Forum:Administrator requirements

Hi all,

This discussion is regarding the requirements to become an administrator found on the Project:Requests for Adminship page. The requirements currently state:

To qualify to be an administrator, you must meet a set of requirements.

You must


 * Have been here for at least a month.
 * Have edited at least a thousand times.
 * Be civil.
 * Have no record of serious offenses (E.g. vandalism, personal attacks).
 * Be known and trusted by others.

I propose we change these requirements. Most of these are extremely old guidelines that have not been changes in a long time.

Please post your thoughts below the line. Thank you.

Also - Please do NOT start inquiring about becoming an administrator. This is not what his page is for.

I would change the "Have been here for at least a month." and "Have edited at least a thousand times". Both of these are simply too low for an administrator. I suggest that the barrier be raised to at least 4-6 months, and the edits to at least 2000. Of course there are currently administrators who do not meet those requirements, but that's not a problem, they wont be de-sysopped or anything. The reason I am proposing changes is because there are a lot of users who think they can become administrators with negligible experience, and this is supposed to be a sort of deterrent to that as well as simple requirements. 09:08, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

When I go to about 3,100 edits on the wiki, I will put in another request for adminship in about May or June. I believe I have met up the requirements and have been involved enough in the community. And COD4, I reckon the requirements should be changed because one random user who has been on the wiki for 1 month and has had a thousand edits can't put in a request just randomly. 10:15, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with your RFA. -- Emblem-burgertown.jpg EightOhEight Talk 00:06, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah sounds good. I've been here for about 10 months (June) and growing in edits. Do you think I could become an admin at some point? I believe I'd make a good admin. (Constructive criticism welcome) 09:19, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose you would, but this isn't the place for that. 09:27, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ach, sorry. *walks over into some talk room* 09:29, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. 09:35, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

I feel that it should be changed to be here for 5 months. Also, I think we should change the editcount to 2000 or 2500. I just feel that that's just too low an editcount for an admin. The other guidelines are pretty good. 14:26, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Also, you should need 1-2 admin endorsments to even be nominated 14:26, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Also, you should need 1-2 admin endorsments to even be nominated T C   E   B 16:32, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with above, mostly, as the only problem I see is that, if the nomine-to-be is "friends" with an admin, whose to say the admin won't give support just because they're friends? Rambo362 16:48, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Edit count I feel is often irrelevant, as the quality of the edits matters much more. Someone can simply welcome 1000 users and, while that's great, it's not something that makes a user more qualified for adminship.

I think rather than focus on the "requirements" for adminship, we should draw our attention to the way users vote in the RfA's. It seems having 50 mainspace edits entitles a user at this time to vote in an RfA something like, "Support - he make good candiddate." We should have guidelines on the RfA page regarding how users are permitted to vote, much like the Runescape Wiki has. 17:39, April 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I do think the Runescape Wiki's ideology on the subject is quite good. Also, if you check the RFA page at the moment, there is a nomination that was started by a user with a small edit count. I would make it so either only administrators can nominate others, or only administrators and a trusted league of editors can. Of course users may nominate themselves, but otherwise the nomination must be carried out as I stated. I think the whole RFA process should be much more formal and well-thought out. At the moment it's too slap-dash and informal for such an important process. Look at it this way - we vote the same way to elect a new bureaucrat as we do to delete an article... 21:29, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

With what you said CoD4, regarding admins/trusted editors being the only ones able to nominate, would people be allowed to nominate themselves? Nevermind, I missed that part. I'm an idoit. Sactage  Talk  21:51, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea for trusted editors can nominate, but they would have to be proffessional, not nominating someone because they are friends. --  Gen. Ex    T  C   E 21:55, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

I fully support a more strict set of requirements, as well as a more rigorous standard for those supporting or opposing; it would be great to come up with a quantifiable list of requirements that accounts for someone who actively participates in the community, not just someone who edits a lot - that's important, but I don't believe that's the end-all-be-all of adminship. --  Griever0311   22:25, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is too much of an issue here because people who post frivolous or premature RFAs never get them passed, but I suppose that we should change them to better reflect the "actual" requirements for adminship.


 * Have been here for at least 4 months (I think that is plenty of time for a good user to prove himself if they can actually manage to accrue enough good edits in the time frame)
 * Have at least 2000 edits
 * Conduct yourself in a professional/respectable/dignified/serious/intelligent manner
 * Have no record of serious offenses
 * Be active within the community
 * Fix and report vandalism, participate in important community discussion like RFAs, UOtM, and policy discussion

This is a very rough list, but those are basically my thoughts. Imrlybord7 22:32, April 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, but I definitely agree that we need stricter standards for voting. I think that the required edit count should be total edits, not just mainspace, and it should be at least 150. And people should offer better explanations behind their votes (unless they are just saying per Blahblah, which is fine). Imrlybord7 22:35, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

I agree compleatly with Bord, but i think we should lower the number of edits needed to 1,500 with 400 main.T C   E   B 22:36, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Per Bord except on one thing - I think that there should be a large mainspace edit count. Those edits matter the most to me. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez Reportin' fo

I concur with Bord, with the exception of the addition of


 * Have a second of the nomination by at least one administrator.

So that there's no chance that a user could suck up and get all the new users (that meet the voting requirements) to like said user, and win the RfA in that manner, though that is unlikely, but also so that a user knows when the RfA is hopeless before it's overwhelmingly shot down. I also think that the second of the administrator should overrule a lack of meeting a single requirement. ie if a user has shown to be great, making plenty of good edits on the mainspace, and getting quite involved in community discussions, but is not quite at 2000 total (say.. 1900 for the sake of this) the administrator should be able to allow for that RfA to be voted upon. Exceptions, I believe, should be made. One example is "Have no record of serious offenses", how do we define those? because I know of at least one administrator that has been blocked, and one that began as a troll, but are both are now some of the most respected Admins. Thanks for listening guys.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 00:19, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

I actually think 1000 edits is enough. Taking editcount into consideration is flawed anyway as people can make crappy edits or blog posts. I do agree that the length of time to be here needs to be lengthened. I would say around 4 months is fine.  Poketape Talk  03:30, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

