Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report DreamRimmer 0 0 0 10:02, 4 June 2024 6 days, 13 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 20:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 15:31:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Incivility at RfA and everywhere on Wikipedia

/rant When people are rude at a grocery store, they are thrown out. When people are obnoxious at university, they are expelled. When an employee is a dick at work, they are fired. Why is Wikipedia different? Why is WP:CIVIL one of the few policies that's never enforced? Everytime the subject comes up, people say civility blocks don't work or they say we don't need the civility police. It's true that there are no civility police in modern society and that's because everybody enforces civility. Parents enforce it with thier children. Managers enforce it with their employees. Store owners enforce it with thier patrons. Wikipedia, and many online communities, don't enforce civility. This allows the most hostile members to rule those communities. Many of our best users leave because of the hostility here. We enforce WP:VANDAL, yet we don't enforce WP:CIVIL. Which one does more damage over the long term? At what point will we be willing to enforce WP:CIVIL? When there are 1,000 highly active users left? 100? I hope it's before 2 because when there's one person left, there'll be no need to enforce it. /end rant - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Because the powers that be, especially the early ones who set the standard, failed to enforce it, thereby setting a sad precedent, resulting in things like, as you mention, ogres ruling the roost and easy to get along with editors leaving. Changing institutional behavior once it's ingrained is VERY difficult in any organization, not just this one.PumpkinSky talk 03:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

