Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions

This is intended as a guide to getting the most out of the request for adminship (RfA) procedure. It is not intended to be binding policy, nor is there an expectation that editors who comment on RfAs should be familiar with it; it is, rather, to be an informative guide to useful participation in the forum.

The question posed with every RfA is "Can this user be trusted with the administrator tools?" Making a decision whether to trust an unfamiliar candidate is often difficult.

It is often said that "adminship is no big deal", bearing in mind that admin actions can be undone by another admin.

RfA is not a popularity contest, nor is it designed to force potential administrators to meet arbitrary criteria. It is not designed to judge whether a potential administrator holds the correct view on a controversial issue—which is different from asking whether they will apply a current policy consistently.

It is particularly helpful to give examples when commenting. The best way to do this is usually to link to the page or the diff showing the behaviour you are commenting on.

Comments opposing an RfA

Comments in opposition to an RfA are usually subject to greater examination than comments in support of one. It is particularly helpful if comments are precise, give examples and/or diffs, and explain why the examples presented give rise to the conclusion that the user cannot be trusted with the administrator tools.

Criticisms should be constructive and polite. They should give the candidate an idea of what they should change in order that you could trust them. If the change could be made quickly and easily, consider proposing it to the candidate on their talk page and waiting for a response before commenting on the RfA.

If you oppose an RfA, your rationale may well be questioned or challenged. If possible, consider the points raised in response to your objection, and reply politely as to whether or not you stand by your initial rationale.

Off-wiki activities

Activities off-wiki are not usually considered as part of an RfA—even if a candidate takes part in activities in real life or elsewhere on the internet which you find objectionable or highly admirable. Further, voters need to consider the OUTING policy before discussing off-wiki activities.

If a user's contributions to Wikipedia are constructive, many off-wiki issues are unimportant:

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose – user was rude to me on IRC. Mr. Offended 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – I know this user and they are great. GoodFriend 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

In extreme cases, or where it may provide useful information in addition to a comment based on the user's contributions to Wikipedia, off-wiki activities can be of interest.

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose – user has threatened on a bulletin board [1] to delete the main page and block every user in London if they become an administrator. BoardInLondon 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – in addition to their great work on Wikipedia, the user has an exemplary record as an administrator on ThisProminentSite.[2] ProminentSiteUser 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

User supports/opposes X

If a comment in support or opposition relies on a user's support or opposition to a particular issue, it is particularly useful to make clear why this may affect their suitability to be an administrator.

A candidate may have a strong opinion on a topic but can be trusted not to abuse admin tools to further their philosophy. For example, many administrators with opinions which could be described as "inclusionist" or "deletionist" only make deletions in the most obvious and uncontroversial of cases, where reasonable editors are highly unlikely to disagree with their actions.

The question should be whether a candidate can be trusted not to let personal opinions lead to an action that is against consensus or policy.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose – user disagreed with me in an AFD debate. ABitDisagreeable 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – this user gave a really witty response to someone I disagreed with. EasilyImpressed 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose – user has stated that they believe the criteria for speedy deletion should be broadened, and that they will interpret the guidelines that way anyway.[3] StickToThePolicies 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – user has been very active in the debate on our usage of fair use images; even though I do not agree with their position, their reasoned approach shows that they can keep a cool head in a heated discussion.[4] KeepACoolHead 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

User is X

If a user can't change something, it is almost never helpful to bring it into a discussion.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose – even though they are a great contributor, user writes like a twelve year old so they couldn't be a good administrator. Patronizer 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – user is from Wisconsin, and we need more administrators from Wisconsin. ILOVEWISCONSIN 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

If you are tempted to leave a comment like this, consider whether you could leave a comment based solely on the merits of the user's activities on Wikipedia.

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose – even though they are in their thirties, the contributor keeps playing immature jokes, removing text from articles,[5] [6] and redirecting them inappropriately.[7] StraightFace 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – user is from Wisconsin, and has been the core of the Wisconsin WikiProject, helping new users[8] and initiating discussions on policies.[9] Cheesehead 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Of course, requiring that administrators be adults is a perennial proposal: In fact, "editors are free to use age as a personal rationale for opposing adminship on RfA".