The 2000-edit proposal is seriously flawed. I've posted in the RfA talk page about what value an edit really has, and it was raised in Darthkenobi's thread about Administrators. What is an edit? It's just a click of a button that increases an arbitrary number on your user page. You could fix a single typo or write an entire article, and that's still one edit. As with the current situation, once all games have been covered, there's very little to edit. Most everyday edits are in minor fixes and vandalism reverts; and until COD7 comes out there won't be any significant surge in mainspace edits. Most users with high edit counts have the majority of their edits on blog space, forum space or user talk space -- often paging each other about things that would probably be more suited to an off-wiki channel. There's really no way for a user to accumulate 2000 edits without exploiting multiple bad edits or flooding blog posts. If anything, the edit requirement should be removed, as it serves nothing other than to hold back experienced editors from requesting adminship. A candidate should be judged on their contributions and how they interact with the community; not by the number of edits they have. The onus is on the nominator to provide a thorough write-up for the RfA, and for voters to press serious questions to the candidate. Truthfully, the votes themselves don't have to be comprehensive -- there's nothing wrong with a user supporting a vote without anything other than agreeing with the comments and nomination. --Scottie theNerd 10:49, April 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, in response to JJR's comments about mainspace edits: even they don't matter. Again, it's the quality of the edit, not the quantity. A user can raise topics of concern on talk pages and the War Room, but they don't go towards mainspace edits; whereas someone who fixes a typo will jack up their mainspace. We really can't measure a candidate's worth by how many times they hit the Save page button on a mainspace article, and it would be a mistake for us to rely on things like Editcount over actual scrutiny of applications and nominations. --Scottie theNerd 10:54, April 27, 2010


 * I agree with Scottie, there are a lot of users who have amased a high edit count simply be editing blogs and being social GenCain sig.jpg T  C  E   B 11:04, April 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Scottie said, experienced users shouldn't be held back by an edit requirement. The quality of edits and commitment are what matters most. Richtofen.jpg Doc.   Richtofen  15:32, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

But why do all these guidelines have to be so rigid. I think we shouldn't make andminship something that if you get enough mainspace edits you become an admin. We need to have proper judgement over these things, which is why I like the 'Must be active in discussions and have positive effect on community' rules. 15:42, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. Well lets look at it this way:


 * User must have at least 1000 mainspace edits. Peter Griffen Boy had that but a LOT of those where rubbish and poorly done.
 * User must be here for at least 3 months. Many wikians have been on other wikis for a MUCH longer time. 
 * Be civil. Ok, agreeable.
 * Have no record of serious offenses (E.g. vandalism, personal attacks). A lot of people who have been banned have managed to clean up there act.
 * Be known and trusted by others. Like being civil, that is agreeable, but not necessarily a full necessity.

One of the problems about this is the mainspace edits. Many smart, responsable wikians who all help keep this wiki running have under 1,000 edits. With the revised idea of actually increasing this, this would put many members aspiring to be administrators at a great disadvantage. I for example, only have around 550, so that would make it even harder for me, and I would regard myself as a half decent editor who might one day make a decent admin. Say Scottie would want to be an admin, this would put him in the 0-1500 bracket. This policy already goes against COD:AEAE, and lowering the height of the bar would be going towards the idea that the editors who spend more time on this wiki with edits of 1.500+ on this wiki, but perhaps only 2,000 overall, are superior to those who might only have 1,000 on this wiki, but perhaps over 5,000 over all wikis. Furthermore, many mainspace edits can be of poor quality and infact unconstructive and seen as vandalism, and can be done under the title of edit whoring for extra mainspace edits. The user should be known for quality edits that are both constructive and benificial to the wiki.

Secondly, the 3 months policy. Although this may make sence, put it into the same pretense of the first point. I've been on WoWWiki for a VERY long time, since November 2008, yet if I just jumped onto this wiki about 2 months ago, with the required mainspace edits now, I still wouldn't be allowed adminship, even if I was extremely experianced. I would be in favour of keeping this rule, however if the user could prove that they have been on another wiki for a longer period of time, with required mainspace edits, they could apply for this one, however they must also be able to prove they are active on this one.

Now onto the block rule. Bord I'm terribly sorry about this, but you're an excellent example. Bord was banned for several flame wars. What did he, do, did he wait a month and do a Peter Griffen Boy? No. Instead, he took the ban on board, worked on what was wrong, and fixed it. Now he is easily one of the most active and trustworthy admins on perhaps any wiki, and is a brilliant success story. We can't hold grudges on things like this, maybe perhaps if it was like Peter Griffen Boy after his 2nd ban immediatly applying for adminship, but otherwise we can't. We are human beings, not fallen gods who destroyed whole cities. I myself have had a 2 hour ban, does that mean I can't become an administrator? I hope not, most of you know why that was.

So, this is my redraft for it, I borrowed a few points from Bord because, well, they're good:


 * Users must have at least 1,000 edits, 500 of which must be quality mainspace edits. However, if the user can prove they have high amounts of edits on other wikis, they can ask an administrator to check. The user must however, also be known for constructive edits on this wiki also.
 * Users must have been here for 4 months at least, however, like above, if they can prove they have been on other wikis for a notable time aswell, they may continue their RfA.
 * Users must be civil and level headed, and be able to show they are intellegant and capable of dealing with vandals and flame wars in a dignified and honorable way.
 * Users must have no recent severe blocks within the past 3 months. Users with a recent history of flaming, vandalism, not being constructive to other users and being blocked are not elegable for an RfA.
 * Users must have showable proof of at least 40 accounts of reverting vandalism, helping other wikians or flagging unneeded and unwanted articles for deletion.
 * Users should be well known and active in talk pages, mainspace articles and important community issues. Blogs however, are not necessary.
 * If a user can get a commendation from a high ranking administrator, with witnesses, from another wiki, that can be thrown into the ring, however it cnnot be used as an automatic passport to adminship.

So there's my opinion in this. Smuff 16:36, April 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at my block log you will see I clawed my way up from the darkest depths of block-land and into the administrator country. If someone can prove that they can clean up their act, it must say something, right? 17:14, April 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Adminship is not a rank. 01:51, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

If people still want a requirement for the number of edits, it really needs to follow an ignore all rules clause. At least one of our admins, Creepydude, was made a sysop with 1,100 edits, but he was without a doubt extremely helpful to the wiki while he was active. Edit count more often than not will prevent experienced editors from entering the RFA process to begin with. It's arbitrary; there's not a specific number of edits that will grant someone wisdom.