agree with PS above, but I think another reason is that we can't find a good solid majority who agree on what is and what is not civil. With such a wide variety of backgrounds, upbringings, ages, cultures, etc. within our community, there is the constant debate about what is civility. While I and another 50 year old guy of similar cultures and backgrounds might have a conversation where we tell each other "ahh .. you're full of shit"; and neither of us are offended (although a paserby my bristle at the conversation)... when a 30-something guy tells a 15-year old girl the same thing ... it's quite a different story. Also: we get into the "language" itself; where shit, hell, idiot, piss, troll, vandal, and the omnipresent "fuck" are quick to draw "red-line" attention - I've seen experienced editors (including some admins) use sugar-coated condescending and baiting text to draw an (dare I say?) opponent into a "blunt" retort: and then lower that "civility" hammer. The bottom line is that the community as a whole can not seem to come to a clear consensus as to what civility truly entails. just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  04:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest that the way to enforce civility shouldn't the same way that we enforce other policies? Civility is so subjective, that if you were to block for it, even for a pattern of incivility, then the block will instantly be controversial. We do have a "bright line" of personal attacks which we can and should block for, but general incivility we need a better mechanism to deal with. At the moment, talking to the uncivil editor seems like the most sensible thing to do - and I mean actually talking to them, not dropping a bland "Your comments violate CIVIL" warning, which in itself could be regarded as uncivil. I would then suggest that the uncivil editor is given some time to reflect on the discussion, because the next step that can be taken is RfC/U - a fundamentally flawed process, but the only one we have. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudos Worm, not only do you see the problem, but you also offer a truly viable solution. I am honestly impressed. All too often on WP (as in life) we talk at one another rather than talking to one another. I think a vast majority of editors here would much prefer to see contentious situations dialed-down and settled rather than escalated into the word slug-fests that all too often happen. — Ched :  ?  09:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the "why" that Hydroxonium poses here, and I forgot to mention it, is "teh clique's" (intentional mis-spelling of the). Editors who have been around a while (especially in the same areas) tend to get to know one another and natural bonds are developed. While some cliques are more formalized than others, it's still only natural for an editor who has worked with another editor productively to come to his/her defense when their "friend" (at least in the online sense) is threatened or chastised. How often have we seen an experienced editor lose patience with either a new user, or an editor who outright refuses to take good advise onboard? Eventually the patience is exhausted, and a "STFU" or "GTH" comment is issued (often with some justification in regards to the later WP:IDHT editors). Then when an admin. issues a block, or another editor issues a warning - they are descended upon by 3, 9, 15 of the sanctioned editor's "friends". Once bitten, twice shy comes into play and people become hesitant to utter the word "civility". again .. just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  09:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Incivility is a massive problem; it could be solved, if we clamped down. I know there is disagreement about edge-cases, but far too often blatant incivility is tolerated. It needs to stop. It's a voluntary project; volunteers deserve respect. If I volunteered at a local animal shelter, and other workers continually spoke to me in the manner people do here, and if the management ignored the problem, I'd soon quit. I think much of the problem is immaturity. In English libraries, we allow, and indeed we encourage, children. However, if they start running around/shouting, they're disturbing more scholarly library-users, so they get kicked out. Same should apply here.  Chzz  ►  09:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I will just add what I've said elsewhere, as I can't think of a better way of putting it: Of course it's (relatively) OK for us to have to occasional one-off snark (though ideally not too often, and not too many of us at one newbie!). Sanctions should only really apply to things that are way beyond the pale, or to "persistent borderline (and beyond) offenders". We do, all of us, need to remember that as editors we have a dual responsibility to this project. The short-term and endless cleaning-up, and the longer term attraction, retention and training of the next generation. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. This is the ultimate purpose of the civility policy - making this a project where people want to stay, to improve, to collaborate. We have to be able not only to teach the next generation how to "do" - we have to be able to teach the next generation how to teach the one after that. Otherwise, this project is unsustainable. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As a few others have alluded to, I think the main problem here is cultural. Once people experience incivility towards them, they're more likely to do it back to others; writing a new policy or guideline will never change what is becoming an ingrained culture. Though relativity is a problem, there are some cases of blatant incivility which no well-meaning person should accept - here, I think we can enforce more strongly. With the rest, which is less clear, I do think a strict attitude change is needed. By this, we need to set a high standard of civility and stick to it: keeping to it ourselves and not letting people get away with uncivil comments. Much minor incivility is often due to someone just getting frustrated; however, when admins and experienced editors do not maintain a very high level of civility, newer, less mature and less experienced editors have little chance of achieving anything near that. Thus, we need an attitude shift among more experienced editors, strongly condemning and incivility; we need to take better action against the more obvious cases of incivility; and we need to encourage better civility from newer users. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And who is to be the judge of what's uncivil and what isn't? You? Me? Or shall we just go along with the current view that incivility is anything you don't like said by a non-administrator you don't like? Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus hits the nail squarely on the head: we need definitions. Rules have to apply equally to all. A rule that only applies to some people isn't a rule - it's oppression by another name. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it as clear as clear can be - one set of boundary lines, to apply equally to everyone, without exception. This means that the rawest noob should be able to call out the longest-serving Arb, or the most massive of quality content-contributors, for crossing those boundaries, and have the backing of the community when they do so. A word to the wise: to the tyrant, real justice always looks like anarchy. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Good luck with unambiguously defining incivility in a way that will gain consensus as a standard to be used for blocking. For the record, I have never blocked anyone solely for incivility. That being said, context is an important part of determining when someone just had a moment where they lost it and said something they would regret or didn't really mean, and a person who is just being a dick because they like being a dick. Users whose behavior consists solely of trolling can and should get blocked a lot faster than a user who actually contributes here who just got pissed off for a minute and said something intemperate. If somebody says "I'm going to rape your entire family, starting with your grandmother, and drink their blood while you watch" they are obviously trolling. If somebody says "fuck off" they might be saying it somebody who needs to be told to fuck off because putting it more politely didn't work. Judgement is what is needed when determining when to block. Admins are expected to have adequate judgement in this regard. Some do and some do do not. There are 1,500 admins. I defy you to find me 1,500 people anywhere on this earth who are in complete agreement on what is rude and what is not. So, mistakes are made, drama ensues.. If there is one admin who is making bad calls again and again, take them to WP:RFCU, but don't try to make a restrictive policy that would force admins to block based on some sort of "no-no words" blacklist without exercising judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh in empathy! Yes, very hard to do. I wasn't thinking of "words" so much as "attitude". The "I'm a god, you're a pillock" kind of thing is just one part of it. Individual swear words are not (to me) a real problem; snidey name-calling, on the other hand, is different. And yes, nobody should ever consider serious sanctions for the odd minor misdemeanour. We're human; we err; we're subject to errors of judgment. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

