Wiktionary talk:Administrators

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Since Eclecticology has been inactive for a few weeks and there were a lot of requests waiting here, I've made three people admins who were voted for. If there's any problem with this, please say so at meta:Requests for permissions. Angela (steward) 11:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Eclecticology 21:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for all admins[edit]

Could all existing admins and accepting nominees please show the time zone in which they live as I have done. This will help to give a better picture of when people tend to be online. Eclecticology 04:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • ... and, as pointed out on Wikinews when this same request was made there, give the vandals information about what the best times to pick for vandalism will be. Uncle G 00:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you point me to statistics about how much increase in vandalism this caused? Eclecticology 07:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

De-sysopping[edit]

We should have a page like Wiktionary:Requests for de-adminship. Not that I wanna de-adminshipise anyone. Wonderfool

Better create that page and "rules" before we want to de-admin someone... :( \Mike 17:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Currently, there are two whose adminship I would revoke. Neither has made a single edit in more than a year. That's perhaps the least controversial criterion. Apart from that the occasion has not come up. I have had strong differences of opinions with others, but none of these have ever gotten near to the point where I would suggest that they be de-sysopped. Guidelines for doing this are probably a good thing, but I find that what has worked best for me so far is being conservative in appointing admins in the first place. Eclecticology 21:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the core of any guidelines would be when we as a community feel it is no longer beneficial to the community that they be sysops. This would include people who do not edit and people who are abusive of their 'powers' (hypothetical at present). I think they should be demoted in the same way they are promoted, someone suggests it, the people speak, Ec acts ;) - TheDaveRoss
I'm actually a bit afraid of such a procedure, Dave. I'm on a project where that course of action you suggest was tried, but it only resulted in a hell of a fight. The sysop in question is now de-sysoped, but it took about six months of more or less constant struggle, and ppl are now trying to find a better way to deal with problematic syops. Of course, I don't assume people here to be as willig to fight, but still...  :( \Mike 08:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid of most procedures. Failing to edit is fairly easy since the person isn't around to complain, and a time limit can be established objectively. Abuse of power is more gnarly, because it's such a subjective judgement. Watching this kind of debate about someone on Wikipedia just makes me want to run away. In many cases there's a misunderstanding involved, and just talking to both parties should be the first course of action. Eclecticology 23:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Certainly it isn't a pleasant occaision, but it is preferable (I think) to have an established means by which to remove status and rules governing when this action should be taken rather than having to feel our way through it when a situation arises. If all goes well perhaps we will have a procedure for something which never occurs, which would be lovely, but NASA plans for contingencies for a reason, things happen, and if we are planning for them we can handle them more efficiently and with less quarreling (hopefully). The question of where abuse of power comes into play is, as you say, gnarly. There are certainly some obvious cases; superfluous banning or deletion without cause come to mind, but there are also much more subjective situations, and I think that established guidelines will help both the sysops to have a clear idea of what is inappropriate and help the users understand whether a sysop's actions are worthy of complaint. It, if nothing else, is worthy of consideration. - TheDaveRoss 00:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
One difference between NASA and us is that what we are doing is not rocket science. Neither does anything of what we do put anyone in mortal danger, (though sometimes we wish we could with the likes of Mr. Ass Pus). Improper bannings and deletions can be contributory factors in deciding on a de-sysopping. Still my first avenue of approach is to attempt a dialog. Each case is unique. Eclecticology 02:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

How many administrators?[edit]

Before I do any appointing I would like to open the question of limiting the overall number of admins. I would also like to keep this general question apart from consideration of any particular one of the current nominees. (They are currently 9, but it is already decided to drop two of them.)

Although fixing vandalism has been cited as a reason for more admins, I really don't see the vandalism problem as being that bad. Most of our problems lately have been the product of one individual, and all who are already sysops are quick to act whenever he appears. In the case of a serious emergency I or the other bureaucrat to be appointed, or the stewards (whose numbers have been recently increased) should be prepared to make emergency appointments, but I honestly don't think that that will be necessary in the forseeable future.

