Talk: Requests for Adminship

Requirements[]

It says "you must have at least a few hundred edits", then further down, "you must have enough edits"

Nothing seems wrong there. It's basically a disclaimer. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ please. It may seem unimportant, but it is almost necessary.

Oh no, you are right. I thought you meant further down the page that that. Yes that's odd. I wouldn't remove it, though. Let a sysop take care of that.

Closing[]

When exactly is an RfA closed? How is it decided if it's successful or not?--Poketape 04:09, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Usually it closes about two weeks from the nomination, and a user has to have at least 75% support for the RFA to be successful. WouldYouKindly 04:11, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Not Yet[]

I've noticed that people that are voting "Not Yet" are not adding a negative vote to the count. Did a misinterpret what the "Not Yet" vote means or have people just been forgetting to add the vote? Maybe somebody should restate this so people understand.--Poketape 05:16, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

"Not yet" is basically a negative vote that says that the user is likely admin material, but they need to prove themselves a little bit more to sway towards a positive vote. So yes, for the purposes of counting votes, it's the same as "Oppose"--WouldYouKindly 05:28, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[]

Is this like the user/article of the month where nominating gives one support vote or is the nominator's vote not counted?--Poketape 20:54, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Archive[]

Can somebody move the closed rfa of Imrlybord7 to the archive? Thanks.--Poketape 20:56, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Idea![]

I see there are a lot of 'Not Yet' votes. I have an idea, how about you approve if they are admin material. Then, if there have been a series of new admins recently put the approved but not official admins on to a waiting list. When the time is right, give them admin ship. Doc.Richtofen 21:19, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Vote "types"[]

I just realised there was a glossary of vote types. Honestly, is it that complex that it needs a glossary? Essentially, it comes down to the number of supporters against the number of opposing voters. A "strong" or "weak" support doesn't count any more or less than a support. "Pending" and "Not Yet" seem irrelevant, as they correlate to abstaining and oppose anyway. --Scottie theNerd 01:36, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Voting[]

This is just a suggestion: I think users should have 150 main space edits in order to vote because adminship is very important. To me, 50 is to little, it's ok for the featured article but something important like adminship should be higher. 150 main space or being here for 2 or 3 months.....What do you guys think. E.TALE^Barracks Headquarters15:51, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: Relevance of "edits"[]

In the recent batch of RfAs, I've noticed a trend in many comments. In particular, a number of people are judging people based on a) the number of edits they have made and b) the quality of the edits.

a) is fairly straightforward. A high number of edits indicates a candidate's commitment to the wiki. b) is not so clear -- the general use of it relates to how much involvement they have with the community.

The issue I see with the current trend of voting is that we're beginning to put forward candidates with impressive edit histories and judging future candidates by the same criteria. In my opinion, some of the misapplications of the criteria are:

Prioritising mainspace edits: while we focus on article edits rather than blog posts, some users are not considering edits in other spaces (such as Talk, Call of Duty, Call of Duty Talk, Forum, etc.) are also signs of community involvement. Some might argue that discussion on talk pages is more involvement than making menial edits.
Expecting candidates to have 1000 mainspace edits: As above. The stated requirement is to have at least 1000 edits. Ideally, there should be a higher proportion of mainspace edits than blog edits, but a user technically doesn't need to have thousands of mainspace edits.
Overvaluing edit counts: Some candidates prove their worth through extensive editing and a strong reputation of writing and maintaining articles. However, it's also important to remember that an edit can be anything from a complete re-write to a minor typo-fixing edit. Numbers matter, but it's not the whole picture.

Part of the cause, I believe, is that we have a convenient template that shows a user's edit count, which is the first background check for voters. More comprehensive checks (which, I assume, Chiafriend often does) involves looking through talk pages and contribution histories, which shows a greater insight into a candidate's suitability for admin positions.

