Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 3

message: it is recommended that you wait until you have been a user for six months with a good number of edits.
6 months is a bit long isn't it? I was a sysop after 45 days... Evercat 23:51, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There goes my sysophood... Κσυπ Cyp     00:22, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Can I count the 500 or so edits I've done to the MediaWiki strings on cy.wikipedia in the last week or so, just to keep my count up? :) -- Arwel 01:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: True. However, if you move pages, sometimes you travel back in time due to a bug. Maximus Rex 01:19, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I think it's more about having a guideline for when new people should be nominating themselves so they don't end up too disappointed when they don't get it. Angela. 02:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: We need to set a clear guideline whereby experienced contributors are not discouraged from applying by the possibility that they may be rejected for lack of experience. Minor edits are not necessarily a bad thing - people who fix typos can do the housekeeping work that makes them useful sysops. --Jiang | Talk 08:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, the bunch of minor edits referred to someone just "making enough edits to become a sysop". I think experienced contributors, if they are really experienced and contributors, they need not fear rejection: in theory, sysops should be no more than experienced contributors (am I wrong?) only that their status is "recognized". Time and practice, that's all, isn't it? Pfortuny 09:01, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I like the current system.  It seems as if it works well, and it should probably stay the same.  Greenmountainboy 13:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Six months?

message: Maybe it's more important to specify number of edits. 2000? 3000? --Jiang | Talk 23:53, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: There goes my sysophood... Κσυπ Cyp     00:22, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Can I count the 500 or so edits I've done to the MediaWiki strings on cy.wikipedia in the last week or so, just to keep my count up? :) -- Arwel 01:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: True. However, if you move pages, sometimes you travel back in time due to a bug. Maximus Rex 01:19, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of edits more important, says [[User:Jiang|Jiang]]

message: Why have a policy about that at all? We're all capable of deciding if an individual editor has our trust, and expressing our confidence (or lack thereof). -- Cyan 02:03, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyan proposes case-by-case evaluation

message: :I think it's more about having a guideline for when new people should be nominating themselves so they don't end up too disappointed when they don't get it. Angela. 02:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to set a clear guideline whereby experienced contributors are not discouraged from applying by the possibility that they may be rejected for lack of experience. Minor edits are not necessarily a bad thing - people who fix typos can do the housekeeping work that makes them useful sysops. --Jiang | Talk 08:46, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, the bunch of minor edits referred to someone just "making enough edits to become a sysop". I think experienced contributors, if they are really experienced and contributors, they need not fear rejection: in theory, sysops should be no more than experienced contributors (am I wrong?) only that their status is "recognized". Time and practice, that's all, isn't it? Pfortuny 09:01, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: I like the current system.  It seems as if it works well, and it should probably stay the same.  Greenmountainboy 13:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline, not policy says Angela