Exactly what they said!

Sometimes, a user has already expressed your exact thoughts on an RfA, and in these cases it's reasonable to state that you fully agree with them. On other occasions, you might find yourself in broad agreement with various points made, and in these instances, it's very useful if you state exactly which points you agree with (and any with which you disagree).

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose – as per most of what they said above. Agreeable 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – agree. VeryAgreeable 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose – 0003 makes a good point about the candidate's lack of experience in deletion debates, while 0005 highlights their tendency to get into long arguments on talk pages. However, I don't agree with 0005 when they say that the candidate has too few edits in the user talk space—what has that got to do with being an administrator? ReadTheDiscussion 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – looking at all the discussion, and through the editor's contributions, I see no reason to oppose and particularly agree with ExampleJ, ExampleK and ExampleL in their evaluation of the candidate. InformedSupporter 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Not providing a rationale

Votes that provide no rationale at all do not give constructive feedback to the candidate, nor do they contribute to the consensus-building process.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose – Silence 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – Pile-on 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Conversely, providing a brief rationale allows you to explain your reasoning, carries more weight in the bureaucrat's consideration of the candidacy, and may even convince others to change their views on the candidate.

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose – user behaves immaturely, as demonstrated here. Logicalandcoherent 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – in addition to the points raised by XYZ above, this user also has a demonstrated history of content contributions. Miss Helpful 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Must have 10,000 edits, three featured articles...

"WP:NOTENOUGH" redirects here. For Wikipedia is not done enough essay, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress.

Users often gain useful experience as they rack up edits. Particular contributions, such as involvement with a WikiProject, participation in various processes such as FAC, AFD and RFA, or discussion on talk pages, can not only give the user experience which will prove useful as an administrator, but also enable you to determine whether they are likely to prove trustworthy with the tools.

At the top of the comments section of each RfA, it reads "If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/..." Snap decisions based on the number of edits, whether overall or in a particular namespace, work on featured articles or in discussions, without taking into account the quality of these and other contributions and their relevance to adminship are not helpful. If you are tempted to leave a comment along these lines, consider whether you can take the time to check out their edits.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose – user only has ten Wikipedia talk: namespace edits which isn't nearly enough. TalkTalkTalk 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – user has worked on five articles which are now featured, so they must be good. FACFan 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose – user states that they want to focus on deletion, but they have only commented in two AFDs, and they didn't seem to understand the process.[10] [11] Ms.Deletionist 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – the user has not only worked on five featured articles,[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] but has engaged in constructive discussion about them, and has many good contributions to the project namespace.[17] [18] [19] AnotherFACFan 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't need the tools

Wikipedia benefits from having as many trustworthy administrators as possible. RfAs are intended to establish whether a particular user can be trusted with the tools, not whether they will use them to their maximum potential.

While it's great if administrators are active and use the tools they have, a contributor who uses the administrators' tools once a month still benefits the community. If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose.

Editors who work with a certain process (e.g. AfD) may feel that any admin candidate must be experienced with that process. However, most editors focus on only a few types of contributions to Wikipedia, doing little or nothing in other areas, and for any given process, a substantial percentage of existing admins have no involvement with it. There are few, if any, processes, besides editing and interacting with other editors, that a potential admin absolutely must know.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose – user sometimes disappears for a month at a time. Ever-presentEditor 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Oppose – user says they are mostly interested in deletion and don't intend to get involved with blocking vandals. TheBlocker 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose – user has no experience of any deletion-related processes, so I cannot judge whether they can be trusted in this field. JudgeByExperience 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – even though the user has little experience of dealing with vandals, their contributions to various talk page discussions[20] [21] [22] convince me that they can be trusted with the tools. ATrustee 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