I think that the perpetual accusations of sysop abuse that have become a part of Wikipedia's lifestyle are shameful. I can speculate about the causes of this. At the top of my list I could put the huge number of admins that they have, and a voting system that helps problem people to perpetuate their own kind while ignoring objective qualifications. A smaller number means people know what to expect of each other even when we have strongly differing POVs; hopefully we all know when to stop pursuing a point. Since this project started in December 2002 we have had no problem sysops, we have not needed an arbitration committee, we have not needed a three revert rule, and blocking has been limited to the most obvious vandals. I hope we can keep it like that.

I would propose that the number of sysops be limited to 20. Currently we have 17 with 7 nominations currently active, That would total 24. 2 of the existing sysops have not been seen for a long time and should be dropped from the list. I will also speak with Brion who is a developper but continues to be listed as an admin. His presence was necessary in the very early days. As a developper he can do everything that an admin can do, and much more so he may not want to remain on the list. This would bring the total to 21, but there are a couple whose absence is becoming notable. If necessary I would consider grandfathering those who have already been nominated, and would anly have the limit affect people who are nominated after the time of this message. Please comment on the proposal to limit the number of admins to 20. Eclecticology 04:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

<Jun-Dai 15:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)> I'm ambivalent about this proposal (among other things, I see the number of administrators we have as a rough sign of how serious this project is, along with other things, such as the number of edits we get, the number of top-notch entries we have--which we don't have any way of defining, currently. On the other hand, I see your point). If we do limit the number of administrators to 20, then I'd like to be dropped from the list of nominations, simply because I'm as likely to be valuable in an administrative role as these other people on the list. Or, to put it another way, my contributions to the Wiktionary are not likely to increase very much in quantity or value as a result of me being an administrator. Someone like Connel, on the other hand, has made great use of his new role, and I suspect the same would be true of a number of other users on the nomination list.
If the number were not limited, or we higher, then I think the added tool would be worth having, on my part. </Jun-Dai>
Nonsense. The amount of sysops we have does not matter (and we have not already decided to desysop those two). 24 19:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
First off, the exact number of administrators on Wiktionary does not matter any more than the 65,000th entry matters more than the 64,999th. Twenty is simply a nice, round number in a world where most people have ten fingers. Thus, I have no opinion on what exact number of administrators might be best. While some restraint may indeed be in order, the far more important point, whatever the number of administrators, is that they use their privileges responsibly.
That said, several of us (this crop of nominees) have sat watching in frustration as this vandal defaces article upon article, with no administrator in sight. Our various attempts to halt the destruction without administrative tools are relatively slow and ineffective, sometimes to the point, I think, of encouraging the abuse. While I certainly hope that having additional administrators on hand at various hours will act as a deterrent to such individuals, or at least speed and distribute the cleanup, administrators have duties that go far beyond vandalism.
Wiktionary currently has upwards of 70,000 entries, a number that grows every day. Many, if not most, of those articles need cleanup or attention in some form. Besides the ever-present red links, many articles need etymologies, pronunciations, definitions, translation checks, proofreading, and more. Extra eyes watching Recentchanges for spurious entries of all sorts, whether for cleanup, correction, or deletion, can catch more problems. Someone, I'm told, needs to delete a heap of bad tone count articles. (Would he like help?) It is true that many of these functions can be and are performed by contributors with no special privileges, but might a few extra tools allow us to share this enormous task a bit more efficiently and authoritatively?
As one who may soon become an administrator, I am inclined to welcome the extra help. Though I have supported everybody, I have not rubber stamped my vote on anybody's nomination. I am familiar with everybody's work and I would not have voted as I did (nor, I think, would Connel have nominated us) had anyone been, any less dedicated, conscientious, or thoughtful. Numbers aside, I firmly believe that your trust in this group would not be misplaced.--Dvortygirl 22:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speaking of arbitrary, why not tie the max number of administrators to some sort of milestone? It will be important to have more administrators as the Wiktionary grows larger, and this way there will be no suggestion that the number has been expanded specifically to allow this user in, or kept low to exclude this other user. It could be the number of entries, or it could be the number of contributors, or the number of pages on requests for deletion, or the number of pages deleted, etc. Jun-Dai 23:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I personally think this is all uneccessary and am opposed to limiting the number of admins. If a person is trustworthy then they should be an administrator. That should be the only requirement. Kevin Rector 16:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I do see Ec's point about Wikipedia being out of control. I only partly agree with his conclusion that it is a factor of the large number of administrators. I like the concept of recognising helpful contributors by labelling them as sysops/admins. I think the rollback feature should be available to all...or perhaps to all users who have been around a week or so. (Wiki theory is like communism - all can/should have all available tools, right? This isn't some kind of exclusive club.)