In addition, as I mentioned earlier about voting in RFA's, explanations should be provided for both the nomination and the votes. Even just a couple sentences to provide a little insight helps as it will get discussion rolling. Someone who supports an RFA under the notion that "he deserves it" without providing any reasons as to why makes the whole process look more like a popularity contest. It is not as flawed at UotM voting, but we're handing out administrative powers here, and they have been abused before. 21:22, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

When you say it needs to follow an ignore all rules clause, what do you mean? And what do you mean edit count prevents expierenced editors from entering the rfa process?  Sactage  Talk  21:26, April 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * What I am saying is if everyone is adamant about keeping a number of edits requirement, it should be looked at as more of a guideline rather than a specific rule. The ignore all rules clause I mentioned would mean if a truly outstanding editor came along that did not meet the "requirement," it would be disregarded, as it would be preventing them from submitting an RFA to begin with. An example would be Creepydude, whom I mentioned; he would not have been able to submit an RFA back when he did if the "requirements" were as we are proposing. This is why I feel edit count is arbitrary, as it does not gauge one's competence for adminship very effectively. 22:16, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter who submits an RfA, it matters who the nominee is. Requiring that sysop(s) support a nomination is about as identical as it will get to just having them require to accept or reject nominations before they go 'public', which makes us an oligarchy and I hate oligarchies.

Adminship is simply a set of tools given to users who won't screw us over with them. The rules were put there in the first place to give new users, which at the time included nearly every single person, an nidea of what it would take to become an administrator and it's not just something given out to everyone and their brother. The community has since matured, and a lot of people seem to think that this means that we should up the requirements that were intentionally vague in the first place and treat them as an unavoidable law. The concept of IAR applies here and always should—if someone would normally be ruled out because they don't meat a requirement, if they are up to the task and they get community consensus then they would the flag, barring something else catastrophic happens concurrently. It has happened before where users, myself included, turn a blind eye on a user who doesn't meet an RfA requirement and they end up getting passed because the community thinks that they would still make a good admin.

Disqualifying someone because they don't meet one of the requirements, if anything, is self-destructive. If they really aren't trustworthy or whatever to be a sysop, then the RfA would either be shot down or just end in a negative fashion and there would be nothing to worry about.

I honestly think doubling [or even increasing] the requirement for 1,000 edits that is already in place would do more damage than good. The requirement for a set amount of time, in my opinion, should also not be increased, but rather just plain removed. As brought up earlier, someone could very well have previous experience elsewhere and then this rule, also, is only self-destructive. Again, if someone is not a good candidate for the powers, then the community should realize that and it should result accordingly.

I have trust in the community to be able to make decisions on their own without having some imposing rule over their shoulder to rule out perfectly good candidates. If we're going to make any exception to a rule then the rule doesn't do a good job at being a rule, the people who have the rule listed are idiots, or the rule should become either a guideline or something that is no longer a rule. 01:51, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Taking into consideration everything that has been said in this Discussion, yes everything, I have come to the following conclusion. Adminship is, as has been stated and always will be stated, a set of tools given to users that the community decides have shown the responsibility to use those tools, both effectively, and to the extent that it would benefit the wiki. Having restated that, I myself, believe that, as with the pirate's code in Pirates of the Caribbean, most of the "rules" for the submission of an RfA, should truly be suggestions. I advocate that we keep the edit count rule, however that we remove any definitive quantity from it, I will clarify a bit later. Going along with all of this controversy about experience on the wiki, I believe that any user who wishes to submit an RfA, must have at least shown him- or herself to be an active, constructive contributor on our wiki, however, and this applies as well to edit count, that user's contributions on other wikis should also be taken into account, not as a deal maker or breaker, but as a factor to be considered by voters. I also believe that any candidate for sysop powers should also be screened, with exceptions of course, in part by their history of activity in discussions, anti-vandal work, things generally considered "community service".

There are, however, two things I believe should be taken into full account for the legitimacy of an RfA, the user must be respectable and likable, and the user must be able to use proper english (ie, no internet speech). But, of course, no RfA would get passed if those two were not met, therefore my argument in regards with those two points is null. Again, I am just restating the obvious.

After rethinking, and for quite a while, pondering this subject, I have come to a conclusive decision about what I believe we should do. I believe we should reduce all restrictions to guidelines, with the exception of respectability (this would disqualify any repeat infractors of our policies) and ability to spell. Taking all of these guidelines into account, no user who was not suited for adminship would get elected.

In response to edit counts: I myself have a large number of edits, quite a few mainspace, most of those are anti-vandalism, or reversions of bad edits. Just because I'm not making independently significant edits, does not make my overall contributions insignificant. Yes I have, what some might call, a massive amount of edits in blogs and talk pages, I chat a lot, is that wrong? I've become friends with quite a few users by chatting, and gotten the respect of a few (I hope). I'm not trying to get elected, I'm simply using myself as an example, whose case would I know better? Think about what I have said, what I have done, what every user has said, what every user has done, especially our admins, a few of whom would never have been elected under some of these proposed restrictions. Thank you for your time fellow wikians, I hope we can decide on something that benefits us all.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 04:23, April 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling a request for aminship an election implies all sorts of things that neither the screening process nor the role itself entails. 04:37, April 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye, we need to use the correct terminology. Neither RfA nor UotM are elections. --Scottie theNerd 10:36, April 28, 2010 (UTC


 * I propse a vote for what "Rules" are included for the submition of an RFA. And Darth I think your P.O.C analogy was a great one. GenCain sig.jpg T  C  E  <font color="Crimson"> B 10:43, April 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I called a vote an election, generalized a bit, sue me, you guys know what I mean. air-force-logo.jpg Darthkenobi0 Talk 22:42, April 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I say we need to vote on something SOON. We have been discussing the question for to long! Gold ChopperGunner.jpg COL Crockett Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gif 23:18, April 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Have been here for at least a month. A month is little bit low in my opinion, I'd say 2-3 months at the very least to get acquainted with the community and our policies.
 * Have edited at least a thousand times. Honestly, I think quantity is a poor representation of an editor's value to the wiki. Having a minimum edit count just encourages people to find ways to bloat their edit count, we should be looking at quality, not quantity
 * Be civil. A given, admins should always be able to keep a cool head.
 * Have no record of serious offenses (E.g. vandalism, personal attacks). Another given, nothing really to say about this one, except maybe that the user should be
 * given a chance if they've managed to honestly clean up their act, and have had a clean record for a VERY long time.
 * Be known and trusted by others. Of course

