Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Six months?

it is recommended that you wait until you have been a user for six months with a good number of edits.

6 months is a bit long isn't it? I was a sysop after 45 days... Evercat 23:51, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Number of edits more important, says Jiang

Maybe it's more important to specify number of edits. 2000? 3000? --Jiang | Talk 23:53, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There goes my sysophood... Κσυπ Cyp   00:22, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Then off with your head! You need to get addicted like the rest of us. --Jiang | Talk 00:26, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can I count the 500 or so edits I've done to the MediaWiki strings on cy.wikipedia in the last week or so, just to keep my count up? :) -- Arwel 01:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd prefer a time-based limit than an edit number based one. It's very easy to make a couple of thousand minor edits whereas a time limit can't be faked in such a way. Angela. 01:17, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

True. However, if you move pages, sometimes you travel back in time due to a bug. Maximus Rex 01:19, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How about a time limit and an edit limit? and or or? --Jiang | Talk 01:23, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cyan proposes case-by-case evaluation

Why have a policy about that at all? We're all capable of deciding if an individual editor has our trust, and expressing our confidence (or lack thereof). -- Cyan 02:03, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Guideline, not policy says Angela

I think it's more about having a guideline for when new people should be nominating themselves so they don't end up too disappointed when they don't get it. Angela. 02:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ah, good point. That should have been obvious. -- Cyan 03:47, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think the present system is OK. If people nominate themselves they do know they run the risk of not being supported. The boldface 6 months notice is ok, as it is clear from the context that it is just orientative, and also from the context one should infer that a bunch of minor edits is not relevant... Personally I found the introduction of the page quite enlightening. My 2c. Pfortuny 08:42, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We need to set a clear guideline whereby experienced contributors are not discouraged from applying by the possibility that they may be rejected for lack of experience. Minor edits are not necessarily a bad thing - people who fix typos can do the housekeeping work that makes them useful sysops. --Jiang | Talk 08:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, yes, the bunch of minor edits referred to someone just "making enough edits to become a sysop". I think experienced contributors, if they are really experienced and contributors, they need not fear rejection: in theory, sysops should be no more than experienced contributors (am I wrong?) only that their status is "recognized". Time and practice, that's all, isn't it? Pfortuny 09:01, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like the current system. It seems as if it works well, and it should probably stay the same. Greenmountainboy 13:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Some users who don't edit very much will probably need to be around for six months before they can be made sysops, some users who edit a great deal will probably only need to be around for a few weeks (I edited for about four months before being sysopped, and I've recommended several users to sysopdom who've edited for a shorter time than that). Similarly, people who mainly make major, high quality edits will need to make relatively fewer edits than those who mainly correct spelling mistakes and argue about POV on talk pages. What matters is that a user is trusted to not abuse their sysop powers - the amount of time and number of edits required for someone to gain that trust will vary greatly from user to user. There's no need (or point) in putting a number on it. I therefore edited the page to get rid of the "six month" requirement (though I see that in the time it's taken me to write this, Wik has put it back in again...). --Camembert 02:32, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Note for new sysops who find they are not sysops

Our software stores user information not only in the database but also in memcached. If a developer makes someone a sysop in the database but doesn't clear the memcached key, the user can be spontaneously de-sysopped. This occurs because if a change is made to the user data, the script loads it from memcached and then saves it to the database. If anyone finds that they are not a sysop when they have been told they are, they should report it immediately. Fixed in this case [DavidLevinson]. -- Tim Starling 00:25, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)