I have noticed the strange phenomenon of admins dissapearing, then returning months later. It is a little unnerving when an individual does it, moreso when several return around the same time. Not bad, just curious. Sysop requests are generally made during periods of sysabsence. When a whole possy returns, they seem in hindsight like a silly requests, even though the occasional need is genuine.

I like the notion of setting an optimal number of admins as being relative to the number of entries. Perhaps even better would be to have ~1% of all users be admins. Could you imagine 52 admins here? I easily can. I'm not convinced that these few extra tools really should require very much to obtain. Knowing that someone is an honest contributor, should be just about it (in wiki theory, anyhow.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What adminship is for; standards; authority[edit]

The following lift from "en" WP may be worth adapting as a new introductory para to the project page:


Administrators are Wikipedians who have "sysop rights". Current Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Generally speaking, standards have become harder in practice. However, there are several administrators created every week. ..... "This should be no big deal," as Jimmy Wales has said.

Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility.


Robin Patterson 03:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be nice, if we actually were so liberal in this regard. --Connel MacKenzie 20:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sysops and bureaucrats appointments, please![edit]

We have had several nominations sitting in this page and at Wiktionary:Bureaucrats for some time now. They are all, to my knowledge, valuable, responsible, and trustworthy contributors with much to offer the community. In light of the recent and sudden switch from automatic article capitalization, thus creating vast numbers of residual redirects that will need to be sorted and deleted, may I please request that the consideration for upgrading these individuals' priveleges be accelerated? While there are an unusually high number of nominations this time, I believe each and every nomination is merited and supported by the community, and they deserve not to be left hanging.

Additionally, if I am not mistaken, Wonderfool is taking a month break (I believe I speak for the community when I say I sincerely hope it does not become permanent), and Connel and I will be called away on business during July. At the bureaucrat level, Eclecticology has had some absences, as well. Additional experienced hands and eyes at both the sysop and bureaucrat levels are needed now more than ever, so I would urge that we take action we have already approved and appoint our nominations promptly. --Dvortygirl 29 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)


Voting history[edit]

I see that someone has been adding voting histories for newly appointed admins. I really don't think that this is desireable. All admins are equal no matter who supported their nominations. Eclecticology 08:33, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

That was me. I put that all there for the sake of full disclosure, it has nothing to do with equality. Of course all admins are equal no matter who supported them. I think having an archive of their election to admin status is a good thing. Kevin Rector 03:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've been giving this a think too. The concept of Full Disclosure is admirable, but so is the concept of a Secret Ballot. I don't want The David to take vengence on me, a mere mortal newbie, once he becomes sysop just because I voted against him. I believe Full Disclosure applies to voting only on proposals and prepositions. :-)
Just for the record, I have no fear of The David. (Perhaps I should?) :-) But what we want to avoid is having someone being afraid (an irrational feeling) to express a negative vote. Cheers, Stranger --SSL69 23:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Upon re-reading. . . Fear can be very rational; it is feelings which are, ipso facto, irrational. --Stranger (SSL69 02:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

The list[edit]

The way the list of admins is set up is very impractical. I suggest using something like what Commons uses. Jon Harald Søby 18:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand which aspect of their format you think we should adopt. Is it the sidebar thingamajig? Or the fact that they are listed with their babel rating? The former I do not like, the latter might be useful. --Connel MacKenzie 21:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, what I think is, people don't care when an admin was appointed. The babel thing is also useful here, even more than in Commons. Whether or not the list is in a sidebar or not doesn't really matter… Jon Harald Søby 21:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

template:DIRMARK T[edit]

This is not about appointing administrators. The discussion has been moved to Wiktionary:Beer parlour where more people can see it. Eclecticology 22:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What the Fuck!?[edit]

