Forum:RFA requirements

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > RFA requirements
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 26 July 2009 by Azaz129.

We decided to split the discussion of too many administrators into a couple of smaller discussions to make the pages more accessible and make it easier to clarify that they are three separate issues.

This is a proposed change to the current request for adminship RS:RFA process that we currently have. Hopefully this new RFA process will allow us to make the RFA process a little more strict in order to filter out those who do not actually need their power, and to prevent more than an unnecessary amount of users from receiving admin. I will only be listing here the proposed changes and not re-writing the entire page because most of it is still relevant. Please note, nothing is final, almost everything here was rewritten by me in a way I think sounds clear and to the point.

Decision process (see current requirements at RS:RFA#About_RfA)

Before your RFA will be open for voting, you or your nominator must ensure you meet these requirements.

  • Candidates should be well known users who are currently active on the wiki in some form.
  • Candidates need to have been registered for at least two full months and been active during that time.
  • Candidates should have a minimum of 500 mainspace edits.
  • Candidates should have previously shown the ability to deal with vandalism, welcoming new users, carrying out community consensus, and being neutral and friendly in situations that may become very stressful or demanding.
  • The candidate must have majorly contributed to any two articles. Reverting vandalism or spelling and grammar errors do not count.
  • Nominations created by new user accounts or those who have very little activity or have been registered less than two weeks will not be accepted.

Questions for the nominee (see current questions at Template:RFA)

Please answer these questions when you accept your nomination. Be prepared to explain your answers in greater detail.

  • 1. What tasks do you believe you can perform better as an administrator that you cannot perform as a normal user.
  • 2. In your history of editing, what would you say your greatest contribution to this wiki has been?
  • 3. Have you ever had any major disagreements with any other users that you could not resolve on your own or required community/administrative intervention?
  • 4. Do you feel comfortable using your tools carrying out large changes to the wiki based on community consensus?

In the case of an RFA not receiving enough votes or being opposed.
  • If there were not enough votes to make a decision, the RFA can be extended.
  • You must wait a minimum of one month before creating another RFA if your RFA was opposed by the community.

Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Minimum of one month before creating another. Christine 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The official guidelines says a few weeks, but ill leave that open to interpretation. Sounds good to me. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
We've had users try the new RFA every few weeks... It didn't work out, and only caused issues. Christine 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Well known?" That's crap. I believe that a recent RfA of whom I believe few people knew about (and lost because of such) deserved the privilege. -- 23:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I did not add "well known" for my own evil purposes. That was almost a direct copy/paste from the original policy.

Candidates should be well-known, trusted, and helpful contributors to the wiki. Not only do I think its necessary for administrators to be to be well known among the community because of the wide range of duties they should be performing, but it also lets users know who they can trust and go to for help when they need it. Besides, any recent RFA's that have gotten oppose havent been from lack of attention. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is already this way, in my opinion, it ought be changed. And I never claimed that you did it for your own evil purposes... -- 15:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If it ain't broke... - don't fix it. I copied the current guidelines and questions below. They look very similar to what is proposed. In fact I think the current questions work better because they are open ended questions, the require the candidate to elaborate on what and why and how. What are we really changing here??? Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Current Guidelines

  • Candidates should be well-known, trusted, and helpful contributors to the wiki.
  • Candidates should have been an active contributor to the wiki for at least eight weeks to a few months.
  • Candidates should have a good number of contributions (generally a few hundred).
  • Candidates should have shown their ability to help other users.
  • Nominations made by new users are sometimes frowned upon because occasionally, a user may create an account, make a few contributions, then self-nominate. These users are potentially dangerous because they may have negative intentions and have not actually earned administrative privileges, although they are luckily always unsuccessful and strongly opposed.

Current Questions

  1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
  2. What are your best contributions to the RuneScape Wiki, and why?
  3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

I'm putting the current guidelines and questions here so people can easily see the changes being proposed. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 05:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to point out the changes to you :). A user must be registered a full two months before an RFA is allowed, they must have made at least 500 edits (not a couple hundred as suggested in the current RFA), they must have previously shown that they can handle every task administrators need to be capable of handling, they must have majorly contributed to two articles in some way besides reverting vandlism and fixing spelling, and I have refined the questions a little more to make it so that they need to lay out on the spot what they plan to do that they couldnt do previously, and if they feel comfortable with changing major wiki functions according to consensus. Perhaps when talking about mechanics or electronics if it aint broken dont fix it applies, but the only way a system like wiki can improve is with change.