Which leads onto my next point: Good editors don't necessarily make good admins. A good editor demonstrates sound knowledge of the subject material, attention to detail and strong writing and editing skills. An admin should demonstrate strong communication skills, capacity to use a variety of tools to maintain the everyday running of the wiki and be familiar with the conventions and practices of other wikis. A candidate can be one but not the other. While we tend to look favourably on candidates with large editing histories, it's not the only thing that matters, and we can easily pick someone who is ill-suited for the role, which in turn leads to a shift in the culture of the community.

Of course, I'm not saying that edits don't matter. What I do wish to assert is that edits aren't the be-all and end-all of an RfA.

Thoughts? --Scottie theNerd 14:12, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

I hate to ask, but are you targeting me with this? Imrlybord7 17:06, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

No. In fact, I'm avoiding specific mention of current admins as this doesn't necessarily apply to them. I'm more recently concerned about legitimate applications being shot down because they don't have quality or quantity of edits. I understand if a user doesn't demonstrate involvement in the community, but the way in which voters weigh the value of edits (along with the echoes of following voters agreeing with the previous voter) does not, in my opinion, represent a fair process for RfA candidates. --Scottie theNerd 12:55, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

I think I might be a good example if I were to submit an RfA. I've got a large number of edits, more than some admins even. However I'm still fairly new here and most of my edits, even mainspace are reverts. Basically what I've heard and agree upon is that I've got some potential but that doesn't mean anything until I've been around long enough.

On a similar note I've noticed that a great many newer users with less experience aspire to adminship as a position of nobility rather than a set of greater tools to help the wiki. I have also noticed many users blindly support nominations simply because of friendship, with disregard to the real reasons a user should be given Adminship, whether or not the user deserves it is a different matter but votes really should go more in-depth than "Yeah I support you". Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 07:38, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Necessity of Promotions[]

This has been a big issue for a while. Many users wish to become sysops and several administrators have been nominated or have requested 'cratship. I personally think we could use a couple more administrators, Call of Duty 7 is on its way, which will undoubtedly bring a great influx of information and traffic to the wiki. To prepare for this I believe some good users should be given Adminship powers, however it could also be argued that now is too soon for this.

Ingrained in the issue is the decision: do we need another Bureaucrat? I believe we really need to discuss the necessity of promotions, traffic is increasing, and will rise expansively when the new CoD games are released, with two confirmed within two years, and another rumored. There is much talk among the new users of advancing, and veteran users of halting the advancements. I believe we should decisively choose, halt RfAs after the closing of CoD1's, or not? <Darthkenobi0><Talk>

Mainspace?[]

I heard you had to have at least 300 mainspace edits, is that true or not? -- Gen. Ex ^{T C E} 07:48, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

For what, voting or starting an RFA? Darkman 4 08:04, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Starting an RfA, I should have said that. -- Gen. Ex ^{T C E} 15:51, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Reopening the Page[]

There is no problem of "too many admins" in fact our wiki has no admins late at night, last night we experienced a massive vandal attack, it took us nearly an hour to get help, from staff. I propose we reopen the page and restore the five RFAs that were posted this morning. TimSim(talk) 14:09, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Massive was a bit hyperbolic, but it was quite major. TimSim(talk) 14:11, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think getting 24/7 coverage is that important. However, I do agree we need more admins. --Scottie theNerd 10:48, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Shall I take out my RFA?[]

Well, its not getting much attention and is probably distracting people from Darth, CoDexpert and Whisky. Also due to the fact no one will support me :) Lima Oscar Zulu Zulu Alpha

You don't have enough edits, not even a 1000 edits. I don't think you're fit for adminship at the moment.DevilWarrior 11219:47, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

NO[]

I beg you, stop. The page is full of requests by unexceptional users for sysop flags, for the sake of my ability to load the page... If we pass 10 new RfAs, we won't need new admins for another three COD games. TimSim(talk) 22:22, June 25, 2010 (UTC)