Who is User:Jonathan Webley and why is he an admin when User:Dangherous is not despite being nominated before Jonathan. Exactly how does this thing work anyway? Gerard Foley 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Informally I prefer to wait until there are at least ten supporters before I act. I have no idea why Dangherous has not reached that yet. When a person is nominated has nothing to do with when action is taken, nor are any comparisons of two nominees a part of that decision. Eclecticology 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't be informal, it should be clearly stated how to become an admin. I see no reason why they need to last longer then 2 weeks, and 10 seems to a very high number considering how many people bother to express an opinion, 5 would be better. I know I pulled out after only 5 days (give or take) but I would have pulled out even faster if I had known this is how it works. I don't think it's worth it. Gerard Foley 00:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It is natural to feel anticipation, once nominated. It can be very discouraging to get few (or no!) responses initially. Eclecticology's unintentional delays tend to (accidently?) weed out those who are impatient. Patience is a very important sysop attribute (confer Ec vs. Connel, Semper vs. anons, Ec vs. Ncik, Connel vs. Ncik, Dmh vs. Ec, Stephen vs. Primetime, etc.) Listening and patience are the best tools for reducing conflicts; most of the examples I just referred to were caused by lack thereof. I know that I wanted to vote for giving you tools to further develop the ideas you had started; I have my own reasons for abstaining initially. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want this to become a debate as to why I pulled out, it was to do with the shock of what I saw when I came back from my wikibreak, but what the hell.

As I remember I had 2 support votes when I quit, 1 from Jon Harald Søby, the other from Wonderfool (the guy who deleted the Main Page). This is not very encouraging. I also had 1 oppose vote from Ncik with some crap about me edit warring with him, but I believe it was more because I was the only one with the balls to give him his first oppose vote. An eye for an eye. This is an active wiki so I believe 5 days is plenty of time to scribble ~~~~ as can be seen by User:Jonathan Webley. Still remembering how Ncik's request lasted 2 months with no interest I was not about to play the part of the fool so I withdrew. It also brought some closure as it stopped me from checking the page only to see nothing different. It's fine for people to say they were going to give support, but I'm not a mind reader, I only know what I see on the page. Am I impatient? Yes, very much so, as Ec pointed out I quickly reverted Ncik's edits to WT:ELE. But I also made an attempt to talk to him by inviting him discuss what he was doing. I was also quick to start removing those dammed extra lines, but I used the edit summary to clearly state what I was doing; easy for admins to revert. Would I have made a good admin? I don't know, but I do know I won't be accepting any admin nominations any time soon. This is not something I want to go through again. I don't need the delete button, and I can ask someone else to edit protected pages for me. The other admin tools are useless (at least on this wiki).

I don't want this to become a list of I was going to vote, I didn't see it, etc. (probably wouldn't anyway, but just in case) 'cos it doesn’t mater now. What's done is done. I was fully aware of what I was doing and I do not regret it. Gerard Foley 01:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Language/Babel[edit]

Can we add a format requirement for new admin requests, that they specify the languages they know (i.e. their "Babel" levels)? --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. This is probably the project where babel is the most useful. Jon Harald Søby 21:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for adding them in. On my screen, the table columns got scrunched too much; I reformatted it with a combined notes/Babel column instead, which seems to work better. --Connel MacKenzie T C 03:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting requirements[edit]

Is there any suggested number of edits a user should have here before being able to vote? I vuagely recall a "50-edits" minimum but I can't seem to find the relevant conversation.

It would be nice to also exclude any votes from editors who have been blocked, but that would rule me out since I blocked myself when I first became a sysop. Perhaps votes could be invalidated if 20% or more of that user's entries are nominated for deletion (or deleted on sight.)

Sysops votes still are given no more weight than regular contributors, right? We should spell that out somewhere. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

x-edits minimum is a good idea, to reduce the chance of sockpuppets and also it should only be people who work on Wiktionay voting, not random people from Wikinews here by invite! As for excluding any votes from editors who have been blocked, what's the thinking behind that? Gerard Foley 00:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of it as an indication that someone has acted in bad faith. But thinking more about it, that might unfairly exclude anonymous IPs, and that would not be good. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
With regards to "random people from Wikinews" (or any other metawiki site, for that matter), what about user's who truly plan on being here for a while, and are also trusted to make a solid assessments of users? I am an administrator on Wikipedia, I'm just curious to know if I should wait for the 50 edit limit, or if my standing on an other project is enough to convince everyone that I am not a sock puppet, or a user who is "stacking votes." Also this is not to try and go around the 50 edit count rule, just a curiosity question, for future reference with regards to this project. KnowledgeOfSelf 05:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I would guess "no, you shouldn't wait" but that seems to be entirely up to Eclecticology, which is why I'm asking these questions. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Responding to various points above:

