Wiktionary talk:Administrators

Untitled

Hi there all. I think that we should start thinking about what we should make our Criteria for Adminship here on the Simple English Wiktionary, as well as what the RfA standards should be here on the Simple English Wiktionary. I have several ideas about this that I really think should be discussed (each point can be discussed separately) completely and fully by all active members on this site:

Criteria for Adminship

I think that we should make it so that you have to be a named editor in order to be eligible to become an administrator here. Therefore, we should automatically disallow IPs from requesting to become administrator here on this site. Furthermore, I think that all named editors who wish to become an administrator needs to show at least 1.5-2 months of solid, continuous activity with 500 or more edits in total during that time. I think that we should make named editors who become administrators require to have a confirmed email address on their account so that we can easily get in contact with them. I think that users should show vandalism fighting, tagging pages for quick deletion, and creating new entries on this site without being blocked or vandalizing.

To summarize (by point):

1. IP addresses cannot request adminship
2. Named editors who want to become administrators must be at least 1.5-2 months old.
3. Named editors who want to become administrators must show that they know the policies of the Simple English Wiktionary.
4. Named editors who want to become administrators must make a minimum of 500 edits to the Simple English Wiktionary with solid and continuous activity.
5. Named editors who want to become administrators must have a confirmed email address.
6. Named editors who want to become administrators must show a need for the tools.

Requests for Adminship standards

Here are my thoughts on what the RfA standards should be on this site: I think that in order to deem an RfA successful, you must attain at least 65% support rate (75% support rate for bureaucrats), you must not have been blocked within the past 6 months, IP addresses cannot vote in RfAs and people who join the site after the vote starts cannot !vote in RfAs.

To summarize (by point):

1. IP addresses cannot !vote in RfAs.
2. 65% support needed to promote to admin (75% support needed for bureaucrat).
3. You cannot have been blocked within the past 6 months of when the vote started.
4. People who join the site after the vote starts cannot !vote in RfAs.

Good ideas, changes, new proposals? Discuss below this heading:

Discussion

I think that we should take each proposal point by point to decide which would be best to add into our CfA page and new RfA standards and which should not. This way, it is easier to decide upon the matter as a whole. Cheers, Razorflame 19:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, no comments in a year. Well, I disagree with 1b and 1d, and how do you justify a need for a tool? I also disagree with 2c. Besides that, sure. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Eh, I don't really agree with most of the proposal, in particular:
• From "Criteria for Adminship", disagree with points 2, 4, 5, and 6. Two: setting time limits is not really appropriate imo, i've seen people around for less than two months who I think would make good administrators. Contributions should speak for themselves instead. Four: I don't think we should set arbitrary edit count limits for who can be an admin, same reasoning as number two. It's just editcountitis, imo. Five: don't really see this is necessary; it's not on many other wikis. Don't really care either way on this one though. Six: "need" for tools is irrelevant to adminship. Also, point number one seems rather unnecessary since it's impossible to do it anyway from a technical standpoint.
• From "Requests for Adminship standards", disagree with points 2 and 3. Two: No problem with the rfa standards, but RFB is too high, should be at 65% minimum also i would think, IIRC in the past we've had RfBs pass with less than three quarters support. Three: Six months is excessive, actually i don't think we should prohibit recently-blocked users from voting at all. If they make bad arguments or are disruptive, the closing 'crat will not give much weight to them anyway.
• Just my two pence, FWIW. Can we go back to improving the dictionary now please? :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 03:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)