User made a mistake

Every editor was once a new editor who was struggling to figure out Wikipedia, and every editor made mistakes during that process. Many good editors and valuable admins have made significant errors or even been blocked at one time or another. Editors should generally place more emphasis on recent behavior and on the editor's response to their errors than on whether any error can possibly be found. Avoid undue emphasis on minor problems or errors made a very long time ago.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose – This user made a mistake six years ago,[23] and only people who have been continuously perfect since their first edit should be admins. Unforgiving 01:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Example: Oppose – Someone complained about the editor at ANI, and if they were a good editor, then no one would ever have complained. GuiltyUntilProvenInnocent 01:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Example: Support – This user always adds an edit summary and has never misspelled anything. Perfectionist 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose – This user's work demonstrates ongoing confusion about fundamental policies, as can be seen in these diffs from last month: [24][25] WorkReflectsTheAdmin 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Example: Support – This user is mature enough to own up to and resolve his mistakes without creating drama. MaturityResolvesAll 01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Using another's opinion or name to cast a contradicting opinion

Arguments in RFAs should be made on the merit of the candidate alone, without even mentioning others, which could be construed as a personal attack.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose - User X supports, and I don't trust them, so this candidate must be bad. GuiltByAssociation

Example: Support - Opposers have been very rude, and that makes me like this candidate. PolitenessPolice

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose - I oppose this candidate because they need more experience. BuddingNovice

Example: Support - I support this candidate because of their work in fighting vandals. VandalVanquisher

Revenge and rewards

RFA votes should never focus on "getting back" at the candidate for AFD-ing the article you started, opposing your proposal, or anything of the sort. Inversely, support votes should not be given as rewards.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose - Candidate nominated my article for deletion. I Don't Like The Candidate

Example: Oppose - The candidate's nominator blocked me in the past. I Don't Like The Nominator

Example: Support - They have given me lots of barnstars and have been really nice. I Like The Candidate

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose - The candidate nominates obviously-notable articles, such as ABC for deletion. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Example). XYZ

Example: Support – This candidate is very encouraging to newcomers, and frequently leaves WikiLove messages for them when they add sources and follow the rules about WP:NPOV. –Teahouse hosting is fun!

Diffs without explanation

While a given diff may actually have a good reason for supporting or opposing the nomination, it may not be self-evident to other users. In addition to the diff, you should give some explanation of why the diff shows that the user is good or bad for adminship.

Unhelpful comments

Example: Oppose Per this diff. This Diff Is Bad

Example: Support Based on [26]. Positive Diff Finder

Helpful comments

Example: Oppose - As you can see in [27] and [28], this user has the tendency to make problematic reports at WP:AIV; if made an admin, they will probably make too many bad blocks. Protect Wikipedia against bad blocks

Example: Support - This diff shows the user truly understands CSD A7. CSD A7 identifier

Self-nominations

See also: Wikipedia:Why self-nominated RfA candidates could be more competent

Many excellent users are ready to take on administrator tasks, yet for whatever reason have not been nominated by another editor. If a candidate has demonstrated clearly that they have what it takes to be an administrator, then the sooner they become an administrator, the better for everyone. Thus, many people believe it is counter-productive to oppose a candidate based solely on the fact that the candidate is self-nominated. However, some users do not agree with this and hold a self-nomination to a higher standard than a non-self-nomination.

Editcountitis

router-netRouter Net 192.168.50.13 Admin Login Details

192.168.50.13 IP Address

For accessing the admin page write 192.168.50.13 in the address bar of web browser or hit on the below link.

login

Admin

How to Login To the Router IP Address 192.168.50.13

If you are using the net, the house in all probability has a router. You need to plug that router in & have simple Wi-Fi network functioning. What you may not gather is that the present network is less than ultimate. You may not have any set password, or the Wi-Fi network is not adjusted for your use. To perform any modifications to the Wi-Fi network, you have to login into the router with 192.168.50.13. Although the router was establish by an expert, possibly by the ISP, & you are contented with how things are, you still ought to use 192.168.50.13 if something goes incorrect. It is always convenient recognizing how to access the routers admin webpage if you have to modify anything, plus getting to this admin webpage is not as tough as you may think.