--WouldYouKindly 23:40, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

We need to take a vote NOW! We should come up with some rules and take a vote. If a rule passes, Great! The that is a new rule. If not the we come up with something else and take a vote. COL Crockett 00:17, April 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Relax. We've been discussing this for...four days? This isn't urgent and certainly should not be rushed. Regarding modifying the current guidelines -- we need to really emphasise what an admin is expected to do (e.g. handing out blocks, taking part in policymaking and discussions, dealing with user grievances, etc.) and form our rules and guidelines around what an admin does rather than who the candidate is. As I've said before, good editors don't necessarily make good admins, and the guidelines should clear distinguish between someone who contributes to the community and someone who hits the edit button a thousand times. --Scottie theNerd 07:11, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

So it is generally thought that an editing requirement is a bad idea. These are the requirements I am proposing:


 * Must have been active on this wiki for more than 4 months
 * Must not have any serious offenses
 * Must be known and trusted by the community
 * Must be civil
 * Must have the endorsement of at least 2 administrators

Any thoughts? 11:04, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I'll support it. Richtofen.jpg Doc.   Richtofen  15:14, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like your ideas cod4. I'm with richtofen, I'll support it. [[File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem.gif]]<font style="background:black"> Sactage  Talk  19:21, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Put something about (mainspace) edits into it and you've got my support. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez  Reportin' for duty. 22:52, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in full support. Doltensig.jpeg 22:53, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll support. There has to be something about edits though. Cpt.Z sig1.png Talk 22:58, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with JJR, 500-1000 mainspace edits should be required. 8-bit_price_r.jpg<font style="background:silver"> Poketape Talk 8-bit_price.jpg 22:58, May 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with JJR, but like so: 100 Anti vandal edits, 50 spelling/grammar edits, 350 other main edits, that adds up to 500 Main GenCain sig.jpg<font color="Gold"> T <font color="Crimson"> C <font color="Gold"> E  <font color="Crimson"> B 23:03, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Full support too even if I did not even participate in the discussions... --Tbsoldier sig.png<font style="background:#808080">Soldier 05:14, June 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot agree with a edit requirement until someone explains to me what an edit is worth, as I have challenged above. A candidate should be judged by what he or she does, not how many times they've clicked a button. 1000 mainspace edits? 1000 edits of any kind was quite steep and has been challenged, and with very little to do until the release of new games, it means that the "proving ground" of potential candidates would be the battleground of COD7. We might as well promote admins based on how skilled they are at the game. Users with 1000+ mainspace edit counts, typically, have been on the wiki for many months -- and that's the requirement we already have. As I've argued previously, placing an edit requirement disqualifies users who have the time to dedicate to the wiki but don't have the edits because of various reasons. And Cain, are we really going to count how many anti-vandal reverts and spelling fixes a candidate has? --Scottie theNerd 07:48, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * The only thing I don't like is the high amount of vandals/ welcome new users to have, here would be mine


 * Must be here for 4 months


 * 1500 edits


 * Catch and report 20 vandals


 * Welcome 10 new users


 * 1 to 2 adminstrator approvals 


 * No recent record of flaming, vandalizing etc. (Note if you got like one warning, that doesn't count)


 * Participate in UOTM, RFA's and other stuff


 * Be Civil


 * Known And Trusted


 * Thats what my rules would be like. [[File:TaskForce141logo-1-.jpg]]<font style="background:black"> Squelliot Talk   Edits  [[File:Mw2_cia-1-.jpg]] 21:23, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the vandal and new user welcomes should be required. Welcoming to me is a very small thing that seems more like if you want to or not. It's also kind of unfair if nobody new comes as that means nobody can become an admin. The reporting 20 vandals is also way too steep, and how exactly are you to record that? 1500 edits is also too much. Like I said before, 500-1000 edits should be fine.

Going beyond the basics
So you guys have been talking mostly about popularity, edits, and experience... There's a lot more to it than that. For example, take a look at TNT LotLP, for instance. He has twice the amount of mainspace that I have, and he's a well known user. He has a perfect behavior record. However, he's not an admin.

I want to ask a question. Beyond my behavior, edits, and experience, why else am I an admin? The same goes for any other admin on this wiki. Some people just have an admin-ly attitude, and some don't.

My second point. I don't think mainspace matters that much anymore. We have nearly every single article that we need, and about 14-15 active admins to keep vandals away. At this point in time, we don't need any more admins. When Black Ops comes out, our traffic will jump, which means everything else will. New users, more vandals, new articles, etcetera. This may require one or two new admins. Now, admins are also generally needed to lead projects. If a regular or senior user proposed a project, some people would think "Why should I listen to this guy?" An admin would bring that authority, which could make things move smoothly. Adminship should not be craved, but it should also not be given out to every user that is trusted. Sysops should be looked up to in the same way that you would look up to a mentor. Some people (I'm not going to name anyone) think that they're entitled to admin. This is completely wrong attitude, because admin should be a honored position for those who have earned it. So all in all, should we really base our sysops off of something so basic?

Just my thoughts, -- <font style="background:darkblue"> EightOhEight Talk 03:27, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

We should probably get a vote soon. I think we should review some of our current admins. We should replace them with new ones. COL Crockett 12:39, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Why would we need to replace our admins? They've earned the position they're in, so why take it away from them due to a vote? Also, 808, I'm with you on this. Mainspace really doesn't matter anymore. I'd put more, but I have no idea what kind of point I'm trying to get across here...Cpl. Wilding 12:47, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

I meant those who are now inactive. We could use some admins who are here. We should replace the inactive ones COL Crockett  12:51, May 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Explain how removing their powers when they've done nothing wrong will solve anything. Every single one of our administrators—barring Pw3djoe, because he got his flag because he started the project—were given their powers because they were deemed trustworthy. We have no limit to the number of administrators we can have, so having people who can come back at any moment to lend a hand should never be thought of as a bad thing.
 * If an older administrator comes back after a period of inactivity and finds that their powers have been removed without any legitimate reason or notification, trust me, that can cause quite a event. And if we'll give them their powers if they come back, why even remove them in the first place? 03:46, May 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Precisely. There's no cost for keeping more admins, and having more admins means having more people to deal with everyday tasks. Believe me, as one of around 100 moderators on a site with millions of users, I sometimes questioned why we kept our numbers so darn low, and there's no reason to boot inactive people who would otherwise be an asset to the site. At most, get in contact and ask if they're still interested in being an admin, but stripping powers isn't necessary. --Scottie theNerd 08:25, May 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * In agreement with Scottie and Chia, you have to understand that not every admin is going to be watching the wiki 24/7. People do have lives, and cannot always be committed to just a single website. Removal of administrative powers is reserved for more serious matters such as power abuse; not for being unable to be logged in on the wiki all the time. 10:53, May 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * But we need new admins that are here and many admins have been inactive for a long time. Users that are trusted and on commonly should replace the admins that have not been on for a long time.Some admins have not been on in a year and i doubt they will come back.Gold ChopperGunner.jpg COL Crockett Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gif 19:00, May 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * As already said, we have enough admin's active. Whether inactive admins come back or not, they still earned their position and inactivity should not change that. Richtofen.jpg Doc.   Richtofen  19:05, May 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been established that we don't need new admins; not at this point. --Scottie theNerd 01:37, May 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * you don't understand many admins will not be back on EVER. They have not been on in over a year. We kick them our of there positions of power and replace them with new admins. We replace the old with the new.Gold ChopperGunner.jpg COL Crockett Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gif 18:20, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Why would you even think about removing administrator's rights? It doesn't matter if they are inactive, they earned their position and don't deserve to get it removed. Also, I don't know why you're so involved in the discussion. Is it because you are planning on running for admin soon or something? 18:33, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. I would have to be retarded if i were thinking about running for adminship. I think it is very important. Geez COL Crockett  22:14, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Are we going to work on an actual draft? Suddenly there's very little interest in writing one. Come on wikians, proactively change policy! (yeah... cheesy).  Warpig  3|1|2 01:50, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

