Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Minimum requirement

This page in a nutshell: Aiming to reduce the nuber of WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW transclusions, this proposal draws on statistics gathered at Unsuccessful candidates and Criteria for candidates. It is also based on policies, guidelines, users' criteria for RfA, and other Wikipedias.

This project is divided into sub pages in order to keep discussions focused and on track.
Read the main page first, then join a discussion on the respective page.
Please do not start a new thread or a new sub page on something that is already under discussion - see the TOC on each talk page.

Proposal

One of the perennial suggestions regarding adminship is that there should be some sort of minimum requirement for candidates. The thinking behind the proposal is that it will reduce the number of WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW closures, and will make it clear that a modicum of experience is needed to become an administrator.

I therefore propose a minimum requirement of 2000 edits and 6 months since registration before an editor can self-nominate for adminship. Any editor who fulfils the minimum requirement may nominate an editor who does not.

The number has been set intentionally lower than it could be, because it draws parallels with the Journeyman service award and by 2000 edits and 6 months tenure, editors should have enough experience that the can fully appreciate the role of adminship and the community's requirements to bestow the role. It should also be made clear that this is a "bright line" minimum and passing the criteria does not automatically mean you will be qualified for adminship.

Having analysed all adminship promotions since 1 Jan 2009, we have only one promoted administrator who had less than 3000 edits (and he requested a temporary adminship because of that shortfall, although he had over 1 million edits across all wikis). We also have 0 editors promoted with a tenure of 6 months or less. Looking at the 114 editors who were unsuccessful in the past 12 months, 41 (36%) of them do not fulfil the criteria. All but 6 were closed NOTNOW or SNOW, the remaining 6 were withdrawn by user.

An analysis of user essays regarding personal criteria for adminship gives a general feel for how a vocal portion of the community vote. Looking at all essays (including ones that were unchanged for years and ones from blocked users), gives an average expectation of approx 2800 edits and 6.6 months editing. If we look at the more relevant essays, we have an average expection of 3700 edits and 9 months editing.

Other wikipedias have a minimum set of requirements before a candidate can nominate themselves, both of the other encyclopedias with over 1 million articles (French and German) have strong recommendations that editors have a thousands of edits.

In conclusion, I believe this change is descriptive of the way the community currently votes, matches the current user essays and is in line with other wikipedias. What's more, it will not stop genuinely good candidates with less than 2000 edits or 6 months tenure, as they can be nominated by other editors.

The task force

This is a list of those who feel they can collaborate with each other to move this RfA reform project along. Just sign your name the normal way. No comments other than your signature are needed. Outside views are more than welcome on the various talk pages.

Coordinators

Kudpung (talk) • Pyfan (talk) • Swarm (talk) • Worm That Turned (talk)

Coordinators?

The Coords keep the discussions tidy, on track, and on the right pages, and check for signatures and page links, and develop sub pages and templates as required, etc. They offer their own suggestions and opinions in the normal way. Italicized names are inactive or on an extended Wikibreak.

Participants

Add yourself to the list!

Swarm ^X 20:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ϣere SpielChequers 21:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My76Strat (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not sure if the above criteria are wrong to begin with... I think the whole notion has to be reworked. No more !voting.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC) (retired from Wikipedia)[reply]
'User:M.O.X (talk) • 9:05pm •'Formerly Ancient Apparition, formerly Fridae'sDoom. 10:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MacMed^talk _stalk 16:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw^(talk) 23:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pesky (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--SPhilbrick T 04:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Errant ^(chat!) 08:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 08:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corruptcopper (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC) (No edits to Wikipedia since 8 May 2012)[reply]
Jus da fax 09:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC) I'll be part-time but will attempt to give quality input. This topic is vital.[reply]
Baseball Watcher 03:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian2 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC) (No edits to Wikipedia since 20 June 2011)[reply]
Keepscases (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) (currently ~~blocked~~ unblocked for disruption at RfA)[reply]
This seems to be a perennial discussion/project/proposal item, but I am always in favor of any improvements if possible. — Ched : ? 07:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Fly by Night (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork *^YES! 09:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beback talk 02:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC) (Indef banned from Wikipedia)[reply]
--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 00:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (retired from Wikipedia)[reply]
—W F C— 03:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alzarian16 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--cera don 08:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
—mc10 (t/c) 23:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC) More so once the autoconfirmed trial gets underway; hopefully that won't be too long.[reply]
~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Cerejota (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Divide et Impera (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC) (No edits to Wikipedia since 17 December 2011)[reply]
Trusilver 17:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moogwrench (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC) (No edits to Wikipedia since 17 December 2011)[reply]
--Amadscientist (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irondome (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long message list for Message Delivery Bot. Includes task force and all users who have posted on the project talk pages

v t e RfA reform 2011: Main page, sub pages, and their sections
Please add comments/new threads on the appropriate talk pages
Main page	About this project – Project overview Talk What this project is not about Goals Objectives Essential reading for task force members
Candidates	Minimum requirements – Proposal to include a minimum requirement for RfAs. Talk Criteria for candidates – Sortable tables and discussion on criteria for adminship. Ideas for WP:NOTNOW prevention. Talk Unsuccessful candidates – Tables: Tenure, edit counts, what they are doing now. More resources for WP:NOTNOW prevention. Talk
Voting	Voting – Extensive data, tables, and graphs on voting patterns and participation. Talk RfA questions – Sortable tables. Controversial questions posed by voters at RfA April 2010 – April 2011. Talk Tool: RfA Vote Counter. Complete breakdown of any editor's RfA votes.
Clerking	RfA Clerks – Ideas for clerks to moderate RfA. Talk
Draft proposals	Possible proposals – A basic summary of ideas that the task force is developing and queuing for development based on the active discussions above. Talk
Radical alternatives	Radical alternatives – Ideas and suggestions for entirely new RfA systems. Talk Pre-RfA proposal – Suggestion to have a "pre-RfA". Sysop on request - a radical alternative for creating a two-tiered admin process, where the one tier can be requested based on criteria.
Downturn	Downturns - Chart, stats, and summary of RfA nominations 2010 - 2011
Task force	Project coordinators Active participants
Current admin count: 846 (list all), 733 of them active (as of 10 September 2011). Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months. 235 have not edited in at least 3 months. (list)