But they do, all the time. Have I ever mentioned that I was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we all come up with a list of rules and put each rule up for nomination. There are several editors that agree that civility is an issue at RfA. If a rule passed with 50% or more support, it becomes an enforced rule. If a rule doesn't pass, it dies. After the voting, all the rules that pass are put into a document in the RfA page say...WP:RfA/Code of Conduct. That sounds plausible to me. Any editor can contribute to this adding new rules as they see fit for a period of, let's say, 1 month. When a set of rules have been created, each will be put up for nomination and the community will decide if it should be an enforced rule or not. New rules can be made later but it must be approved by the community. I think this is a method that may work.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting thread, but it will go where all the other threads about changing wiki culture go -> NOWHERE.PumpkinSky talk 22:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's worth giving it a try to possibly fix what's already in the RfA.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with trying, but a few people talking isn't even to change institutional behavior in an organization with no real central authority. Gestalt, the whole is stronger than the sum of its parts. PumpkinSky talk 23:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If we can create a subpage in the RfA page where users can propose new rules and announce it to Wikipedia say through the watchlist of users, it may work.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details should defo be used to gain support for proposals before putting them out for a vote, otherwise it will end up as another WP:V fiasco. Leaky Caldron 23:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Cyberpower-that was recently done and you see what happened. Kudpung could tell you where the page is. 00:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? So much for an original idea.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Hydroxonium's original post, the comparison with real-life venues doesn't work when considering interactions in a place like Wikipedia. When you talk to someone in real life, that is a constrained, often private, one-to-one conversation, or at most a small group of people. That is very different to Wikipedia pages which all readers and editors can (in theory) read, and many editors and readers do (in practice) read. When you talk to someone in a real-life conversation, the words are spoken, heard and then (usually) lost to history. In contrast, here on Wikipedia, the words are saved in a database and can be, and are, read by many. It is as if the discussion you had with someone (maybe, to use the 'animal shelter' example, a discussion with a fellow worker using blunt language that would be acceptable if it took place in private, but unacceptable if it took place within earshot of a member of the public), that discussion is left hanging in the air in written form, available for all passers-by to read and discuss in turn. That is the fundamental difference between real-life discourse and discourse in an online and intensely public environment like Wikipedia. It is even more nakedly public than people discussing things on a stage in front of an audience (because those arriving years later can still read what was said). And that is why attempts to transplant real-life civility standards onto Wikipedia will fail. The core components to any approach to civility need to acknowledge the very public and disseminated (over time as well as space) nature of the discourse that takes place here. You are never just talking to the person you are talking to, you are also talking (potentially) to the rest of the editorship and readership, as well as innumerable future editors who may read what was said. Some editors instinctively adjust to this. Others (possibly correctly) either fail to see any need to adjust, or consciously try to be true to their inner selves and refuse to adjust. The result is usually a mess. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the result is a mess, but I don't agree with a lot of the rest. You left out a key point - wiki anonymity. Would Wiki Prima Donna/Ogre/Jackass Of Your Choice be that way if everyone knew who he/she was? In most cases no. PumpkinSky talk 03:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

When I go to work I dont want to be abused by the words or actions of the person next to me. I work here. I have collected some thoughts at User:Buster7/Incivility. Bottom line is that we as editors are given the moment to reflect before we hit SAVE. I have trouble giving a bad mannered editor free reign because of some inner self that "needs" to express itself no matter what.--Buster Seven Talk 15:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere Editor:Cool Hand Luke said this...This project does not exist to help editors grow a thicker skin. Our mission is to build an encyclopedia, not establish limits for low-level abuse that we think our volunteer editors should be willing to suffer. If we drive away more people than we attract, then it's a genuine loss to the project and we should fix it rather than label those who would prefer to work in a civil environment as "thin skinned." A first step in changing the mindset could be referring to each other as Editors rather than Users. Buster Seven Talk 15:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's rather telling I think that everyone who pontificates about incivility sees it as a fault that other editors have, never themselves. But of course that's vanishingly unlikely to be true. Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That is true, but even if everyone accepts that everyone can be uncivil at times, especially without realising it (this mainly is seen in a non-empathic form of failing to listen properly to those you are talking with - and happens rather a lot in face-to-face conversations as well, when it is simply called being rude and not listening), where does the debate go from there? If someone engages in a debate and someone else describes that engagement as 'pontification' (I'm assuming you are talking in general terms here), does that improve the debate or end it? It depends, really. What you have written could also be seen as a (less verbose) form of pontification. Personally, I find among the most frustrating things around here is the lack of structured debate. In a face-to-face conversation, it is quite easy (in just a few seconds) to explore byways and side bits of a discussion, to back up from dead ends and return to the main part of the discussion. Online, that is not so easy, unless you are familiar with the style of posting of those you are 'talking' to.