DK, if it is such a big deal for you, you write it. Other users are caught up in personal life and anti-vandal work to write rules. Slowrider7 01:54, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Be quiet, if you have nothing better to do. This forum is ABOUT redrafting the Requirements for Admins, and as can be seen below, I added the section for the new draft that we may eventually vote upon.  Warpig  3|1|2 02:04, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

So? Continue on with the contributions to this topic then. Dont tell other people to do it when you have no problems/restraints to do it. Slowrider7 02:20, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

First off, I've worked on it (as seen below), secondly why should I be the only one who seems to be interested in revising the draft? Don't argue the point, it's petty, any of you, simply make suggestions below.  Warpig  3|1|2 02:28, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

New Requirements Draft
This section is for a new draft of the requirements for Administrators. Please label your draft (with your username or signature) so that users can compare suggestions by you and others. Please also do not edit the "Primary Draft" which will become the draft we vote on, thank you.

Draft
This draft is dynamic, and was last revised at 04:50, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Must have been active on this wiki for at minimum four (4) months
 * Must not have any serious offenses (or relapses, users must have good standing)
 * Must be known and trusted by the community
 * Must have made constructive contributions to the wiki
 * 500 mainspace edits
 * or
 * Active impact in the War Room.
 * Must have the endorsement of at least one (1) user (request must be seconded)
 * Must be on this wiki frequently enough to be considered "active".
 * Must show professional attitude and ability to act maturely in difficult situations.

 Warpig  3|1|2 02:28, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support- I support this one hundred percent. Sounds good. It is reasonable and shows the qualities of a real admin. COL Crockett 19:08, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support- This is good<font color="Gold"> T <font color="Crimson"> C <font color="Gold"> E  <font color="Crimson"> B 19:12, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - thanks guys.  Warpig  3|1|2 23:38, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This is what we need. Got rid of all the minimum edits. I'm behind you. 23:40, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as author.  Warpig  3|1|2 23:48, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Per Lieutenant Mikey. <font size="3" color=darkblue>Major <font size="3" color=darkblue>Du <font size="3" color=darkblue>Nn 23:51, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. --<font face="Vivaldi" size="4" style="color:Black;">CodExpert <font size="3" face="Vivaldi" style="color:Black;">Talk 23:55, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per the 5th point of this draft, I think the term "user" should be changed to "Admin". By using the term "User" the existing Admins Authority can be easily overridden. <font color="Green"> Talk 00:13, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - as was mentioned above, that would turn the adminship into an oligarchy. Admins serve the users of this wiki, we do not serve them. I did not realize this earlier. If an admin has the authority to approve another user's granting of sysop tools, then we are no longer functioning under the system that makes us work.  Warpig  3|1|2 00:22, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

With the fifth bit, what is the point? It really seems redundant to me. As things are by nature, if an RfA gets no support then it's not going to pass while if one person supports an RfA then it's not guaranteed either way. It just complicates things without actually doing anything to require one support up front. 00:31, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It would act as a deterrent to users who would otherwise post RfAs without thinking it through enough to know they could not pass.  Warpig  3|1|2 00:40, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not our job to deter people from RfAs, it's our job to shoot them down once they have a chance. 00:45, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment -I'm with Darth on this. Doltensig.jpeg 00:47, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * For clarification, who is "we"? And if you oppose it, go ahead and remove it. I didn't mean for this to be voted on, they just started voting.  Warpig  3|1|2 00:48, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * "We" refers to anyone to which it applies.
 * I'm not voting for a reason: I'm discussing to further refine the proposal. But if someone meets all of the other requirements, why should they have to do such a trivial task as asking someone else to approve their nomination? Even if someone incompetent meets all the requirements they should have every right to start an RfA. If they can't be trusted or whatever the case may be, it's not like a disaster is going to happen if they're not deterred. 01:00, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see why, beyond this, your word carries a great amount of weight, and could sway the vote a bit. I see what you're saying about that.  Warpig  3|1|2 02:11, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose There's no edit count or anything concerning hard numbers. While four months covers some stuff, people can edit once a day and still be applicable for adminship by these requirements. <font style="background:silver"> Poketape Talk  02:52, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * What numbers do you think should be included? This is sort of a dynamic draft. I can see the need for specifics, that's why I included the "seconded" clause.  Warpig  3|1|2 03:07, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I want some sort of edit count, even if it is basic. If 500 mainspace edits are required, that weeds out some of the candidates. The "seconded clause" doesn't cut it as users could simply be friends or agreements could be made. People with low edit counts could just team up and vote for each other. 8-bit_price_r.jpg<font style="background:silver"> Poketape Talk 8-bit_price.jpg 03:39, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * How about adding a 500 mainspace edit count stipulation to the "Constructive contributions" clause?  Warpig  3|1|2 03:42, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess that's fine. 8-bit_price_r.jpg<font style="background:silver"> Poketape Talk 8-bit_price.jpg 04:35, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support I got what I wanted. <font style="background:silver"> Poketape Talk  04:56, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, for everyone who opposes the edit count, notice I included "or an active impact in the war room". Basically a user must be shown to have had a real impact on the wiki, whether it be through policy changes, or through active contributions to articles. And we all know that, if a user doesn't quite meet all requirements, but they're a respectable, and useful contributor, then he'll still get the adminship, if he deserves it.  Warpig  3|1|2 04:59, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral/Pending - While it seems like a good idea, there's enough (good) points on this page that deter me from making a decision. 04:50, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This is a dynamic draft. I am revising it to maintain neutrality and fairness, while also incorporating suggestions from other users. When the final draft is posted, you will be notified.  Warpig  3|1|2 04:54, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Those changes you made now (must have mainspace/war room discussions) are good. Though I'm still not sure what to vote. 05:02, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'd be all for it, but I propose one change:


 * 500 mainspace edits and active in the War Room.

