and to show that you can exercise sound judgment in awkward situations.
Applications from editors without considerable experience are often quickly declined as premature. If you are not sure that you qualify, please ask an admin or an established user for advice.
--
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 16:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, if we're looking for local consensus on what the bar should be - I'd suggest looking at the summary of candidate findings. Essays seem to agree that you should have 2000 edits and 6 months tenure minimum, so that seems like the right sort of place to put a software bar. Especially since we've only had one candidate since the beginning of 2009 who has had less than 2000 edits ( a special case, who could have got a nomination I'm certain). That would take out the NOTNOWs, and by the time they have 2000 edits, they should be savvy enough to know whether they should transclude. NB since 2009, removing MGA73, there were 0 successful candidates with 0-3000 edits, but 20 with 3000-5000 - so we should really pitch the bar below 3000. WormTT · ( talk) 09:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jonesey95! Thank you for your interest in wanting to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. However, at this time you do not appear to have been registered long enough or have made a sufficient number of edits. Please read the guidelines for adminship and when you have your Journeyman award you may try again. You might also wish to join our Admin School and WIKIVERSITY has an excellent programme too.
After reading through this proposal, I believe the community will immediately reject it. !Voters should not have to be qualified to !vote at an RfA, much like users who have discussions to try to get a consensus do not have to be qualified. We have to keep in mind that a request for adminship is aimed at getting a consensus from the community on whether a candidate should receive the tools or not. This isn't an election per se, but more of a discussion. If we limit who can participate, the number of !voters will surely decay over time due to lack of interest in "registering" to speak one's mind. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I have long held out the theory that grizzled old timers who've been here since, say, 2008 or earlier, are good to have at RfA. They are less likely to suffer from editcountitis and more likely to focus on what makes a good admin than being swayed by weak arguments in the oppose section. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I think that encouraging long-standing users to !vote at RfA would help more RfAs pass. And if more pass, more reluctant editors will step forward. It doesn't, of course, address the main problem, which is declining numbers of editors, but hey, at my best I'm good, not brilliant. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggested this on the Wikipedia talk:RfA reform (continued) but nobody really responded there (I think it got buried in the other conversations). On the topic of the civility problem, perhaps it would be helpful to modify the edit notice that people see when they're voting on an RfA. You could add material about the length of comments, badgering, civility, etc. Here's an example of how it might be tweaked. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 02:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)