An example above is when PumpkinSky replied to what I wrote with "I don't agree with a lot of the rest", but didn't specify which bits they disagreed with or agreed with. Surely the central point of what I wrote: that online interactions are vastly different from real-world (meatspace) interactions is incontestable? PumpkinSky also referred to 'wiki anonymity', when I would have referred to online anonymity (more precisely pseudonymity) in general. Any online environment where participants are anonymous or pseudonymous leads to less restrained behaviour. That is such an axiomic underpinning of studies of online communities that I didn't really feel any need to mention it (my central point was that online discussions are public and enduring, and offline face-to-face conversations are essentially private and ephemeral).

One final point is that I would expect those who are more experienced in online communities to be more adept at interactions here (though some people fail to learn from experience). There are undoubtedly some for whom Wikipedia is their first experience of a properly interactive online community, and it always takes time to integrate. Even within Wikipedia, there long-standing mini-communities that have developed, and those sensitive to that will change the approach they take in those areas. It is very noticeable when someone more familiar with the norms of a different area of Wikipedia (or using their own norms) turns up somewhere else and dives straight in, and it takes a while for them and those present there to adjust. Which makes everything rather complex, but then that's not too surprising. Carcharoth (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Some people just think Wikipedia is a stage of satire where they can just walk in under a pseudo and do their own version of a dead parrot sketch. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Superficial civility from POV-pushers arguing for Randy's sword-wielding skeleton theory are a far greater threat to the encyclopedia that uncivil comments from productive content contributors. Admins who will sanction an editor for telling a POV-pusher where to go but refuse to look at the broader picture are also a threat to the integrity of our content. Cultural differences are also a substantial problem as some people get offended over comments that simply reflect a more robust civility standard. I suggest that no discussion of civility standards will ever gain traction without addressing the civil POV-pusher problem and without ensuring that self-appointed civility police are suitably constrained. EdChem (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. Why do the "productive content contributors" need to tell the "POV-pushers" where to go? I know many "productive content contributors" who are perfectly civil. POV pushing is a completely different problem to civility. As is vandalism, tendentious editing, copyright violations and many other problems that the encyclopedia faces. There's no need to be uncivil whilst tackling them. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A common (and highly effective) strategy in various pseudoscience topic areas (for example) is for believers to debate every point endlessly, maintaining superficial civility, until someone gets annoyed enough to say something allegedly uncivil, then the POV pusher runs to try and find a civility police admin to block the editor who got frustrated and wrote a "bad word". This is the essence of the civil POV pushing approach, and it is the reason that some of our articles are so bad. Some POV pushers use civility as a weapon, and it is far more damaging to content than the occasional lapse in civility. There may be no need to be uncivil when dealing with POV pushing but it happens in some of the murky parts of Wikipedia and I know which problem I see as more worth our efforts. EdChem (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it helps, I don't agree with blocking the frustrated editor (see my comment earlier in this thread as to how I think incivility should be dealt with). POV pushing is a problem, especially in pseudoscience areas and I'm sure you're right about the tactics these POV pushers use, but that shouldn't be a blocker for improving civility on Wikipedia. POV pushing may be a larger problem in that it directly harms the encyclopedic content, but incivility appears to be more widespread and also appears to indirectly harm the content in that it drives away good editors. I'd like to see both problems fixed and I don't see why fixing one breaks the other further. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Food for thought

According to dah list, Lostintherush is currently the Wikipedia admin with the least number of edits, with 10,085, so we can take that as a sort of minimum level of editcountis. ResMar 03:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Xer RfA was in 2006; standards then were lower than today. →Στc. 03:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I recall the standard being 3,000 edits and 6 months experience back in 2006; I passed with a little over 4,000. So now it seems 10,000 and 1 year is the minimum. Good times. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