Also, something needs to be added about the section above this.

--<font style="background:beige"> <font face="century gothic"> EightOhEight  <font face="century gothic"> Talk  05:19, May 12, 2010 (UTC)9, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well Monsieur Huit Zero Huit, should exceptions be allowed? There's controversy about that, should we allow exceptions, or just lower standards? Also, I was thinking about that, but honestly I don't know how. Suggestions?  Warpig  3|1|2 05:13, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Change to support - I heard what I wanted to hear. Or rather read what I wanted to read <font color="Green"> Talk  06:15, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

To adress the exception rule, How about this, if you would like an exception you need the support or 4 admins and 1 or more b-crats.<font color="Gold"> T <font color="Crimson"> C <font color="Gold"> E  <font color="Crimson"> B 10:42, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am firmly against the inclusion of an edit count requirement. No one has refuted my claim that edits mean very little nor do they reflect actual activity or presence on the wiki. I'm also against the alternate requirement of being active in the War Room, as that is not necessarily an equal or fair indication of activity either. Firstly, I believe that include an edit requirements means that users will intentionally spam edits to fulfil the edit requirement before going for an RfA. Secondly, the edit requirement proves nothing and is simply another hurdle, which is meaningless. We have the proposed time requirement of 4 months. Why must we also include an edit requirement? It's superficial and misleading, as it has nothing to do with what an admin should be capable of. Remember, just because a user meets the requirements doesn't mean they'll be supported by other users. We don't need to put so many filters on the RfA that you have to tick off every one before thinking about getting endorsements from other users and admins. While we're here discussing about exceptions, how about we go back to the obvious and accept that RfAs from users with poor track records will naturally flop, while users who are "exceptions" can be passed through without being regarded as exceptions?
 * tl;dr version: Darthkenobi's list of requirements provided enough room for flexibility. The edit count/War Room requirement seems to be tacked on for no good reason (i.e. "btw, you need 500 edits to be an admin"). --Scottie theNerd 14:00, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Scottie, the required edit count is useless. The point being, I've been on this wiki for a little over a year and just now have I recently reached 1000 edits, whereas I've seen users who've been here for only a few months have upwards of 2000 edits. And I bet you that most of those edits are blog comments. A user can't be judged by edits because the quality of the edits isn't judged. For example, when I created the USAF page, I got four edits out of it (including uploading the image, coding, and writing the In game info). Let's say a user edits a page 20 times, but they're small edits, such as adding periods and whatnot. If we were to be judged soley on edit counts, would he be chosen over me because he has more, even though my edits required more effort and knowledge of the wiki than his? It's these kind of things we have to think about before we start yelling "EDIT COUNT! EDIT COUNT!" Chief z 14:34, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support- It sounds excellent, and will be easier for me, and others to reach this goal of excellence. [[File:TaskForce141logo-1-.jpg]]<font style="background:black"> Squelliot Talk   Edits  [[File:Mw2_cia-1-.jpg]] 18:21, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per Chief z, but I'm still support. Doltensig.jpeg 20:33, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per Chief z, but I'm still support. Doltensig.jpeg 20:33, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I do not want any edit requirement. Edits should be judged on quality, not quantity. Until the edit requirement is removed and a new vote started I cannot vote support, and at the same time I do not want to oppose, because we need change. 21:17, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I want edit requirement. Edits should be judged on quality AND quantity. I was waiting for the edit requirement to be added before I voted this. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez  Reportin' for duty. 21:29, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to make a motion to have this referendum discarded. This is not something that the entire community should be able to decide. It should be up to the current administrators, and it should be through collaborative consensus, not a straight-up vote. Imrlybord7 21:33, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been attempting to incorporate certain points so that all would approve, but who is to say that this is up to the admins?  Warpig  3|1|2 01:06, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Nuetral- Due to inclusion of an edit count. And Bord, I see it as only fair that all have a say. 21:35, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, why don't you agree with the edit count?  Warpig  3|1|2 01:06, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment-I think that we should get rid of the edit count but otherwise. It is a good idea and i am still for it. Perhaps we should elect a new admin with these rules if they get passed. COL Crockett 00:52, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Bord I agree with Darth, this should not just be up to the admins <font color="Gold"> T <font color="Crimson"> C <font color="Gold"> E  <font color="Crimson"> B 01:46, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't know. Something about regular users determining administrative qualifications just doesn't sit right with me. And quite frankly I think that there are too many people involved. I'm not saying that you guys shouldn't have a say, I just think that you have too much of a say on a matter that should be mostly relegated to the administrative team to decide. Before you decry my viewpoint as tyrannical, please just consider the potential implications with non-admins determining what qualifies someone as a good admin. Imrlybord7 03:35, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what you might expect, I see your point, and really almost agree with you, except for the fact that honestly would it not be oligarchic if this task is delegated to Admins only? I believe EightOhEight mentioned something along these lines, but disagreed on the grounds that it would form an oligarchy; I'm not sure, but I recall something along those lines.  Warpig  3|1|2 03:40, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * That was Chia, but yes, I definitely see your point there. However, it doesn't really conflict with what I am about to propose. Everyone should get a say here. Meaning we have a discussion section where all users get to propose and debate aspects of the requirements on equal footing. Then we should have a separate area for the administrators to draft the new requirements by going through piece by piece and reaching a general consensus for each part. I certainly feel that we (the administrators) can be trusted to take the other discussion into account fairly and with open minds while doing this, so I hope that the other users won't fear that they are at risk of being ignored. Imrlybord7 03:55, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I know Chia made such statements, but I believe others have as well. I concur with your proposal, however I have one question: will the draft be open to suggestions from regular users during its creation?  Warpig  3|1|2 04:02, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. For example, if they saw something agreed upon by the administrators that they opposed, they would be given ample opportunity to explain their position to us. We would take it into account, but ultimately it would still be our decision. Although I doubt we would agree upon something that any rational member of the community would take issue with. Imrlybord7 04:11, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, your motion has my second. And for the record, I did not actually begin this vote. I attempted, originally, to do essentially what you propose, while leaving it more open.  Warpig  3|1|2 04:13, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is incredibly oligarchal. Giving no actual voice to the masses while monopolizing how and who gets to have a voice leads to tyranny. 02:16, May 14, 2010 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

