Forum:Admin ship average edits

What is the average number of edits/time on wiki for admin rights? ---Hockeyben 01:37, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

There is none, when a bureaucrat feels someone has done a good job on the wiki and can handle being an admin, then they should be an admin. There is no set time or edit number.--


 * Often it depends on the size and history of the community of the wiki. Larger, more established wikis tend to have more strenuous requirements because they can afford to be picky about their candidates, but then again it varies greatly. Just some examples:


 * Wowpedia: No edit or time requirements
 * Wookieepedia: 6 months of activity; 18 years old; "some" major article contributions
 * The Vault: 500 edits in the article, category, or template namespaces; 3 months of activity
 * Zeldapedia: 400 mainspace edits; 2 months of activity
 * Halopedia: 1,500 edits ; 1,000 mainpace edits ; 6 months of activity
 * ~ Gardimuer { ʈalk } 22:04, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd advise strongly against having a rule saying "users must have this before they RFA" - it means 2 things:


 * 1) Good nominations may well be missed
 * 2) Users may RFA as soon as they get to the limit, they may well "burn out" after making the edits
 * Quality is better than quantity - the RFA should be a user-driven process, where the wiki voices their opinion and gains consensus on the quality of the candidate, if that candidate is of good quality (perhaps he keeps making good templates, but doesn't make that many edits) - he shouldn't be disqualified from a sysop position just because he has a low number of edits.
 * Don't mistake quality for quantity, don't make any "rules" about the number of edits required for adminship, by all means "a low number of edits" or "hasn't really participated in the community much yet" - might be a negative quality for a candidate - but it should not automatically disqualify.  Random Time  22:11, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * All that said, making someone an admin who isn't an active user isn't much use and edit count can be a way to gauge activity. Of course, edit count is also relative. If your wiki only has around 100 pages and someone made 10 of them and has 50 edits, that makes a big difference from a wiki with 10,000 pages. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 25 Apr 2011 5:15 PM Pacific

I'm very against a set edit count being used to determine merit when considering people for adminship. It emphasises quantity over quality &mdash; consider that some users spend hours rewriting and writing articles but get just one "edit" for all that work, while in the meantime, others make hundreds of small changes. Communities that are informed aren't going to vote for people that they feel have contributed little, or people they simply don't know, anyway. The only use of the edit count is to set a very low standard to stop someone who has been around for one day to suddenly begin demanding rights. The 888th Avatar  (talk)  02:36, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * While the number of contributions and activity levels can be a very minimal benchmark for identifying contributors vs non-contributors (i.e 20 edits), a user who earns a commendable degree of respect from helping out on the wiki with the quality of their edits and/or interactions with other users is ultimately more invaluable than someone who made a few hundred to a few thousand edits with little or no changes. In either the case, the admin tools extend to reversion, blocking, deleting pages, wiki-customization, wiki-site notices and other things which a normal contributor does not really need. However, if the user can be trusted for housekeeping and customizing the wiki as well as having a general sense of community awareness and the user implictly demonstrates or makes such a request, then it ought to be granted on such a case-by-case basis rather than a rule one-size-fits-all adminship. Then again, it depends on the wiki. Some wikis may need more admins to help prevent vandals, other wikis may already have their pages up-to-date and/or skinned vegeance 03:07, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * At some point, edit count does matter. I don't care if a user made the perfect page, they need to show they have a variety of edits and with a very low edit count, that really can't be evaluated. I understand the sentiment of valuing quality over quantity, but it cannot be the only determining factor and does not justify completely disregarding edit count. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 26 Apr 2011 9:52 AM Pacific
 * And so you, rightly - address that concern at RFA, you don't set an arbitrary number of edits beforehand that any editor has to meet before they can even consider it, the RFA page should state that you should be involved in the community, and that includes having a good amount of edits, a number for this isn't necessary, and may hinder the process (by having users who RFA as soon as the limit, etc) - users should know when someone is in a good position in the community without a set "number of edits" for it  Random Time  17:55, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with giving a "ballpark" or guideline number of edits as long as you make it clear that it is not a minimum requirement. The opposition to mentioning edit count in RfA at all eludes me. It is not a crime. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 26 Apr 2011 10:12 AM Pacific