? There are quite a few currently active admins with much lower edit counts than 10,000. 28bytes (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with 28bytes. Off the top of my head, MGodwin (talk · contribs) is an admin and has only 300-odd edits. The problem with ResMar's approach is that he assumes all admins are in Wikipedia's top 5,000 contributors by edit count. Jenks24 (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

MGodwin's tools were WMF-given. There's a slightly relevant thread at WP:BN#Retired_.22.28WMF.29.22_accounts. →Στc. 08:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, my point was that ResMar's analysis is faulty. A less drastic example is that of Tristanb (talk · contribs), who has less than 5,000 edits. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Worm That Turned was the first editor who came to mind, mainly because he's the nominator of the currently active RfA. IIRC Elen of the Roads both passed RfA and was elected to ArbCom last year with under 8,000, and occasionally less than 4,000 edits is sufficient to pass RfA. Somebody probably has a nice chart of all that someplace. 28bytes (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of the original Star Trek crew earlier-promoted admins with a surprisingly small number of edits, actually. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That was at a time when there were unsurprisingly few articles, policies, guidelines, and editors. A start had to be made somewhere. Criteria have risen concomitant with the maturing of of the encyclopedia, and the longevity and experience (not necessarily the maturity) of the users. Other Wikipedias actually have minimum requirements, but they have the advantage that the criteria were established when the projects were created. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. An organisation should have rules and standards and infrastructure which fit its needs. Otherwise we have another Citizendium. bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just to explain the reason that ResMar's list show the lowest at 10k, xe was looking at the the list of Wikipedian's by number of edits, which does not include any wikipedians with less than 10k edits. There are actually many admins with less than 10k edits, as 28bytes says, I'm one of them. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

An ongoing "glitch", from my perception, is how little value seems to be placed on the contributions of those who gnome around in absolutely vital areas, and whose work we simply could not survive without, who have done little in the way of "article creation" because their major talents lie elsewhere. We have no end of extremely clueful people who would make excellent admins - particularly using their tools in their own areas of expertise - who would be shouted down at RfA because of their perceived "lack of content work". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pesky,

"Shouted down at RfA because of their 'perceived lack of content work'" was a bit excessive.

Many editors (e.g. Ellen of the Roads) have demonstrated an ability to explain policies and to mediate (refocus discussions) without having extensive content contributions, and so have had their RfAs succeed. Even the most recent RfA was successful, despite the (justified or unjustified?) concerns with maturity/3 previous RfAs and a focus on non-writing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I probably did word that a tad too strongly. I haven't looked at very recent RfA's, but I have noticed in the past that people who do vast amounts of work "elsewhere" (copyrightish, image-ish, template-ish and so on) don't always seem to get the credit they deserve for it. Not all of us are brilliant writers, but a brilliant writer doesn't necessarily make a brilliant admin, either (though there's always a requirement for clue when it comes to what is acceptable content). T'wiki is like a highways system - we need road-repairers, signpost-makers, traffic police, verge-trimmers and litter pickers just qs much as we need people to build the roads (articles) in the first place. Maintenance, though not necessarily kudos-accumulating, is vital. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely a sentiment that admins should be editors who have created a lot of content. I think the argument is usually that non-creators might delete more carelessly, not fully appreciating the effort it takes to write, or something like that. Gnomes can certainly have successful RfAs, though—even ones with < 10k edits. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it absolutely ridiculus and stupid to use article creation as criteria for determining if a possible admin can be trusted with blocking, protecting, deleting, or vandalism fighting. Administrative tools don't have anything to do with Article creation and for me doesn't make sense. If you looked at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slon02 4‎, you will see the I gave my strongest support and a response from another editor as well as my reply to it. Perhaps someone here can answer the question I placed there.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 18:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