@JJR: Yes, edits should be judged on quality and quantity, but the candidate should be not judged on the number of edits alone, which is exactly what having an edit requirement is doing. If we're judging in quality, we shouldn't have a number attached, and if we're judging a person's suitability as an admin, the number of edits is of no relevance. Again, restricting the candidate field to people with x number of mainspace edits means that users who take part in other wiki activities and space (e.g. Talk, Call of Duty Wiki, Call of Duty Wiki Talk, Forum) don't get credited for their actual contribution to the wiki as a whole. --Scottie theNerd 06:41, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

@Bord, okay I see know what you are saying at first I thought excactly what darth thought with the whole oligarchic thing. I feel that it should be a public vote, I mean the RFA's are public so why not the requierments. <font color="Gold"> T <font color="Crimson"> C <font color="Gold"> E  <font color="Crimson"> B 10:54, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * For one, the admins know more about what they need than the users do, since the admins are the ones currently fulfilling that role. We've seen that the general userbase is not well informed and will typically vote for candidates despite having a narrow experience or knowledge of the candidate. We've seen some wonky RfAs in the past that anyone who has a high edit count or welcomed lots of users will probably gather a significant amount of support. I actually don't have much faith in the general userbase establishing administrator requirements compared to the admins (and particular the bureaucrats) outlining what they know is needed. I think the input we have at the moment is more than enough; a vote is an unnecessary procedure that slows down a necessary change. --Scottie theNerd 11:43, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

So, when will this occur? Will a new forum be created on which the admins will create the draft, and the regular users suggest and discuss on the talk page? Will any regular users be included in the drafting?  Warpig  3|1|2 20:11, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * As things currently are, every user who meets the voting requirement gets to have a vote. Until such a drastic change as to exclude most is passed, this is the page where we will continue to discuss this topic. 02:16, May 14, 2010 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

Are we ever going to close the argument? It is apparent that this draft is going to be passed. But when will we close it? COL Crockett 02:01, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

@ Darth, No one should be judged by how many edits they've made, not for admin anyway. Admin is for upkeep of security, mostly. Not to stay on mainspace all day and make a shit ton of little edits. 02:05, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

@ Bord, now that you have explained, I'm all for it, as soon as the new forum is up I'll join in. 02:08, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Let me clear this, I'm all for the actual admins drafting it, while not monopolizing the creation of it, I simply think that the admins would word it better, while the ideas would come from ALL users.  Warpig  3|1|2 23:08, May 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * We could elect three or four users to colaborate with the admins on this. That way the users still have a say, but the page is not overflowing. Then the discion is still mainly up to the adminsGenCain sig.jpg<font color="Gold"> T <font color="Crimson"> C <font color="Gold"> E  <font color="Crimson"> B 11:37, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm one to think that instead of four months, we should make it at least 1 year. I am active on a forum called the BrickArms forums (For Lego fans) and to qualify for an Admin Position you must be active for one year (And must not have been suspended, their equivalent of blocks for us). Braden 0.0 12:15, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm generally for longer time requirements, there's a point where being longer on the wiki doesn't prove anything other than seniority. One year is on the extreme end of requirements, in my opinion. Recommended, perhaps, but not required. --Scottie theNerd 14:25, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm generally for longer time requirements, there's a point where being longer on the wiki doesn't prove anything other than seniority. One year is on the extreme end of requirements, in my opinion. Recommended, perhaps, but not required. --Scottie theNerd 14:25, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

I'm planning to pass both this and the "Closing the RFA" forum. Both plans will be implemented. Any last considerations? 14:51, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

cod 4 why would you do it. shouldn't you talkto other admins COL Crockett  16:42, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

It has been somewhere around a week.... I've heard nothing of what will be done, if there is a discussion going on, could somebody please notify me?

Support - Per all supports. Talk 03:20, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree with edit count as a "requirement" for the RfA process. There are many users with thousands of edits (one of which comes off the top of my head as being permanently blocked and entered the RfA process twice) who would not be suitable candidates for adminship at this time versus other users with much fewer edits. The number of edits really has no bearing or indication on one's experience or maturity on the wiki. Edit count cannot prevent people from submitting an RfA, and, if exceptions to such a requirement are made, then that rule is not doing its job. 12:27, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... why don't we keep it at "any registered user can submit a request", people who don't deserve it won't get it (OMG GREAT EXAMPLE: I was just nominated, however, Bord brought up a magnificent point for his oppose). TimSim (talk) 12:32, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support- That seems to be the qualities an admin should have. RFA's have been pretty rediculous in the past, and now they shouldn't be with the new requirements. This is SkullRod, out. 13:37, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The previous idea of the editcount and etc requirements is a bad idea. Being an admin has nothing to do with editcounts or experience. You should only give admin to people who will need it and will utilise it. You're giving them the power to mantain and clean up this wiki. Edits don't matter, it's only if they actually need the rights. You can always be a great editor, but that does not translate to admin rights. -- <font face="Tahoma">Tigernose    <font face="Aharoni">Chat   •  <font face="Aharoni">Edits   23:38, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Limiting active nominations
The RfA page was only reopened yesterday, but since then, there have been nine eight ten active nominations. Would the community be interested in setting a limit to the number of active nominations to around five in the near future? I feel it is easy for some people to jump on the RfA bandwagon as soon as they see a couple open, and as such, it crowds the page. 14:35, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm neutral, I think too many of the nominated are going to get it, I don't see the need for so many new admins, I foresaw one or two getting sysop flags, because we only need that many! TimSim (talk) 14:38, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should set a limit to the amount of nominations for future RFA openings. That would prevent crowding the RFA page in the future and it would make things easier. This is SkullRod, out. 14:40, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

How many ever we need, thats how many we need. Slowrider7 14:42, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about having a limit, but we've got to be strict on the criteria on which we promote admins. Don't just give people sysop flags because twenty people vote positive. Consider their application and their commitment to the site. A lot of applications are pushing their thousands of edits as grounds for consideration, which doesn't show me that they're willing to dig into the dregs of the wiki to clean it up or take part in policymaking. We don't just need more admins; we need admins who are willing to stay active and do the dirty jobs. --Scottie theNerd 15:05, June 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * "that they're willing to dig into the dregs of the wiki to clean it up or take part in policymaking" that exact point is why I am only supporting one of the candidates up for sysop flags. TimSim (talk) 15:07, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should limit the amount of RfA's we can have up in the future. I think 5 sounds good.