You must have an internet-able PC device, although it is presumably the situation if you have a router. A computer, smartphone, or laptop all are appropriate. Then you must connect the PC device to the router. You may do this through Wi-Fi or with an online Ethernet connection. With the PC device linked to the router, open the web browser of selection. Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari or Microsoft Edge, are few examples of standard browsers. With the open browser, write the 192.168.50.13 IP address, in the search box. Looking for 192.168.50.13 will proceed you to the login segment of your admin router page. You have to write the username & password joined with your router. The accurate details will proceed you to the router admin page menu. If you don't recognise the login info into your router & never altered them, often you can see the default login info on the bottom of the router. Instead, the website of router manufacturer must get them listed. If you have altered the info, and don’t remember them, you may reset the router again to factory settings. The login info will get set again to default, although you will lose any modifies you have done to your router earlier.

192.168.50.13 How to use

With the steps above, you may now access the admin router page. The after step to take is to alter the real settings to undergo your preferences.

Configuring Your Router by 192.168.50.13

The admin router page, with all its computer terms & numbers, may be threatening. A good place to begin is by modifying the login details stated above. With the above steps, accessing the admin page of router. On the foremost page, scrolling through the option list until you find the overall settings menu. Choose the router password or likewise named menu. Write your preferred password. It must be something you may remember although yet be secure. No matter whatever amendments you do, keep saving the info. Although inside the common settings menu, you may even alter the username of the router. Changing the Local IP Address

One more common setting individuals alter on their router is the real local IP address of the router. The router has 2 IP addresses, with additional on that below. If you choose to alter the IP address further than 192.168.50.13, you must take note of the latest address as you will require it for accessing the router admin page. Again, accessing the router admin page of the router. Way for doing that is specified above. On the foremost page, search for the general settings menu, or likewise named. You must layer choose "network settings." Scrolling through the menu until you see "router settings." Now write in in your IP address. Saving your alterations How to alter The Name & password of the Wi-Fi Network

There are additional settings linked to the router which you may play with, although you can even wish to change the Wi-Fi network info. The Service Set Identifier or SSID is your Wi-Fi network name. To modify this: Visit the general setting menu. Choose the wireless settings preference. In the SSID box, write in the preferred name of Wi-Fi network. Saving the modifications. If you want to alter the Wi-Fi network password, the choice will be in the similar menu as the SSID. Selecting the Wi-Fi network password box & write in the preferred password. Now you have to set the login info for the router & the Wi-Fi network. With the secured internet, you must further explore. You may improve the network or set parental controls, just as certain examples. More on 192.168.50.13

The IP address 192.168.50.13 is a private, local, or IP gateway address. 192.168.50.13 Is the router's address which PC devices attached to the network will use to send info requests on internet? The router even has a communal IP address. The communal IP address gets used by the ISP & any site you go to, to get the info of the website you go to, to the router, with the router sending that info, again to your PC display, through the personal IP address.

More on Locating the IP Address 192.168.50.13 is a general personal IP address, although it could not be yours. If 192.168.50.13 is not the IP address, you may hunt for the online router model, which must disclose the default IP address of the router. The IP address can even be listed in the router manual. If these ways don't work, you may use the PC to find the IP address.

If the PC Is Operating Microsoft Windows:

Hit on the network sign in the base right of your display. With the open menu, choose the Wi-Fi network use for the net. Choosing the Wi-Fi network will award you with a mixture of information. Amongst this is IPv4 that will have a series of numbers near to it which appear same as 192.168.50.13. Such numbers are the IP address. If the PC Is Operating On Mac OS X

Go to the Apple menu Hit on the system preferences option Hit on the network you use to access the internet Near the word router, you will see your listed IP address The only technique your personal IP address will modify is if you alter it. If the routers IP address doesn’t harmonize with 192.168.50.13 or one of the additional default IP address, then somebody might have altered it previously. If that is the situation & you need to reset it again to default, so you may do a factory reset on the router, although this will reset all on the router. What Is IP address for example 192.168.50.13? As above touched, 192.168.50.13 is a private IP address which the router uses to classify itself over the network, & a delivery point for info requests from PC devices with the Wi-Fi networks. 192.168.50.13 is not unique to the router as maximum router manufacturers use a range of personal IP addresses across their varieties of routers. With this said, a personal IP address is not even exclusive to a specific brand. It is performed this way, as the only individual who requires to identify the personal IP address is the router owner.