  1. I don't think that we have an agreed minimum number of edits a person should have before his vote is taken seriously, but I would certainly look at it more closely if he has fewer than 50. A person with very few edits could have a chance to redeem himself by making that many edits between the nomination and decision times. Making 50 edits to article spaces here is not difficult. Of course, I would tend to discount edits which do nothing but spam the list to vote for the candidate.
  2. You need to make a distinction between voters who "are blocked" and "have been blocked", but realistically this does not involve very many people. I make a point of being aware of whose comments should be taken with a grain of salt, such as the one user who was already desysopped for cause, but his vote is still only one vote.
  3. If we are talking strictly about "voting" a sysop's vote should not have more weight than that of any other user, but sysops are often more aware of the misbehaviour of nominees. Their comments on that have to be taken into account.
  4. The comments of others who are not regular contributors about someone's misbehaviour will at least tell me that I should investigate what they say. If I find that they really did behave badly elsewhere that will affect my decision, even if it means going against the majority. I seldom will go against the majority, but there are times when that will be necessary, and I will always give reasons why. On the other hand, I make a point of not participating in the voting while it is proceding, and privately discuss difficult cases with the other bureaucrat.
  5. The 50 edit rule-of-thumb is not just about sockpuppets; it's also about commitment to this particular project. I really don't think that a person whose wiki editing is focused elsewhere should have a strong influence here.
  6. I do like to wait until there are least 10 people who have had a say on a nomination before moving ahead either way it. When there are fewer involved the nomination should probably fail for lack of interest. Waiting a month for that to happen is not waiting a long time.

Eclecticology 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And Paul G, of course, could give sysophood if he really wanted. --Dangherous 20:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

New table look[edit]

Connel's new table layout looks horrible. There's no space between the cells in some areas, but in others there's too much. The addition of the Babel column has also made some rows taller than others. I'm considering changing it back to how it was. --Primetime 03:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What? I didn't add any columns. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the <br />'s that you seem to have been complaining about? All better? --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to get your panties in a roll over it. I was just trying to make the page look better. You seem like you're about to cry.
--Primetime 07:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
What?
I have no serious objection to the way the table looks. Eclecticology 00:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Admins for simple English Wiktionary[edit]

Would anyone here be interested in checking the Simple English Wiktionary every 24 - 48 hours for vandalism? I have been doing this but I'm starting to get sick of it. Any takers? Gerard Foley 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Does it have an RC IRC feed? If so, I'll make and set tawkbot3 to monitor it and post changes. Tawker 07:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Gerard Foley 13:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

All Wikimedia projects have. [1] (in this case, [2] Jon Harald Søby 16:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Also there is now a Counter Vandalism channel for Simple English Wikipedia: #vandalism-simple-wp. That may come in very handy. -- Psy guy 21:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The channel is filtered by one of my IRC bots, it should flag most of the vandalism without having to manually check every single edit -- Tawker 17:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Danny[edit]

I'd like to note here that he is a sysop, at least technically. I don't know who he is but I assume he is the same as w:User:Danny. — Vildricianus 16:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its Danny, Board Member, Steward, Oversight / whatever else he can be flagged with. -- Tawker 20:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I know. Not a sysop anymore. — Vildricianus 12:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

On the entry for Jahbulon, I have made a change that I feel is justified. I posted my reasoning on the talk page. The change was reverted. I have repeatedly asked for justification for the revert, but no one will respond. If I un-revert to my version, it is simply reverted out of hand with no justification... what can I do? I do not want to get into a revert war, but I have little option if the other side in the argument will not discuss. Blueboar 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That change has been rolled back by three separate sysops (myself included) as a POV edit. Not all have commented on the talk page as I have (and had previously!) but then again, for such a POV edit, I would not expect a comment or explanation would seriously be expected. --Connel MacKenzie 17:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Note[edit]

the user creation log shows users who could be sockpuppets. Geo.plrd 20:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Resignation[edit]