If the turn-around time between candidates getting voted in is quick, then I would support a limit. To clarify, say the we limited RFA's to five users at a time. You'd vote for those five users and then at the end of the voting period (Two weeks I believe? I can't seem to find the exact rules on that) another five users can put up requests. It would certainly unclutter the RFA page and reassure users that just because they missed a voting period doesn't mean they'd have to wait months to submit a request. The real problem is sorting out the criteria for putting up an RFA, because as Scotty said, many users push their edit counts, which has become null and void to me, instead of the quality of the work they've done for the wiki. Chief z 11:22, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Important to note
Hello, ladies and gentlemen: I have a very important point to make. I have read that many users fear using a concrete number for the "edits" requirement because it will lead to poor-quality edits and boosting. Let me put this simply. If we vote to give administrative powers to the same type of user that edit boosts, then there is really no hope for any of us. However, I believe in this wiki community. I'm not saying that I don't think having a concrete number will affect edit behavior, because it may. However, what I am saying is that it is inconsequential, because a booster's RfA shouldn't pass. Thanks,

🇨🇩

We need this to stop. Number of edits should matter little. It just seems like that when you get a certain number of edits you can become admin, we need better guidelines. But edit boosting? Who does that?AdvancedRookie 10:26, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Edit boosting is stupid because users want to have the most edits by taking out letters on pages. 10:28, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

No requirements?
How about we have no requirements? We just let the community decide if they are suitable or not. 11:01, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

''Interesting! <font color="Green"> Talk  11:06, June 26, 2010 (UTC)''

An intriguing idea, one that I would actually like to experiment with. Then again, imagine the amount of RFA's that would be submitted if we didn't limit it. Chief z 11:27, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

No. No requirements at all encourages a free-for-all, which is far from what the RfA process should be like. Each one of the current requirements (with the exception of one that I disagree with) is there for a reason:


 * Have been here at least for a month - Even if a user was at their computer 24/7 for two weeks and was constantly editing and engaged in community discussions, one needs to be at the wiki for at least a month to get a feel for the wiki, its policies, and its community. In addition, it also ensures the person that has been nominated for adminship can be trusted with his or her powers.


 * Have edited at least a thousand times - This is the one I disagree with.


 * Be civil - Self-explanatory, and yet, there have been users nominated that did not show acceptable community interaction.


 * Have no record of serious offensives (E.g. vandalism, personal attacks). - It helps with the trust factor if one knows that the person in question has never committed a serious offense (or a minor offense recently). All administrators ideally should have a clean slate when receiving an upgrade in user powers.


 * Be known and trusted by other users - Relatively inactive users who edit sporadically might meet the above criteria, but if they come back from time to time, they are probably not that well known by other community members. In addition, this requirement ensures that the nominated person is engaged in community discussion, for example, high activity in the War Room.

Having no requirements does not help the process at all. Requirements are meant to keep RfAs to only the currently most suitable candidates, rather than a simple popularity contest. 13:31, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

I really think that the last three are ones that will naturally be imposed by the voters. The first I agree with, but the second is a bit, odd, though I think any candidate will inevitably have edited a thousand times, so I see the feasibility of no requirements, the community chooses those. However the point of adminship is not "deserving it" or "could contribute", much rather sysop flags must be fit into, certain of our greatest editors could be bad sysops for various reasons. TimSim (talk) 13:37, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why remove it then if it's making the community's job easier? 13:43, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is, then again my anger at the number of those things currently up and successful may be blinding me. Honestly? I say we either impose harsh restrictions that limit the number of potential candidates profusely or lax ones that open the possibilities to nearly any contributor. The truth is that not everyone can be an administrator, and administrators will eventually fit certain criteria, whether they aim for it or not, people simply will be leaders, and sysops are leaders. TimSim (talk) 13:47, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, the problem is not the the requirements, but the community's ability to follow them. 13:51, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why don't we look at Mr Bord's idea for voting requirements? Flags only. TimSim (talk) 13:53, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm 100% against the idea of having no requirements. Requirements are there to deter any random user from submitting an RfA. At the moment, we're struggling to get the community to take RfAs seriously because few editors understand what an admin is expected to do. A lot of votes are being freely given because a candidate has lots of edits or have welcomed them -- neither of which are particularly relevant to being an admin. While I think there should be a balance between requirements and public opinion, I have little faith in the community's ability to pick appropriate candidates without any requirements, criteria or guidelines. --Scottie theNerd 14:02, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

I say stricter guidelines. While Mr Bord did not mean for his flags only concept to apply, I see the benefits. Those who sincerely understand and are trustworthy from the perspective of the community are given rollback flags, if they prove themselves right for the job, they will be nominated. Take our very own Scottie theNerd, I believe he doesn't, but he should have rollbacks, he's one of our greatest contributors, extremely mature, and honestly, a natural leader, yet he has fewer edits than many of the current candidates. TimSim (talk) 14:09, June 26, 2010 (UTC

I think the " 1,000 edits" should be changed. If you're bloging and you post something, thats an edit BUT that doesn't help the wiki itself. It's just discussing something.And editing shouldn't be a factor in becoming an admin because 1 guy might post REALLY GOOD info for some pages but he only has 200 edits and hes the type that researchs first, post later. SO thats basically saying "If you wan't to be an admin do stuff on blogs and your userpage. Just right stuff and you can be closer to becoming an admin. .The "1 month rule" should be hired to 2-3. Basically a guy can sign up edit 50 times on 2-3 topics, (Probably Blogs and their userpage) and then not do anything for 2 weeks and THEN be recommended. SO thats pretty messed up. And i think the "trusted and known by others" rule should be more serious. For example, I know this person and then on a blog i trust him. BUT thats becasue it was a blog so its basically a opinion thing. SO a few people can Trust each other because they have the SAME opinion. BravoAlphaSix 21:11, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yah! I think someone should change that 1,000 edits thing. Thanks for bringing that up BravoAlphaSix!

Supercallofduty 22:12, June 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would rather see any form of edit count as a requirement completely removed. 01:29, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * ^Agreed. Due the popularity of blogs and the ease of edit boosting (intentional or not), edit counts have lost their meaning to me. A common thing I see around the wiki is users posting "I have umpteen thousand edits and 100 mainspace!", something I personally don't see to be something to be proud of. Chief z 14:24, June 28, 2010 (UTC)