How can admin tools have nothing to do with article creation when the only purpose of Wikipedia is the articles?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In practice, admin tools are rarely needed in relation to article creation per se. Admin tools are more likely to be needed in relation to problematic editing, disputes, dealing with very low quality content written by others, vandalism, seeking and assessing consensus, awkward shunting of articles which have been substantially edited by others, project-space bickering, &c. Experience of those issues - which are surely also rooted in articles, one way or another - may better equip an administrator than experience of creating a thousand stubs or a dozen beautifully-worded FAs. If somebody has their shoulder to the plough simply writing nice content, that's great - we need more of those people - but if everybody was like that we'd scarcely need administrators at all. It's all the other stuff which fuels the need for administrators. bobrayner (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And without a background in the articles themselves they're stumbling around without accurate knowledge of how their actions are effecting the end product.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite. And how can you take seriously anyone put in charge of a supposed encyclopedia project who would write "beautifully-worded"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the conclusion drawn from the above discussion is that a good admin will be good at article writing and experienced in dealing with the problematic editors. Some will be better at one more than the other, but editors gain vital admin-required experience from both taking part in writing articles and in dealing with disputes & disruption. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, this criterion may cost a candidate some support but is unlikely to torpedo an RfA on its own. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't use article creation as a criteria for determining the ability of an admin. When it all come down to it, you essentially don't need admin skills to create an article.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't "admin skills" somewhat of an oxymoron? Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that you don't need to be an admin to create an article and therefore shouldn't be considered as a criteria for candidates. For me, article creation tells me nothing other than the fact that he likes and can create great articles. It doesn't show me though that he is capable of understanding policy or abilities that admins need to have to show they can be trusted with the block, delete, restore, and other administrative buttons.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

For me, article creation tells me nothing other than the fact that he likes and can create great articles. Then I feel sorry for you.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not a strict judge. Article creation shows that an editor is quite impressive in editing but it doesn't show me that he can be an admin.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to know where to start with a misunderstanding like that. Article creation shows spit, and I've never seen anyone say anything different. Have you ever looked at new pages for instance? Writing a new page is piss easy. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Cyberpower, admins have to close AfDs, which often require knowledge of the notability guidelines. How will know them if you don't try to satisfy them? →Στc. 02:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point, however, I don't believe they have to make 100's of them. I believe that if they are able to make an article, and doesn't get nominated for deletion, that would prove sufficient enough for me.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 02:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about content creation, not article creation. I don't think many care much about creating articles, its good writing that people look for. Although, like I said, lack of extensive content contribution is not necessarily going to kill an RfA on its own. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can recruit sufficient IRC buddies then nothing will kill your RfA. Just the way it is. Malleus Fatuorum 06:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been an admin for over 5 years and a bureaucrat for over 4 and I have 18,829 edits (with possibly a thousand of them being from renaming people and getting automatic page moves from the rename tool). Just thought that might be an interesting fact for people. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Think about this. I've way more than 100,000 edits more than you, but I'm not anodyne enough ever to become a bureaucrat. That's the difference. Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Stats

