User:Tmorton166/policy rfa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RFA seems to be hot debate at the moment. Many people seem to be arguing over how you should vote and on what you should base it, which is a shame because it is actually really easy.

This of course is just my opinion but you might see something here you recognise in your own views and take solace in the fact that you are not the only one...

[edit] Edit countitis

Most people seem to base their RFA vote on the edit count of a user, which personally I find odd. A large edit count does not necessairily Identify a good editor - in fact it could mark them as a bad editor. Its just not a good benchmark.

The same applies to length of time. Any user who has been working on wikipedia regularly for more than about 1 month is pretty damn experienced surely. In fact basing a vote on length of time on wikipedia is a mistake - the user could be pretty useless as an editor and contributor but have been there ages and get a really high edit count.

As such I think peoples dependance on edit counts should be eased off..

[edit] So what then

Well I think that a useful benchmark is personal experience, someone you like and trust is a good person to vote for. That kind of thing cant be picked up by a good edit count but rather by being freindly co-operative and approachable as an editor. IMO this kind of support far outweigh's any 'not been here long enough' opposing votes.

Of course not everyone has personal experience with everyone going through RFA. In such cases there are several benchmarks that could be considered.

  • Firstly edit summaries, using mathbots tool. Anyone with less than 85% edit summaries is just not good enough. As an admin you are accountable and must explain all your actions, someone who can't do that is no good.
  • Simply by taking a look at the last 100 or so edits of the user should be enough to tell you about him / her. For example, are their edit comments useful or just place holders to fill the void. Things that indicate a good candidate could be:
    • Good, comprehensive edit comments - a single word or piles of abbreviations is no help really
    • Regular notification of other users, what I mean by that is regularly notifying relevant users to changes / reversions / edits made to articles when such action is appropriate.
    • Correct use of warning notices, getting things like that wrong is not helpful if you are going to be an admin
    • Mistakes, everyone makes mistakes. If an editor is happy to admit, spot and change his mistakes then that is a good indication.
    • Types of edits, alot of editors claim to want to devote themselves to a particular task. WHich isn't realy a good thing. I like to look for editors who take part in lots of things. For example seeing 40 articles being wikified is good but IMO better is to see 5 wikified articles, a couple of vandalism RVs followed by some general editing then maybe a few PROD's or speedy delets on new articles. This sort of editing IMO makes for a better wikipedia as users stay fresh and don't get stuck in one monotonous task.
  • Article editing, its important to remember that articles are the basis of wikipedia. Pick a few articles the editor has contributed to and look at the edits they made. This can be a good insite into how fluent an editor can be and his access to information.
  • Discussion, take a look at a few discussions the editor has had - does he / she remain civil and friendly, how do they handle abuse.

In all these things can help to show the editor with few edits as a good, all round and useful person. Which is really the kind of person who should be admin.

[edit] My vote

I will vote for you according to these rules, but only if you ask me. The exception to this is if I see an exceptionally bad user in RFA who needs opposing or someone I have come across who is a good candidate and I like.