Hi all, I just came across this excellent analysis of the problems with RfA at the moment, written by Tyrenius, who had his application rejected on the basis of insufficient edits (he had 1331 at time of application, and apparently works offline a great deal, making that figure misleading), age (not sure, older than 3 months) and supposedly not doing enough "project work".
It's worth a read - he has every right to be annoyed at not being granted adminship, when he has followed the letter of the law, and was rejected by an RfA culture which does not reflect that policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship ----paste (hope he doesn't mind...)--------
An examination of policies and guidelines for RfA
I have been somewhat taken aback and disappointed by the 4 oppose and 1 neutral votes to date, not because they are "rejections" but because of the arbitrary imposition of personal preference over not only Wiki guidelines, but also over Wiki policy (I expand on this below). The only way a community project can succeed is if there are communal rules and understandings, which are respected and fulfilled. I do not consider the "oppositions" meet those standards. I am used to dealing with contention in my non-Wiki life, so that doesn't worry me. What does worry me is the undermining of objective standards. I should point out that I am not suggesting that there is any malevolent intent, more that standards have slipped. I hope that, whatever the outcome of this RfA, it may at least stimulate a debate about the process and lead to some self-examination.
I believe the first 4 oppose votes and the first neutral should be discounted on the basis that Wiki guidelines and policy have not been followed in making them.
In order to provide a proper context, I refer to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which states:
This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.
Thus the nature of a policy is clearly spelt out, namely:
a standard that all users should follow.
The page then expands on this:
A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions. As with guidelines, amendments should generally be discussed on their talk pages, but are sometimes forked out if large in scope. One should not generally edit policy without seeking consensus first.
A guideline is defined on the same page as follows:
A guideline is something that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it.
And also:
In addition to the generally accepted policies listed above, a very large number of guidelines have been proposed and adopted by Wikipedians. These are used to provide guidance in various situations that arise on Wikipedia. They cover everything from naming conventions and sensitive terms that should be avoided to how to get along, and why not to bite the newcomers.
Even guidelines, therefore, being "authorised by concensus" should normally be followed with only "the occasional exception". I suggest that in the RfA process the exception has become the rule. This may necessitate the rule being changed through the proper process, but in the meantime it is an an example of bad practice, which needs to be redressed.
However, a policy is an even stricter requirement, and "a standard that all users should follow" and "even less likely to have exceptions." There must be extreme conditions for it to be ignored, yet the current practice on granting admin rights allows voters to blatantly ignore policy as a matter of course. Again, if this policy needs to be changed, then it should be done so through a proper consensual process and established as such, but meanwhile its abuse is a deterioration of standards for Wiki. Such deterioration would not be tolerated in articles with POV and there is no more reason that it should be tolerated in RfA.
Wikipedia:Administrators states:
Administrators are Wikipedians who have access to a few technical features that help with maintenance ("SysOp rights"). Wikipedia policy is to grant this access to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. [my underlining]
I cannot stress strongly enough that this is stated as "Wikipedia policy". According to Wiki policy, there are therefore only two points to be considered:
* if the nominee has been "an active Wikipedia contributor for a while" * if the nominee is "generally a known and trusted member of the community".
If the nominee fulfills these criteria, then it is Wiki policy that that person should be granted administrator access. In regard to these two criteria:
* I have been "an active Wikipedia contributor for a while".
Please note that this policy does not specify any requirement for the amount of activity, only that the nominee has been "active". However, even Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, gives a guideline of probably at least 1,000 edits, which I have exceeded, and Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship gives an "informal, minimalistic guide" of "at least 3 months", which again I have exceeded.
* I "generally a known and trusted member of the community." I am sufficiently well known and trusted to have been awarded two barnstars for my contributions. I cannot see that there is anything in my history at Wiki not to show me as trustworthy. I have not been involved in edit wars; I have not made 3 reverts in 24 hours; I have not vandalised any pages; I have not been abusive or uncivil; my articles have not been disputed for accuracy. On the contrary, I have reverted vandalism and left the appropriate "test" templates; I have notified an admin about some consistent abuse and been thanked for my vigilance; I have intervened to help settle disputes; I have left welcome messages on new contributors' talk pages; I have held dialogues with other editors where necessary to consult about points I was unsure of or to inform them as to why I was removing material that they had contributed.
There is, according to Wiki policy no reason not to grant my request for admin rights.
I am particularly concerned that potentially good administrators are being either put off altogether from applying due a process that can be perceived as a "kangaroo court", where the law is not administered fairly—and are unwilling to submit themselves to its arbitrariness—or are applying and being rejected because of subjective opinions, which violate policy. It is one thing to have a request denied because it does not meet the requirements of guidelines and policy, but a highly different one if the nominee has studied the guidelines and policy, fulfilled them and is still turned down. That is something that will obviously cause bad feeling and lack of faith in the system and other editors.
It is a poor example when voters assessing someone's fitness to uphold Wiki's policies, guidelines and procedures, are themselves in breach of those same rules, and seemingly unaware of their existence. This situation needs to be addressed.
The means to do this is also stated in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, namely:
You are a Wikipedia editor. Since Wikipedia has no editor-in-chief or top-down article approval mechanism, active participants make copyedits and corrections to the format and content problems they see. So the participants are both writers and editors.
Individual users thus enforce most policies and guidelines by editing pages, and discussing matters with each other. Some policies, such as Vandalism are enforced by Administrators by blocking users. In extreme cases the Arbitration Committee has the power to deal with highly disruptive situations, as part of the general dispute resolution procedure.
I trust that the obvious concern of the voters so far for the betterment of Wiki will cause them to "self-police", in order to redress matters at the first stage, now that this situation has been pointed out.
Guide to requests for adminship
In respect of my own request, I address points on the page Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, with the text from the page in italics and my comments in normal type:
What RfA contributors look for RfA contributors want to see a record of involvement and evidence that you can apply Wikipedia policies calmly, maturely and impartially. What are often looked for are:
Strong edit history with plenty of material contributions to Wikipedia articles.
I have detailed the nature of my editing already.
Varied experience. RfAs where an editor has mainly contributed on one subject have tended to be more controversial than those where the user's contributions have been wider.
I concentrate on art, but have edited a much wider range of articles to a lesser extent, including military, naval and geographical subjects.
User interaction. Evidence of you talking to other users, on article talk or user talk pages. These interactions need to be helpful and polite.
I have fulfilled these criteria.
Trustworthiness General reliability as evidence that you would use administrator rights carefully to avoid irreversible damage, especially in the stressful situations that can arise more frequently for Administrators.
I have already given a relevant statement on this.
Helping with chores. Evidence that you are already engaging in administrator-like work and debates such as RC Patrol and articles for deletion.
Again, I have already made the point that I am zealous as regarding vandalism, which I regularly look out for.
High quality of articles – a good way to demonstrate this is getting articles featured.
My work has been commended by Solipsist.
Observing policy A track record of working within policy, showing an understanding of policy.
I trust the previous observations show my understanding of, and attention to, the correct application of policy.
Edit summaries. Constructive and frequent use of edit summaries is a quality some RfA contributors want to see. See Wikipedia:Edit summary.
I always try to make use of edit summaries, and have 99% on major edits. I am surprised it's as low as 49% on minor edits and don't understand how this happened, but it will make me more vigilant in future.
Tyrenius 11:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
----------
Steve