[WikiEN-l] Re: Proposal: Requests for rollback

Thu Jun 30 18:35:37 UTC 2005

>From: Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>
>
>If only it was as easy to become admin as you're making it out to be!
>
>The current situation seems to be that the people who frequent 
>[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] are quite paranoid with giving out 
>adminship status. Anyone who isn't obviously completely dedicated and who 
>doesn't think of nothing else than Wikipedia's well-being day and night, 
>can't possibly be a suitable admin.

That's hardly the case.  There currently are hundreds of admins (500?), with 
2 or 3 new ones being created weekly, so its hardly impossible.  And I've 
never seen the argument made that someone should be an admin simply because 
they aren't completley Wiki-addicted.

>I especially don't get why most people seem to think that someone with a 
>minimum number of edits and/or a minimum average number of edits per day is 
>automatically a more suitable admin. I would think that someone who edits 
>frantically is much more likely to turn into a troublemaker than someone 
>who edits only sporadically.

I've also never seen anyone make a "minimum average number of edits per day" 
argument for or against adminship.  As for the "minimum number of edits" 
argument, you have misconstrued it; people with a large number of edits are 
not automatically considered more suitable.  In fact, I've seen more than 
one nomination for admin that was soundly rejected even though the editors 
in question had many thousands, even tens of thousands of edits.  The real 
point is that the more you edit, the better people are able to guage whether 
or not they think you have a good grasp of policy and are reliable.  People 
who are very new to Wikipedia are not likely to have a good grasp of policy, 
and people with very few edits are not well enough known yet; in other 
words, there is not yet enough evidence to show they will use admin powers 
responsibly.

Jay.