On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Fennec Foxen wrote:
This was sparked by a conversation in IRC.
Would you consider numeric standards harmful- particularly those
regarding Requests for Adminship? I know there is someone (who may
identify himself if he feels like it, and whom several people already
know about) who places blanket opposition (no Neutral votes, a full
Oppose) on any candidate for sysophood unless the candidate has 3,500
edits and has been here... two months, was it? But anyway...
First of all, with this specific edit count, I'd be interested in how
many of our current sysops meet that threshold.
3,500 edits in 2 months? That works out to something in excess of 50 edits
a *DAY*! (Even if that was spread over 3 months, it still requires an
average of just under 40 edits a day.) Speaking as someone who is in the
top 100 contributors, there is no way I could manage that kind of output!
(And I'm accessing Wikipedia by means of dialup; I understand that even
now, in the 21st century, we're still the majority in the Developed
World.)
On the other hand, I do think that there needs to be some minimum "numeric
standards" for sysophood. I'd say 2-3 months, & 350-360 non-minor edits.
This works out to an average of 4 to 5 edits a day (which is what I was
maintaining when I started over 18 months ago), & requires a candidate to
spend some time poking into the dark corners of Wikipedia & getting to know
the personalities of the folks here: some very good folks have bad days,
& the even the most disliked contributors occasionally have a valid point
to make (if for no other reason than even a blind sow can find an occasional
acorn).
I know that I don't,
and a *large* amount of my contributions have been stuff which I
really wouldn't be involved in if I were not a sysop- the stuff which
comes up on a patrol of Recent Changes (which is hardly as profitable
an activity without a Rollback link and a button to delete nonsense,
AND the ability to back up the you-might-be-banned notice dropped on
user pages). I certainly would not have done a fraction of that
quantity of work if I were a regular user.
Even without this specific number, such standards may also be
inconsistent- a user with an inflated edit-count due to countless
corrections or user page adjustments is rewarded under this system,
where a serious and careful user may suffer. This is the exact
opposite of what is optimal.
Well, hopefully the folks voting will notice such things. While I haven't
cast many votes in sysop elections, I do look at the Recent Changes page,
& any person who is self-nominated & claims 3,500 edits in 2 months that
I haven't heard of will have her/his contributions inspected -- although
not as closely as people with high-speed connections. ;-)
[snip]
I speak here only of sysophood standards. Are there other strict
numeric standards which would be subject to effects which are similar?
I'd favor a minimum of votes to make someone a sysop -- say 2% of the
total number of active contributors (however that could be calculated).
I say that knowing that I was granted sysophood with only 3 votes once
upon a time, & probably only because (IIRC) Mav spoke up for me. Being a
sysop requires some minimum number of references/votes of confidence.
Geoff