This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was to reword requirement five to require "Major article contributions". 5 for striking the rule/22 for rewording the rule. —Xwing328^(Talk) 22:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the fifth requirement for adminship is as follows: "They have had at least some major article creations." Now, while this doubtless made sense two years ago when the Wookieepedia was founded, it's hardly possible for anyone who joined more than six months after it was established to meet that requirement. There simply aren't any major articles left to create. This requirement technically disqualifies a great many otherwise well-qualified users. Now, the reason people have kept getting promoted is that it's simply ignored. However, there's not much point to having a requirement that isn't enforced, is there? This requirement is obsolete, yet with it still on the books, it could be used to technically obstruct an otherwise flawless candidacy by a disruptive user. It certainly doesn't serve any purpose remaining up there. Therefore, I suggest that it be removed. If people wish, a rule might be called for suggesting that candidates must have shown a commitment to editing articles and have some sort of significant contributions to point at, but the current wording isn't useful at all. It's not doing any good; remove it before it does any harm. Havac 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Support striking requirement fiveEdit

1. Havac 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Imp 23:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Tis silly. .... 23:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Stake black ^msg 23:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Ozzel 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
6. —Xwing328^(Talk) 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
7. tzzA 13:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Chack Jadson 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
9. JMAS 20:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Evir Daal 07:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose striking requirement fiveEdit

Reword requirement five to require "Major article contributions"Edit

1. Reword per StarNeptune, below. The general purpose behind the requirement is sound, though its specific execution has grown more difficult (though hardly impossible; Fourdot has shown there's still plenty of room to create excellent, thorough articles from as-yet-untouched material). jSarek 05:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
2. —Silly Dan _(talk) 11:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
3. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 11:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Cull Tremayne 14:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 09:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
6. ^Jorrel _Fraajic 15:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Atarumaster88 15:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
8. LtNOWIS 19:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
9. BambookidX 02:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
10. Heh heh heh. Ooh, I just got the Jon search icon, too. .... 02:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
11. Yes, better. -- Ozzel 03:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
12. Base it on contributions though the user may still find something to create out of the blue. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
13. Jedimca0 ^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 07:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Based on LtNOWIS's interpretation for my question below, though this is all too subjective. —Xwing328^(Talk) 01:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
15. --Eyrezer 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
16. Lord Hydronium 01:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
17. Hobbes15^{(Tiger Headquarters)} 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
18. -- AdmirableAckbar ^[Talk] 22:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
19. Whatever. Havac 22:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
20. Indeed. tzzA 22:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Twenty-firsted.--Goodwood ^{(For the Rebellion!)} 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
22. —Graestan ^{(This party's over)} 04:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

• Why not just change it to "Major article contributions" (as in, they helped bring an article to FA staus or majorly helped on an article on the ID)? StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 00:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think they fact that they're a decent to good or great editor would be implied simply by us supporting or opposing them. It's not like our actual votes for this have to be rules-based, just their nomination. —Xwing328^(Talk) 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Who has gotten by without this requirement? I'm pretty sure every admin was able to answer the "what contribution are you most proud of" question. Cull Tremayne 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't have any major article contributions until late 2006. --Imp 04:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but wasn't that even before we started having requirements, and before potential admins had to answer questions? Cull Tremayne 04:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • So with this suggested rule, would you be excluded if you merely created hundreds of smaller articles instead of working on just one huge article? —Xwing328^(Talk) 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Good point. "Major contributions to articles" would cover that. Although that might make things too vague to judge (??). -Fnlayson 02:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Collectively, they would be major. -LtNOWIS 03:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.