Yet how does the router understand that computer device is transmitting it data requests? So, the router is not the one device on the network, with all computers attached to the Wi-Fi network, even having a personal IP address for example 192.168.50.13. The series of numbers which is the IP address aids all devices communicating with the other. Also it is not only internet- able devices which have the IP address. Storage devices & Printers also have the IP address, hence your router & PC devices use this network may link with them & use them. Normally, the IP addresses of more devices on the Wi-Fi networks are differences of your router IP address, with the end number being unique.

As of scripting, while individuals comment on IP addresses, they are mentioning to IPv4. IPv4 represents version 4 internet protocol & is 4 sets of numbers split by a period, although it is not only any numbers. The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority or IANA has kept some numbers for personal IP addresses, & the rest may be used for community IP addresses. These retained numbers are:

As of 192.168.0.0 till 192.168.255.255 As of 172.16.0.0 till 172.31.255.255 As of 10.0.0.0 till 10.255.255.255

Those 3 varieties of numbers permit for around 18 million diverse personal IP addresses. As specified, usually the router manufacturers just abide by 2 or 3.

Public Vs. Private IP Addresses 192.168.50.13 is a personal IP address & directly linked to the Wi-Fi network. It is a series of numbers you use for accessing the admin page of router. But, as mentioned briefly, the router even has another communal IP address.

The ISP will allot the communal IP address, & you don't have much control on it. The communal IP address may be any series of 4 numbers, not comprising of the ones set aside for the personal IP address. The communal IP address lets your router to link & connect with the net. Any time you go to a website, it will find the communal IP address, & use it to transmit you the requested data.

One more differentiation between the public & private IP addresses is that the public IP address will probably alter. As specified, all routers in the world requires a distinct communal IP address, hence ISPs need to use dynamic IP address. The ISP issues its IP addresses available on for every -use basis. After a user separates from the net, their communal IP address gets passed to somebody else. Else, ISPs would not have sufficient addresses for all of their clients.

It is likely to have a communal IP address which does not alter, & these are known as unvarying IP addresses. Such kind of addresses are for cloud servers or websites that require to remain permanently online.

As the name proposes, a communal IP address is broadcast. It is for this reason that there is little concern towards a security of user. The communal IP address may show the approximate location of a client. But, in the correct hands, a communal IP address may offer more data than that. A hacker may use a communal IP address to construct a profile of a client.

A VPN service may offer you few luxury if you are anxious on the security whereas online. A VPN service conceals the communal IP address as of websites. In its place, a VPN supplies a random address which may reveal you in a different nation. Few routers accompany a VPN built-in service.

Most Popular IP Misspellings 192.168.l.254 10.0.0.0.1 10.0.o.o.1 192.168.8.1 192.168.o.1 192.168.0.l 192.168.|.| 192.168.l.l 192.168.0.| Most Popular Router Brands