Comment What is wrong with having more administrators? Attack Ancient Fofo Slayer 02:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see this thread[1] and this thread fofo [2] Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - What do you mean by "majorly contributed to at least 2 articles"? Does that mean you have to do a nearly complete rewrite of two articles, or it is simply a matter of adding a lot of useful information to two articles?  Tien  13:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose like tollerach said, if it ain't broke it don't need fixing. And the contribs to 2 articles is stupid, as all the long articles are as good as perfect. 2+2=4. Probably forgot to sign this comment.

Oppose I looked at them, and I still do not see the point, although I think I might know a reason why you brought this up... but serousily the rfa process isn't as easy as it seems like. Problems happen because people change. Attack Ancient Fofo Slayer 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Hmm...tough one. Needs more clarifying on some points such as "majorly contributed to at least 2 articles". That's very vague. I disagree that users should have 500 edits or more. I would support an RFA of a user that had only 300 edits but had never been blocked and had contributed mainly to the mainspace and community articles, depending on their block history. Besides, whatever happened to "all editors are equal"? I thought things weren't supposed to be based on edit count. The community says this all the time. "At least eight weeks to a few months?" I did the majority of my editing here in about the first seven weeks (a very slight majority), so I'm probably biased there. However, I think that if a newer user is nominated that they deserve a fair chance. "Candidates should have shown their ability to help other users"? I'm not sure what that means. Does slapping a half-hearted "welcome" message on every new user's talk page count? Whatever happened to self-reliance? What exactly defines "very little activity"? Again, too vague for me. These policies should be clear to the users. 20px‎ Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 03:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral – To start, I support the one-month time restriction between RfAs and the minimum time of two months on the wiki. Other than that, I believe RfAs should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. People contribute to the wiki in many different ways: some add templates and categories to pages, some make large edits to pages, some upload new screenshots for articles, and some revert and report vandalism. Even if a user only did specific tasks from one or two of the categories above, I see no reason to deny them an RfA just because they lack activity in the other categories.

Just to show where I’m going with this, I’ve listed the categories from above with some of the sysop-restricted rights that they (and the wiki overall) would benefit from having.

  • Page taggers: delete, undelete
  • Article editors: tagsreport, noratelimit, browsearchive, deletedhistory, undelete
  • Image uploaders: delete, noratelimit
  • Anti-vandalism: block, protect, delete, markbotedits, unwatchedpages, findspam, protectsite

Sysop tools are only restricted to sysops because it would be impractical to allow everyone to have access to them. Every action that can be performed on this wiki has the potential to be abused, from editing pages to granting user rights. It takes just a long to undo page move vandalism as it does to undelete a page, so why isn't move sysop-restricted? Why can't every honest and trustworthy non-sysop delete pages? It is entirely based on the nature of the tool. If a user has a practical use for a sysop-restricted tool, then we should allow them the chance to obtain it.

Yes, it’s true that a user would have to prove that they are trustworthy enough to receive access to these tools, and that they would be able to handle access to all of them. The point I'm trying to make is that we should not be restricting RfAs simply along the lines that they don’t have a high enough edit count or that they don’t mark enough pages for deletion, ect. Instead, we should be focusing on what the trustworthy contributors could accomplish with the sysop-restricted tools in their area of expertise. If you haven’t already, I’d like everyone to take a look at Pointy’s responses in his RfA. The wiki would have been at a loss if the community had opposed just because of a lack of anti-vandalism edits. It's rather unfortunate that all of the tools are packaged into one big group, otherwise we could grant access to tools based on what fits contributors best, as we do with rollback. Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 06:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose all changes except the one month waiting period. There is no reason to change the RFA system. RFA contributors have their own standards for a potential administrator, and these almost always include many contributions and varied experience as well as several months of editing. Very few users have been sysopped in recent times who have edit counts lower than 500 as the community standards gradually increase over time. Every editor is different and should be assessed as an individual. It is not in the spirit of RFA to deny users the chance to hold one based on edit count or time active. It should also be irrelevant who the nominator is, as RFA is about the nominee. All of these proposed changes would better serve as guidelines, and I think that most of them are already included here in some shape or form. Dtm142 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Dtm. Also, if someone opens an RFA a week after they create their account, no harm done. We will show them. Some of your proposed rules would be pretty hard to enforce. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 04:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose all changes Per above ‎Easter egg.pngAtlandy 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - All except the one month waiting, per Dtm. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - The administrators' Standarts are already high, and those unworthy will not pass the consensus. So, we're good with current conditions. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 21:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)