Hoi! Just posting here to explain that I've resigned as administrator and checkuser here on the English Wiktionary. The reason for this is that I don't feel that I have been nearly as active as I should have been, and that there are other people here doing a much better job than I do. I was made admin during the worst period of exinogoogleindexingcornt spam, and checkuser during the worst period of Wonderfool sockpuppeting. However, both these things seem to have calmed down now, so my services are no longer required (gosh, that sounds too formal). Anyways, I (hope nobody mind that I) retain the right to help if anything like that should ever occur again. Face-smile.svg Jon Harald Søby 16:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

More resignation[edit]

It goes without saying that I've been rather inactive lately. I'd rather return to my old duties of yore, but more urgent matter is awaiting me now. I'm already ex-sysop, and hereby bombastically leave the ship. Cheers to all, and keep up the good work! — Vildricianus 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive[edit]

Where is the archive for previous requests for adminship?--Jusjih 12:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question. You might be able to find some attached at the bottom of WT:VOTE, at least for requests that happened after that page was initiated. --EncycloPetey 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately not all votes are readily visible there so we have to dig through the page history to get all archives. This is why I have not even archived completed admin votes.--Jusjih 16:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Requirements!?[edit]

Can anyone please tell me normally what requirements must someone meet in order to become an admin? Please answer me in my talk page in English or Malay Wikipedia. I seldom come here. Of course, you have to write here too. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 09:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, active participation is usually a key. DAVilla 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

But, let's say, how many edits? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Editcounts are very misleading - possibly the worst measure of what makes a good admin. Showing understanding and agreement with Wiktionary goals (especially, as opposed to Wikipedia goals) is an important factor, which usually cannot be gauged in less than a few months. Causing disruption or generating controversy (especially if long-winded) is an indication of one who would make a very bad admin. Having a block-able username (such as one that contains "King",) is a good way to never be considered. Seeking the status of being an admin, rather than seeking to contribute meaningfully, is another way to prevent nominations. Many contributors value politeness very highly. But then, if edits are all controversial or generate a lot of side discussions, even politeness won't help. --Connel MacKenzie 17:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


(after edit conflict) The number of edits is (largely) irrelevant. My personal guidelines, which I suspect are broadly similar to those of others here, are
  • You've been actively participating at Wiktionary for a while (at least a month in most cases), making constructive edits
  • You understand at least the basic policies and conventions
  • You understand at least the basic formatting structure of Wiktionary entries and get it right at least most of the time (I don't expect perfection, so don't worry about that!)
  • You show that you learn from your mistakes.
  • You show a willingness to learn what you don't know and ask for help, advice and other opinions where needed
  • You get on well with all or almost the people you interact with, particularly established users (personality conflicts can happen, but do try not to antagonise them if they do)
  • You understand that other users may not know as much as you, or conversely, may know more than you do; and interact with them accordingly.
This is just a guide not set criteria, because everyone is different the same criteria cannot apply to everyone. What is most important is that I feel giving you admin tools will not harm Wiktionary. Thryduulf 18:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This might not help you very much, but my internal test is, I should be slightly surprised to realize that the editor isn't already an administrator, given: (1) how much they contribute; (2) for how long they've contributed; (3) how encouraging and mentor-y they are to other editors, especially new editors; (4) how accepting they are of policy decisions they disagree with (or at least, how capable they are of acting in accordance with decisions they don't really accept); (5) how seriously they seem to take the project and its goals and ideals; (6) how well they seem to recognize where Wiktionary's current weaknesses are, and more important, where they are not. —RuakhTALK 18:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


What is the standard?[edit]

For users who want to become admins, what is the minimum amount of edits required to be considered? Because i am a very good user and know how to use ALOT of CSS and HTML, but i only have 100 edits (and ive only been here 1 day, nice). So, whats the minimum so i know what to go for before i can become an admin? Please, for the love of Buddha, reply on my talk page.

The2DeadlySinsPrideEnvy

Did you read the section above this one, where the same question was asked? --EncycloPetey 01:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing sysop[edit]

User:Mglovesfun is not present in this list. Malafaya 16:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit[edit]

Protected template Please amend Template:Otherwiki to add Wikivoyage. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no Template:Otherwiki (or Template:otherwiki), nor was there ever (unless the deletion log was hidden for some reason).​—msh210 (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the template he wants edited is {{sisterprojects}}. —Angr 15:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)