3Com 3JTech 2Wire 4G Systems AboCom Accton Aceex Acelink Acer Actiontec Adaptec ADB Addon ADI Engineering Adtran Aerohive Afoundry AHOKU Airlink Plus Airlink101 Airnet AirTies AirVast Alcatel Alcatel Lucent ALFA Network Alice Allied Telesis Allied Telesyn Allnet Alpha Alpha Telecom Altice Labs Alvarion Ambit microsystems Amigo AMIT Amped wireless AMRISC Anker AOpen APC Apple Araknis Networks Arcadyan ARGtek Argus technologies Arris Asante AsiaRF Askey ASRock ASUS ATEL Atheros Ativa ATRON AT T Aukey Autonet AVM AWB Axesstel Aztech Baicells Banana Pi BandLuxe BaudTec BEC Technologies Beeline BelAir Networks BCM Belkin BenQ Best Data Billion Billionton Bitdefender Bitmain Blanc Bleuciel B LINK Blitzz Bluetake Bountiful Bountiful WiFi Broadcom Browan BT Budget Budget 1 Wireless Buffalo CALIX CAMEO CastleNet CC C CD R King Cellvision CenturyLink Cerio Charter ChipSip Circle Media Cisco ClearAccess CNet Coexistence Compal Compaq CompUSA Comptrend Conceptronic Connected IO Connectland Corega CradlePoint Creative Cudy CyberTAN Cyfre Card King Card China China Telecom Comfast Compex CZ.NIC Comptrendc DareGlobal DDWRT Router DealExtreme Dell Diamond DZS DirecTV D-link Dovado DQ Technology Dray Tek Dynalink Dynex ECI Edge Core EDGELESS Edgewater Networks Edimax EDUP EDUPLINK EE eero EHOME Elecom E Lins Eltel EMS Enable Network Encore EnGenius Enterasys Ericsson E TOP Eumitcom EZVIZ FAST FiberHome Fiberlogic Firefly Flyingvoice FMI Fonera Fon Wireless Fortinet Foxconn Free Freebox Fry’s Electronics F-Secure FTZ Oplink Fujitsu Siemens Furrion Gateway Gateworks Gemtek Getnet Gigabyte GigaFast Gigaset GL.iNet Global Sun Google Google Fiber Gryphon Online Safety Gstar Technology Guillemot H3C Router Hame Hawking Hitron HiWiFI Honeywell Hongdian HooToo HotBrick HP Huawei Humax IBM iBoss IC Intracom i-connect IGNITION Design Labs iiNet INexQ Innacomm innoband Inseego Intel Intelbras Intelligent Technology Intellinet Intermec Intex Intracom I O DATA IOGear IP-COM ipTIME ISONWIFI Itian J5 Create JAHT JCG Jensen Jetstream Jize Junxion Juplink KAONMEDIA Kasda KEEBOX Keewifi Kozumi Kyocera KZTECH L7 Networks Lava Layer3 TV LB LINK legrand Lenovo LevelOne LG Ericsson LG Nortel Linking Linksys Lippert Components Logitec Loopcomm LOUD Audio Luxul Luma MacSense Maginon Magnadyne Manhattan Medialink Medion Meraki Mercku Mercury MeshForce Microlink Micronet Microsoft MikroTik miniDSP MitraStar Mocet Modou MoFi Network Monoprice Motorola Movistar MQmaker MSI MultiTech System NAG National datacomm NEC NEC AccessTechnica NetComm Netcore Netduma Netgear Netis Netool Netopia Netronix Netsys NetweeN Network Everywhere Net Zen newifi Nexaira NEXIOM Nexx Nexxt Solutions NEXX Wireless No Geek Needed Nokia Norton Norton Core Nuvo Onelink On Networks Open-Mesh Option Orange Orange manufactured by sagemcom Ovislink Pace Pace America Pakedge Paradigm Paradyne Parker Vison Perfect PHICOMM Philips Pioneer Pirelli PIXLINK Planet Planex Plume Poray Procomp PROLiNK Pronto networks Pro Nets Proware Proxim QPCOM QTECH QUICK EAGLE NETWORKS Radia RadioLabs Radiolocus RAVPower Razer RCA ReadyNet Realtek RFNet Rocketfish Roqos Rosewill Rukus Wireless Runtop Sabrent Sagemcom Salt Samsung SAPIDO Scientific Atlanta Securifi Senao SerComm SFR Shanghai DareGlobal Technologies Shenzhen Shenzhen DareGlobal Technologie Shenzhen Gongjin Electronics Shenzhen MTN Electronics Shiko Siemens Siligence SAS SimpliNET Sitecom SkyLink SmartRG SMC SOHOware SonicWALL Sony Soundwin Soyo SparkLAN Sprint Sputnik StarTech SUNIMI Sweex Synology TCL T-Com Technicolor Tecom Tenda Telsey Texas Instruments Thomson Tilgin Top Global Toshiba TOTOLINK TP LINK TRENDnet TROY Turris TwinMOS TROY Wireless Ubee Ubiquiti U Media Unbranded UNEX Uniden UPVEL USROBOTICS UTT Verizon Viewsonic Vikosmo Virgin Media Visionicom VisionNet VIZIO Vodafone Vonets Watchguard Wavlink Well communications Well Shin Westell Western Digital WeVO Widemac Winstars Wippies WISE TIGER Wistron NeWeb WondaLink XAVi Xiaomi X Micro Xterasys Xunlei Youhua ZBT Z Com ZERO Zero One Technology Zhuhai Zhuhai FTZ Oplink Communications Zinwell ZIO Zonet Zoom ZTE Zunidata ZuniDigital ZyXEL More Router Most Popular IP Address