Top 100 admins by lowest edit count

mysql> select user_name,user_editcount from user_groups join user on ug_user=user_id where ug_group="sysop" order by user_editcount asc limit 100; +----------------------------------+----------------+ | user_name | user_editcount | +----------------------------------+----------------+ | EyeEightDestroyerBot | 0 | | ProcseeBot | 0 | | TorNodeBot | 12 | | Orphaned image deletion bot | 31 | | AWBCPBot | 107 | | Midom | 227 | | Orphaned talkpage deletion bot | 245 | | MGodwin | 335 | | Lustiger seth | 490 | | Nanobug | 507 | | Chuck SMITH | 598 | | BradPatrick | 652 | | Phil Bordelon | 791 | | Samulili | 796 | | Sheldon Rampton | 888 | | Tompagenet | 893 | | Yet Another Redirect Cleanup Bot | 922 | | 7SeriesBOT | 1014 | | Marumari | 1139 | | Noldoaran | 1285 | | Khym Chanur | 1339 | | Sugarfish | 1371 | | Khendon | 1378 | | AstroNomer | 1539 | | Cprompt | 1655 | | Yelyos | 1677 | | Ffirehorse | 1731 | | EvanProdromou | 1783 | | Dgrant | 1932 | | MykReeve | 1992 | | Waltpohl | 2029 | | Jake Nelson | 2155 | | CYD | 2384 | | Robin Patterson | 2443 | | Hashar | 2481 | | Phils | 2500 | | Goatasaur | 2533 | | Taw | 2560 | | Thespian | 2575 | | Ludraman | 2575 | | Dwheeler | 2664 | | Mackeriv | 2667 | | RobLa | 2732 | | Bjarki S | 2817 | | Cyp | 2891 | | Ramallite | 2947 | | Zippy | 3069 | | Refdoc | 3076 | | Kmccoy | 3100 | | Qaz | 3193 | | Hamster Sandwich | 3203 | | Humblefool | 3241 | | IceKarma | 3264 | | Scott Burley | 3298 | | Caltrop | 3304 | | Tkinias | 3315 | | RedWordSmith | 3426 | | Graft | 3440 | | William Pietri | 3493 | | Lachatdelarue | 3612 | | Pratyeka | 3702 | | SorryGuy | 3717 | | Luigi30 | 3725 | | @pple | 3729 | | Joke137 | 3813 | | Wgfinley | 3840 | | R. Baley | 3868 | | Ngb | 3904 | | Goodoldpolonius2 | 4026 | | Brian | 4074 | | Gator1 | 4146 | | XDanielx | 4162 | | Mkweise | 4235 | | Sethant | 4248 | | Vague Rant | 4251 | | Lexi Marie | 4261 | | Tristessa de St Ange | 4274 | | Arvindn | 4275 | | Borisblue | 4276 | | Turnstep | 4278 | | Jamesday | 4305 | | Jamesofur | 4348 | | R3m0t | 4351 | | Lee Daniel Crocker | 4388 | | Flockmeal | 4411 | | Premeditated Chaos | 4423 | | Jrdioko | 4448 | | Tom- | 4450 | | JeLuF | 4488 | | Renesis | 4535 | | Sebastiankessel | 4538 | | AlainV | 4569 | | Tristanb | 4594 | | Jdavidb | 4606 | | Andrew Yong | 4608 | | Daniel Quinlan | 4657 | | Hawstom | 4659 | | Fennec | 4696 | | Rfl | 4698 | | Christopher Sundita | 4699 | +----------------------------------+----------------+ 100 rows in set (0.01 sec) mysql> select AVG(user_editcount) as Average_Admin_EditCount from user_groups join user on ug_user=user_id where ug_group="sysop"; +-------------------------+ | Average_Admin_EditCount | +-------------------------+ | 34786.0066 | +-------------------------+ 1 row in set (0.01 sec) —SW— converse 19:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:Midom takes the cake as the non-bot admin with the lowest edit count. Average admin edit count is 34786. —SW— ^squeal 19:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumably that's the average edit count as of today, not when they were promoted? Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You should look at the median edit count. Long tail and all. Prodego ^talk 19:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So where can I find that? I don't have access to the database. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Finding the edit count of an admin at the moment he/she was promoted is far more difficult than finding their current edit count. I did attempt this once (using the edit count stats that are usually posted on the talk page of the RfA) and found that the average edit count of new admins was:

• 22,850 in 2010
• 16,071 in 2009
• 11,930 in 2008
• 9,796 in 2007

But I wouldn't trust that those stats are anywhere near 100% accurate. I can grab the median of all admins' current edit counts off toolserver in a moment. —SW— ^comment 20:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think for a moment it would be easy. But how did you get access to the database? Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so average edit count of all admins at the current moment is 34,786, median edit count is 19,783. (Toolserver provides database access for users with a Toolserver account. I figured someone with 100k more edits than me would have known that... ;) —SW— ^soliloquize 20:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of Toolserver accounts. I only write stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

On a project designed to develop an encyclopedia? .. What a novel concept. — Ched :  ?  01:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The increase in edit counts is not representative of actual effort/contributions to the project. Getting 10K edits today is nothing with all the tools available that make it easy to make 100's of edits in little time.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap, forgot I ever wrote this, come back later and o_O ResMar 02:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice analysis Snottywong and I suppose it was dumb of me to think all admins would be in the top 5,000, yeah. ResMar 03:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

We ought not to admin bash across the board, I can think immediately of many admins who appear to be proper and honest human beings. Unfortunately though I can think of far more who appear to be dishonest cunts. Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Which of course posits the existence of "honest cunts". Are you providing examples? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be an interesting chart. 28bytes (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be very happy to provide examples, and I'm rather puzzled that you appear not to understand the difference between an honest cunt and a dishonest cunt. They're both cunts, but one believes (s)he's defending Wkipedia, whereas the other is just a self-important wanker. Is that clearer? Malleus Fatuorum 06:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)