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. 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.
I'm also concerned that this type of standard places an unnecessary burden on valid users, who might become discouraged by high standards, while it would be trivial for a sneaky undercover returning troll (cited as a reason for these sorts of standards) to meet these sorts of standards with sheer persistence and a little patience. Good people lose out, while the bad ones are merely inconvenienced.
I speak here only of sysophood standards. Are there other strict numeric standards which would be subject to effects which are similar?
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
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Geoff Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
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.
How would that be calculated?
Given the amount of attention paid to WP:RFA, I'd say that there's little risk of candidates going unnoticed and slipping into the system.