10.0.0.1 192.168.1.1 192.168.0.1 192.168.2.1 192.168.1.254 192.168.10.1 192.168.11.1 192.168.123.254 192.168.3.1 192.168.8.1 192.168.100.1 10.10.10.254 192.168.31.1 192.168.16.1 192.168.254.254 192.168.178.1 192.168.50.1 192.168.62.1 10.0.0.2 192.168.15.1 192.168.88.1 192.168.0.100 192.168.0.254 192.168.111.1 192.168.1.253 192.168.200.1 192.168.18.1 192.168.20.1 192.168.0.10 10.0.1.1 192.168.1.2 192.168.16.254 192.168.168.168 192.168.61.1 10.10.10.252 172.16.0.1 192.168.100.252 192.168.123.1 192.168.150.1 192.168.5.1 192.168.99.1 tplogin.cn 10.1.1.1 1.1.1.1 192.0.2.1 192.168.0.50 192.168.1. 192.168.101.1 192.168.10.253 192.168.1.230 192.168.1.245 192.168.1.252 192.168.129.1 192.168.13.1 192.168.169.1 192.168.199.1 192.168.2.10 192.168.212.1 192.168.2.2 192.168.2.254 192.168.24.250 192.168.245.1 192.168.252.254 192.168.254.243 192.168.29.1 192.168.33.1 192.168.40.254 192.168.4.1 192.168.42.1 192.168.5.200 192.168.62.10 192.168.7.1 192.168.72.1 192.168.7.254 192.168.80.240 192.168.8.254 192.168.85.1 222.222.222.1 More Ip Address Home

About Us

Contact Us

Privacy Policy

Blogs

Terms & Conditions

All IPs

All Brands

Default Logins

IP's Range

Port Checker

What is my local ip

Language

English

Portuguese

Spanish

French <

See also: Wikipedia:Editcountitis

It is unhelpful to keep counting beans once you know that you have plenty to eat.

One of the more problematic "arguments to avoid" is the improper use of the number of edits (usually determined by looking at the results from an edit counter). Certainly an editor with only 100 edits is too inexperienced to be an administrator. But the negation argument—that a lot of edits is needed to really know Wikipedia (and that this is critical for adminship)—has two different problems:

• First, a very high number of edits isn't a guarantee of trustworthiness. There are editors with tens of thousands of edits who have been blocked multiple times, as evidenced by their block logs. There are also editors with many thousands of edits who have racked these numbers up by using semi-automated tools such as Huggle to revert vandalism and issue warnings, something that (while valuable) requires neither editing skills nor much interaction with users (Wikipedia vandals typically are of the hit-and-run type). Some edits, such as ones that use a script, can create multiple edits in a single mouse click. Similarly, it's possible to do huge numbers of edits in a matter of days (if one puts in the time) to post "welcome" messages to the thousands of people who register every day, with very little further interaction. On the other hand, some editors are the type who do not save every little change or two that they make to an article and only actually save their work on Wikipedia after completely finishing all of the work that they planned on doing to the article. Thus, the creation of a lengthy, new article or a major revision to an important article may take place in a single edit. In short, the quality of edits needs to be taken into account—a participant who does not consider an editor's contributions in detail should not simply support or oppose a candidate based on the edit count (too high or too low).
• Second, setting an arbitrary threshold—say, 3000 or 4000 or 5000 edits—as a "minimum" to demonstrate experience penalizes candidates (and discourages potential candidates) who spend significant time improving articles and creating new ones. Finding sources and exercising good editorial judgment takes time, and while Wikipedia needs vandal fighters and fixers of typos and editors who tag problems, the true value of Wikipedia comes from those who improve the encyclopedia by adding content and (where appropriate) new articles. It's difficult to validly judge the quality of a candidate by looking at disambiguation pages or double redirects that they have fixed; it's much easier if the candidate has been a significant contributor to articles (particularly controversial ones) where they have had to interact and explain and make a case for changes.

In short, an RFA participant who looks only at the total edit count may well get a wrong impression of the candidate's contributions. To say something meaningful about the candidate, it's important to look at the contributions themselves, not just their number or distribution (as discussed in the next section). And certainly a decision to support or oppose a candidate should never be based solely on edit count.

One final twist on editcountitis is concluding that the candidate is experienced enough but arguing against the candidate based on edits per month: that "this candidate doesn't contribute frequently enough". For all practical purposes, everyone editing Wikipedia is a volunteer; it's inappropriate to demand a certain level of contribution from anyone. If a candidate can benefit the project by using their admin tools for just 10 minutes a week, that's 10 minutes more of useful admin work that Wikipedia gets that it otherwise would not.

Namespace balance

Different tasks generate different numbers of edits in different namespaces. Someone who spends a lot of time reverting vandalism or tagging unused non-free images will have a disproportionately high number of user talk edits because these actions, when properly done, include adding warning templates to user talk pages.

Sometimes a candidate receives opposition based on the balance of edits between the various namespaces. The extreme (and most problematic) of such arguments is that the candidate fails to have the appropriate balance—a desirable percentage in Wikipedia namespace (policy understanding), mainspace (article editing), user talk space (user interaction), and talk space (working constructively with other editors), for example. Sometimes this argument involves parts of namespace: AfD discussions, RfA discussions, etc.

There are at least three problems with this type of opposition:

• First, counts in a namespace can come from a variety of things: a high amount of Talk edits may be an indication of experience interacting with users, or simply semi-automated tagging for WikiProjects. A high number of User Talk postings may be dealing with problematic editors (a challenging matter to do well) or posting vandalism warnings to mostly anonymous IP talk pages (not so challenging, though still needed). Postings to Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk pages may be helpful, or simply chattiness; RfA and AfD postings may be insightful or simply bandwagon postings.
• Second, a particular skill (interacting with other editors, for example) can be demonstrated in several different namespaces, including user talk pages, article talk pages, Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk pages. Similarly, the ability to understand policy (and make good arguments about it) can be demonstrated in a number of places, not all in the same namespace. In short, namespaces and skills are not the same, so failure to have many edits in a single namespace proves very little, if anything.
• Third, editors contribute to Wikipedia in many different ways. Helping with copyright problems with images is different than identifying problems with new articles, and both are different than helping mediate disputes among editors, yet all three are things that demonstrate valuable skills that are important to an administrator. Wikipedia administrators are not required to be good at everything; in fact, most administrators tend to focus on what interests them: they're not being paid, of course; why work on what is tedious or uninteresting?

It's appropriate to oppose a candidate who has done nothing in an area that may be considered basic: editing, working with other editors, or understanding something about Wikipedia policies and the Wikipedia community. But opposing a candidate simply because they do not contribute in the same way that a participant does, or in the way that an "ideal" candidate would, is counterproductive: it can deprive Wikipedia of a good administrator, forcing existing administrators to focus less on the administrative task they prefer to do and more on what they feel they have to do.

See also

• Wikipedia:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters