Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Significa liberdade 120 15 2 89 22:18, 21 September 2024 3 days, 7 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 14:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 14:38:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Idea on RFA's

First, if you had decided to table talking about changing RFA for now, I have not gotten any notice of that. Anyway, I have just recently changed my opinion on how we should change RFA. At first I had believed that we shouldn't change the system at all. Then, I read from (of all people), a post from Kelly Martin's blog from a while ago that really sounds good. I would put a few changes to it though. The quoted portion is an edited version of what Kelly originally proposed that puts in my changes to her system. The link will be supplied so you can all see the original. Objections are appreciated if need be.

Copyright violation removed - see below. -- Trevj (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Original link is here: http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2006/10/proposal-for-adminship-on-english.html --Thebirdlover (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting this thread but AFAIK such extensive copyrighted extracts/portions can't be pasted on talk pages or elsewhere (same reasons as article space). Therefore, the remaining copyrighted portion(s) (after your edits) should probably be removed per WP:TALKO because there doesn't seem to be anything on the linked blog indicating that the post is released under a free license. Of course, the contents could be paraphrased, if you feel like doing so. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I understand your points. I do think I need to clarify though. Some of the quoted portion has been edited from what Kelly originally posted on her blog by me. I would say about 2/3 of the writing posted, and the basic idea is Kelly's and about 1/3 of the writing is mine. Most of what I did was edit parts of what Kelly wrote to what I think is a feasible alternative. She has not posted a copyright on her page so I am not sure if she has limited her work. I think even if she has for some reason, this could count as fair use because I have only used around 42% of the original post in the sampled portion and only about 30-35% or so of the original post remained after I edited it. The post was also attributed to. About paraphrasing, I am not really good at it so I can't really do that although anyone else is free to. --Thebirdlover (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Just as one example, admins have to deal with copyright issues. Anyone who thinks there needs to be a copyright notice on a page to have a copyright is not qualified to be an admin. I deal with editors every day who think that. We don't need admin who think that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping that Kelly Martin's contributions may have included similar text here under a free licence. But apparently she made no contributions here during October 2006. Therefore, I'm removing the above copyvio. -- Trevj (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know who Kelly Martin is, but that sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. One month's experience? A bit like allowing 10 year olds to stand for Parliament. Someone with one month editing who can find their way round this place is 99% certain to be a sockpuppet. Two months sit out if they happen to be away and don't get the message in the five days? I can be away from home for over five days - usually I manage to keep online, but not always. And go through the palaver every three months? No way. Something Kelly Martin mightn't know about is the ability of admins to read deleted material. Are you proposing that admins shouldn't be allowed to (leaving it all to Oversighters), or are you happy with an unknown here for a month (no mention of edit count) being able to do this and see the hidden stuff? I'm not happy about it at all. Peridon (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Martin is a former admin and arbitrator. 28bytes (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Last seen December 2008. Peridon (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Did you read the responses before posting? Keep in mind that an admin has to have a solid grounding in policies and guidelines, then recognize that (for better or for worse) the size and complexity of policies and guidelines have probably doubled since 2006, then recognize that even in 2006 the median response was "are you nuts?"--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the responses. Only 6 or 7 people responding in the original post can't really define consensus. I believe at least 20 people or more need to be involved in policy change debates to make consensus. Of course, some people will think differently about how many are involved. But major stuff like this would need to have wide consensus. I do think anyone with an experienced enough mentor can get a very good grip on policies in a month though. If someone would disagree, they could just say they disagree and then something similar to a current RFA would start with a time limit of 7 days. It isn't really that hard to do. --Thebirdlover (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• One month is nowhere near enough experience, and having to rerun every three months would drive away most of our admins - this is the daftest suggestion I've seen in a long time here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of rerunning at RFA once in a while, but I (and probably the vast majority of administrators) simply don't have the time to rerun every three months. Every year is probably the most frequent that would be feasible (not in terms of ability to gain consensus, mind you, but in terms of not mutilating the personal lives of administrators beyond recognition while they're tearing their hair out at RFA four times a year). Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• This is a really, really bad idea. One month of active editing is nowhere near enough to get the skills and experience needed for adminship. More generally I don't think that tenure or edit count are very good predictors of suitability - we have plenty of long-term editors with loads of experience who would make poor admins. That's not a problem, but it would be if people with X edits or Y months of experience were presumed to have the necessary skills. The idea of reconfirming admins every four months is just silly. If nothing else we'd have to have 90 RfAs a week to cope. Hut 8.5 19:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is just a terrible idea. I don't have high standards for admins compared to some people but I would oppose every candidate for lacking experience, and I'm sure I would not be alone. It's also very easily exploitable by sockpuppets. I don't object to the idea of a term of adminship per se, but 3 months is far too short to be practical. The workload on RFA would be enormous and lead to even fewer people bothering with it. If I had read this in 2006 I would have had the same reaction as I do now. The community's RFA standards in 2006 weren't vastly different to the present, but candidates had a lower edit count and a candidate who had less than 6 months experience was very rare. James086^Talk 20:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• The suggestion is just as misplaced as it was 7 years ago - if not more so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• It was an interesting proposal, not unlike many of the things that have been brought up on this page over the course of several years. However, I agree with many of the comments left there at the time and consider them relevant to this day; also, James086 above makes excellent points. It is simply not workable in present-day Wikipedia, where experience is extremely important to functioning effectively as an administrator. To those unfamiliar with Kelly Martin, she was an administrator from June 2005 until September 2006, when she resigned on the heels of a particularly nasty dramafest. She was directly appointed to ArbCom by Jimbo Wales on a temporary basis in October 2005 (alongside Mindspillage), but she resigned one month later; her subsequent attempt at re-election in January 2006 was withdrawn after it became clear that it would not be successful. She also retained checkuser and oversight permissions but relinquished them at the same time as her administrator rights. She was a deeply controversial figure throughout 2006 and 2007 for various reasons, not least of which were allegations of abuse and egregious incivility on her part. And how does someone who's only been here since June 2008 know all of this? Simple — I read. Why would I be interested in that? Long story. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've read about Kelly Martin too but not nearly to the extent Kurtis has and he explained about expertly. I was under the impression that she was controversial, but I thought she had a longer amount of service on ArbCom and had more support overall on Wikipedia than she actually had. I still like some of the system she had and still support it to an extent even though it would be really hard to carry out. I clarify in a revised version I have in the next post down. --Thebirdlover (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Kelly Martin? No, definitely not. I hate speaking ill of anyone, but her activities throughout 2006 and 2007 garnered her the resentment of a broad segment of the community, and for good reason. Her unilateral sysop actions and inability to take criticism of any sort led to the filing of three different RfCs regarding her conduct throughout 2006. She had an attitude of arrogance, condescension, and obstinance that rubbed several people the wrong way — from Kelly Martin's perspective, she was always right, and anyone who disagreed with her opinion either spoke from ignorance or was blatantly attempting to antagonize her. In 2007 she was barely active at all, save for her blanket opposition of numerous RfAs because the given candidate was "not endorsed by a WikiProject". She also tended to be extremely uncivil towards anyone who crossed paths with her. Just to give you an idea of how little respect she had from the community by the end of her editing tenure, this is her 2006 ArbCom candidacy, and this is her subsequent reconfirmation RfA. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • I think more people would be willing to support it if I would not put in that reelections had to occur every three months. In that case, admins would be approved unless an objection was made for a serious reason (this would remove sock puppet's, trolls, meatpuppets, and SPA's) by autoconfirmed users in which case, a 7 day voting period would start similar to the current RFA's except with a time limit. I would like this to be a revised compromise proposal. I paraphrased it so I don't believe it will be taken down --Thebirdlover (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • • RfA is about much, much more than ensuring the candidate is not a sockpuppet, troll or SPA. Hut 8.5 10:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I meant that would remove objectors who were sock puppets, trolls, and SPA's. I have no opinion on who could actually be nominated and the people nominated obviously do have to have some prestige but I don't want to get into that. The objections and the people who could object would need to have that standard though so they wouldn't be used for the wrong reason. It would also require clear policies to be developed to define how someone objecting could be a troll over someone who is objecting for a valid reason even though it is a minority concern. --Thebirdlover (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Nice summary. Just one small trivial nitpick: she didn't resign from the ArbCom in November 2005; she just announced that she would not run in the imminent election. As further proof, here's a case that she accepted after she had made the announcement. Graham87 11:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, OK then. Thanks for correcting me. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 11:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What is easier?

A genuine inquiry from an interested anon: What is easier? (1) Taking a chance on an admin and being able to reverse his/her misdeeds, or (2) running the risk of losing motivated editors by nitpicking? 96.26.111.51 (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. - this is not a facetious inquiry 96.26.111.51 (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It's just reflective of the larger shift toward the rejection the wiki principles that the site was founded on. The "trust by default, make it easy to undo" ideal has gone by the wayside. Gigs (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Potential admin candidates

Did a little digging in the user database. I looked for users who have 10,000+ edits, who aren't already admins, and aren't bot accounts, and who have made at least 100 edits per month in the last 12 consecutive months. I found 807 users. I then ran all 807 users through my admin scoring tool and put the results in a sortable table. If you're looking for editors to nominate for adminship, this table might introduce you to a wider range of editors you previously weren't aware of. You can find the table at User:Scottywong/Admin hopefuls. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 23:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Amazed that Johnbod isn't an admin (unless of course, he doesn't want to be, which I'd completely understand). A few more there I thought already were, as well. Some who probably should be ... and quite a few who wouldn't pass in a million years ;) Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed me. I meet the criteria but wasn't listed. Not complaining! I have no intention of ever being admin, but I thought you'd like to know. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I meet the criteria too (and my score is 770) but, as everyone knows, I'm not passing anytime soon :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Evanh, are you sure you've had 100+ edits for all of the last 12 months? You're not opted in to TParis' edit counter. Hahc, I think your edit count of 63 in Feb 2012 is what kept you off the list. When I started doing this analysis, it was still February (2013), so I didn't include any contributions from February, I started in January 2013 and went back 12 months from there. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 02:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Just now opted in. Looks like I had a count of 80 last February, so that would account for it. Never mind! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@Scotty: That explains it, then. Thanks for the clarification. And Good work on that table :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I signed the don'twannabe box somewhere years ago, which still stands thanks (I rather like heading the table though....). Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for going to all this work, Scotty. Very interesting. I see that I am somewhere in the top 100, but I wouldn't dream of applying as the process now stands. I also noticed at least two names on the list who DID try for adminship, and failed, within the past few months. Does this tell us anything? --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

All of this, of course, is based on the premise that your admin scoring tool is useful or good, which is something that is by no means agreed upon by a majority of the community. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that it's at least better than throwing darts at a list of names on a wall. In which case, it's better than anything else that currently exists. If you have suggestions to improve upon it, I'm all ears. Also, before considering future knee-jerk bashing of the things I spend my time on, please note that I was very careful to include a thoughtful disclaimer above the table that warns people about the limitations of the tool. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 02:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The disclaimer isn't accurate. It says that the tool "generates a score for each user that indicates their readiness for adminship", when it doesn't actually do that; it indicates that the user has been compared against a set of criteria that have been coded into the tool. And while we all appreciate tools, Sven Manguard's reaction isn't exactly knee-jerk— the same criticisms arose the last time you advertised the tool. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a good starting point. I'd like it even more if I scored better. :-) GFHandel ♬  02:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that thinking that this tool is going to tell you how ready you are for adminship is a bit of nonsense. Every Wikipedian with some time here will understand that this tool is just a way to measure the technical capability for adminship; the behavioural and maturity readiness is assessed by the community, but this is a good point to start. I am sure that Scotty, when designing the tool, did not try to replace human judgement. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm also surprised that Johnbod isn't an admin, but the list does have some key flaws, candidates who just failed a RFA, former administrators desysopped by ArbCom, or in two cases editors who were administrators but gave up the tools without controversy, other editors near the top who would never pass a RFA with our current standards, and so forth. I wouldn't fully rely on it. Secret ^account 03:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I also noticed editors who are scored in the 500s and 600s who I think will strongly pass a RFA any given day, heh on the scoring criteria. Secret ^account 03:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a tool for finding potential candidates, in which it works perfectly. It doesn't find good sysops, it doesn't even find good candidates, it finds potential reasonable candidates which everyone is free to nominate or not based on actual judgement. Sort of like an admissions committee receiving a pool of students who were in the top 10% of their class. Nobody expects that to be the end of the application process, and the committee doesn't have to only take students from that pile, but it's not a bad place to start and it's awful hard to accept (and reject) students if you couldn't even consider them in the first place. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Weird list. Heavens, making some of them admins would improve the average quality of both non-admins and admins. Tony (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Why Tony, I do believe *you* are on that list. Now who can we get to nominate you....? —Neotarf (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting tool - may be good for potential prospects to indicate the areas of the project they may need more experience in. Is there more info that could be generated - like edits to policies and edits to RfC and help desk type pages?

• Edit count: 63366 +125
• Account age: 1510 days +125
• Block count: 0 +140
• User rights: reviewer rollbacker +8
• User page: Exists +10
• Missing edit summaries (article namespace): 2.1% +39
• Average monthly edit count (last 12 mo.): 556 +45
• Minimum monthly edit count (last 12 mo.): 238 +45
• of edits to Article namespace: 29333 +40
• of edits to Wikipedia namespace: 5865 +40
• of edits to various Talk namespaces: 10503 +20
• Non-redirect articles created: 28 +58
• Edits to admin areas (AIV/RPP/AfD): 183 -10

Total Score: 685 Moxy (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing this SW, I hope nominators who have expressed concern about lack of candidates will take use it as a quick starting point Jebus989^✰ 10:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Don't really understand all the flak directed at SW; this is a useful idea for throwing up potential candidates (which is more objective than the quasi-political system currently in place). It's a good place to start. Thanks SW Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• I couldn't help but notice that Carrite scored the third highest on the admin table with a 927, but recently failed at RfA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  The tool has the same weakness as nominating by straight edit count; namely that the statistics it produces cannot and (in my opinion) should not account for behavioral issues. That takes human assessment. --Izno (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  An analysis of Carrite's recent RFA reveals that much of the opposition was based on the temporary nature of his request (getting the mop only to see deleted pages as part of an ArbCom case), but many of the editors who opposed on these grounds expressed their belief that Carrite would pass a full, regular RFA and that they'd likely support him. He likely would have passed a conventional RFA at the time, but he just didn't want the sysop tools (something that's very respectable and completely understandable, but led to the failure of his very unusual request). Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• SW, would you mind publishing the value you give to each type of item and the maximum for each item and associated maximum value where applicable? I have a feeling that might help tune the tool. Just a thought. --Izno (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I did that once when I first developed the tool, and created a survey where people could rank the relative importance of each criteria. I then averaged all of the survey responses, scaled them so that 1000 is the highest possible score, and that became the scoring criteria for the tool. There certainly are other criteria that the tool could look at to refine the score even further, but each additional criterion it looks at makes it take longer (and it already takes plenty long), so in the interest of striking a balance, I'll likely not add any additional criteria.

  I feel that the tool is perhaps more useful in this capacity of going through a large group of editors and creating a "short list" that can then be manually evaluated, rather than just looking up the score of a single editor. After all, the tool simply checks many of the same things that we all check in admin candidates: edit count, # of articles created, block count, recent activity levels, etc. It's a tool to help us do the basic checks more quickly, and narrow down a list of candidates to the ones who wouldn't likely fail an RfA on technical grounds. There is, of course, no practical way for an automated tool to judge the likelihood of an editor failing an RfA on behavioral grounds, and it was never intended to replace human judgment. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 14:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed. My question was more aimed at being transparent about the current considerations than the addition of new considerations. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  In the interest of discouraging gaming of the tool, I decided to delete the detailed information about how the scoring algorithm is designed. Suffice it to say, it was crowd-sourced to some extent, and is not just a representation of my personal preferences. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 17:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  Sure, I thought this might be the case. I was aware of the development effort. Thanks though. --Izno (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Might be worth having a cut-off on the table, SW: I doubt that those sitting with negative scores would be enthused by their positions. I agree that this works best as a "fell through the cracks" spotter than as a general set of heuristics for finding random good candidates, not least because any admin-by-numbers system is easily gamed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. I'd be happy to remove everyone who scored below... 250? 500? I'm not sure what would be the appropriate cutoff. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 16:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The page itself states that the users above 500 are generally the ones that should be evaluated. I imagine that the cutoff should be in the realm of 300 to 400. --Izno (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

While I still have some pauses about the list, I am looking at nominating several of these users with 600 and 700 scores, especially those I never heard of but a quick glances of their contributions looks strong. Secret ^account 16:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't cut off the list below 400; I see that George_Ponderevo scored 352 but in his 1.7 years' worth of contributions he looks like a very steady person. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I cut it off at 250, which removed a few dozen rows. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops! I had no idea until yesterday that George Ponderevo was "an undisclosed alternate account" of Malleus Fatuorum, a "shared IP" as the ArbCom puts it: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Statement_regarding_Malleus_Fatuorum_and_George_Ponderevo. As such, GP would very likely not succeed in RfA. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• User:WhatamIdoing - in my opinion is one of the best Wikipedians period. We need to attract users of this caliber to this position and Admins should be the ones nominating this type of editor. Having Admin(s) directly backing a proposals does help the overall acceptances of prospects to have successful nominations and raises the willingness of those prospects to go thru the whole ordeal in the first place.Moxy (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting list - plenty on there I know well and think would be good (one I even e-mailed a few weeks ago; he declined); there are also others who haven't made the list but I have faith in, given time. GiantSnowman 21:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well we need to get RFA active again, I fully agree. I think once a few of these users gets nominated, and if all goes well, we should have a tick in RFA. The scoring criteria needs to be reevaluated though, especially the "adminwork" part in which many of our best content contributors got negative scores I have no idea why. Secret ^account 21:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  I might use this list, actually, since I see quite a few near the top I've been considering nomming if I ever got back in it. I'm finding more admin backlogs these days, so... couldn't hurt. Well, it could, but you know what I mean. Wizardman 19:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  I'm amazed I even score as high as I do (457), given I haven't been much active as of late, especially since the fight over pending changes not only royally pissed me off, but also pretty much assured I would be avoiding article space as much as possible (and in fact I automatically reject all RfA nominations because I do not support, let alone want to use, PC). That said, kudos to you, Scotty, for making such a tool, even if its intent is only to make a technical benchmark and not a personality one. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  Aw c'mon man, it's not yet mandatory, although I had no idea that in addition to being an excresence it would defeat me and prevent my editing the article! There are lots of other things admins are needed for other than (trying to) accept or reject an edit in a PC article. --Yngvadottir (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  Note that I answered your question at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes several days ago, the delay was bacause I was travelling.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC).

• LoL. I very rarely see in English WP something so silly as http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/adminscore.cgi?name=Incnis+Mrsi is. This machine scored me positively (and moderately high) for two things which are not my inherent virtues: an old account and zero blocks. The things which are, namely, high ratio of number of distinct articles edited to overall edit count, high number of edits in templates, low amount of (fully) automated edits, are ignored. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  That seems more of a difference of opinion than any outright hilarity, I'm not sure I've ever seen an RfA support on account of a candidate having a "high ratio of number of distinct articles edited to overall edit count"—I for one certainly wouldn't think less of an admin candidate for having 300+ edits to their FAs Jebus989^✰ 14:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  Do you actually understand what did I put to the numerator? There is nothing bad in 100 edits to one article – it just demonstrates a lower merit than 100 edits to 70 articles. A high number of distinct articles, especially if those articles were edited without AWB or so, is certainly a great bonus to a user’s experience and admin-readiness. An editor, like me in en.wikipedia, who made ~ 6200 edits and edited ~ 2000 articles, apparently has much more experience than an editor with 10,000 edits but only in 500 articles, not counting their talk: pages, Wikipedia: and user_talk:. I would not entrust the sysop to an editor with 12,000 edits and 10 featured/good articles if whose edits are spanned over only 200 pages, with 60 edits/page average. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  "There is nothing bad in 100 edits to one article – it just demonstrates a lower merit than 100 edits to 70 articles." is an opinion. Someone with 2 FAs and the associated density of edits to their name has slightly more weight at RFA than an editor with 3000 edits across 1000 articles and that associated density of edits. Just the way it is. Not that I share that opinion myself, but that is the case that it is an opinion, and hence why it is given more weight. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  Could you point to examples of RfA candidates with similar edit pattern (Save-reluctance and ★-disregard) who were (nearly) black-balloted due to it? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I strenuously object to being publicly named and shamed in this list of admin hopefuls. I am here to help build an encyclopaedia, a goal fundamentally at odds with the dysfunctional nature of the current admin system. It is true I occasionally participated on admin related drama boards, and maybe that behaviour boosted my "admin score", leading to this unfortunate predicament. My reason for participating on these boards was to try and find a voice for content builders on Wikipedia, so content builders can work with a measure of dignity instead of as mere potential criminals requiring "administration" by their betters. As those of us who manage to survive long enough eventually realise, the system is beyond repair. The levers of control are firmly in the hands of those who are here to "administer", in self serving ways, to the people who are trying to build Wikipedia. At no stage have I ever expressed a desire to be a member of such a body. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  I removed your name from the list.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't alter the fundamentally misleading name of the list. It should be renamed something like "Editors doing things Scottywong thinks potential admins should be doing". Either that, or each person on the list should sign a statement affirming that they hope to become an admin.--Epipelagic (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think if you want to accomplish smth in this direction, the best starting point would be to approach Scottywong. I did not compile the list and I am in no way responsible for its content, I just did what you asked.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are responsible for its contents if you are adding/removing names. It's your list now, not Scottywong's. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I reverted my edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree the name is a bit misleading, but that can be easily fixed. How about User:Scottywong/Admin scoring tool results, or something similarly boring? I'll ping Scottywong about this thread as well, just in case he's not still watching it. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, given the banner at the top of Scottywong's user talk, I've just gone ahead and moved the page. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. The reason for the original name of the page is because the first time I did this, I pulled users from Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls rather than finding users that passed a certain set of criteria. Also, Epipelagic, per the instructions above the table, I have explicitly allowed any editor to remove themselves from the list if they'd prefer not to be on it. So, go ahead and remove yourself if you want. It is not practical for me to contact hundreds of users to get their permission prior to posting the list. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 00:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Noting the RfB section below this, any plans for another tool? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm...but what's the general "consensus" on what skillsets/measurable things make for a good RFB candidate? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Judgement of consensus, and I can't think of any possible way to measure that. --Izno (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is it can't, not really. We've got 34(?) 'crats, so the sample size is pathetic, and many of them have been around for a while, making modern norms not necessarily applicable, but as an exercise why not? You're not looking for required criteria, just folks to put on a shortlist to help nominators find a few good candidates. Examine participation at UAA, CHU, RFA, BRFA, XfD, but deeper. Participation at XfD isn't per se important, but complicated closures can be spotlighted (large votes) and even compared to DRV results. BRFA (and maybe CHU) could be a plus if present but not a major sting. Maybe even parse nominations at RfA? It will fail spectacularly, of course, but it will do no harm. All models are wrong, but some are useful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

RfB

Once again, I earnestly plead with the Wikipedia Admin Corps. Is there no one willing to run for cratship? As of now, there are only about 31 crats on the English Wikipedia. That may not currently be a problem, but can we expect to have no attrition from our current list of crats? There were a mere 5 RfB last year and none so far this year. Note that last year's two successful RfB were closed with talies of 125/0/2 (for WilliamH) and 135/3/2 (for 28bytes). There has to be somebody out there willing to give it a try! Somebody! Anybody! Well, okay, maybe not just anybody, but there has to be a good candidate who has the courage to try. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

31 'crats would be more than enough to handle the job if not for User:Snowolf/inactivecratstats. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, but time and burnout have not been on my side. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor point, but I think your "lifetime" section for userrights might be incorrect. Have you included the data from the old log at: Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log? WJBscribe (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good point, I have not. I have changed the title to "since 2005" as it is more accurate. Might end up doing a full update including that data at some point in the future. Thanks for pointing it out! Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's hard enough getting people through RFA, let alone RFB - most, if not all, admins will have pissed-off some ne'er-do-well(s) who will pop up and rear their ugly heads at the RFB. GiantSnowman 19:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I had thought about it a year ago, but I have pissed off enough vandals and uncivil-types that it would likely make an RFB look pretty ugly :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In 2012's two successful RfB, the combined tally was 260/3/4. It can be done. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In 2012, two successful RFBs - and three failed. GiantSnowman 19:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

True, but one of those can basically be thrown out (Apteva was not even an admin yet and he was SNOWED under). In the other two unsuccessful RfB, there were more than twice as many supports as opposes. It's not really as ugly as you might think. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't panic! There are many bureaucrats, such as myself, who are very active in other arenas, but not active as bureaucrats for whatever reason. I check daily to see if there any RfAs that need closing, and there never are because other bureaucrats have reached them first. Although there are many truly inactive bureaucrats, there are many such as myself who are not inactive as much as we are redundant. That's not to say that more bureaucrats would not be a good thing, of course. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but more bureaucrats wouldn't be a bad thing. Especially if they could improve our dire bureaucrat gender diversity statistics! WJBscribe (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not really panicking, I'm just frustrated at the lack of activity with RfB. People complain about the situation at RfA and RfB is getting overlooked. Surely there is somebody willing to stick his or her neck out and keep the process from becoming completely stale. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Might have a go in another year or so, if the need exists and if I can increase my activity to the point of earning people's trust. Hey, it wasn't so bad last time. :P ~ Riana ⁂ 20:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Just please don't nominate Kelly Martin again during said year :P Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I might juuuust be able to avoid doing that. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't be too hard, given the fact that she hasn't even edited since December 2008. Kurtis ^(talk) 10:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have some good candidates for bureaucratship, but I'm not sure they'll accept just yet :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A picture to illustrate Deskana's message. --Rschen7754 21:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that Rschen7754 should run for cratship. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but I don't think I would pass. --Rschen7754 22:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem seems to be a systemic fear instilled in all or most administrators considering a run. I commented two or three months ago that the rarity of RFB's seems to be the direct result of the rarity of RFB's, meaning we're inclined—as a community—to believe it must involve some unattainably high threshold because of the rarity of successful RFB's (or any RFB's) relative to RFA's. While this probably isn't true since some good candidates passed as recently as last year, it's that perception that induces fear in any potential candidates. I've given a glancing thought to running myself on one or two occasions—to delve into the mundane behind-the-scenes work 'crats do (RTV, CHU, etc. since that seems to be where help is needed) rather than closing RFA's—but am the first to admit that I'm subject to the fearful sentiment I spoke of at the beginning of my comment. I'd probably give it a second thought if it wasn't for the intimidating nature of the process (and my RFA a couple of years ago was approved unanimously—imagine the sentiment of someone who had a contentious RFA). RFB is really very intimidating. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand completely, but you'd think somebody would at least try. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I feel bad because I'm not one to sit on the sideline when there's something to be volunteered for and nobody is volunteering. It's a pickle. I adhere to the maxim that it's better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all, so perhaps I'll give it another thought (but it'd be months from now at the absolute earliest). It's not fair to write the possibility off immediately and it's worth consideration. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I wish more admins were at least wiling to give it consideration. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. It's tough sometimes to see past the intimidation and there's quite a bit of reading and studying to do for someone considering RFB. I'll have a look and perhaps revisit the possibility in a few months. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Are there backlogged crat jobs? Or is this just a fear that there may be in the future? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The second. After all, not all of the current crats are active and the number of total crats won't get higher if no one ever runs. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• AutoStrikeout, have you considered just going ahead and nominating people? They can always decline, but sometimes starting the process for them might be the proverbial kick to the butt they need to let the rest of the RfB process unfold. :) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have asked at least three admins about it in the past little while. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't just ask, make a nomination statement. Let them really see why you think they would make good crats, and maybe they'll be more convinced. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Between this essay, another essay I haven't finished yet and a project that I'm trying to get going, I might already have enough without taking on an RfB nomination. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• What might make sense is the concept of a highly experienced, clueful non-admin being a 'crat. Free from the political pressure, and so on. One could expand the concept to ArbCom, for that matter. Jusdafax 03:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem with that is that non-admins have run... and have failed. --Rschen7754 03:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Were they serious candidates? The only non-admin I can recall ran for ArbCom but came away with a most dismal showing. Of course, he had a massive block log and was subsequently banned by the community, and I would not call him serious. Jusdafax 04:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Apteva last year. While it's not a rule that crats are admins on enwiki, it is the expected norm, and rightfully so, since crats have the technical power to make themselves admins. --Rschen7754 04:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
        • True, and I see neither of us thought much of the idea of Apteva's candidacy. As you see, I totally forgot that one. Interesting how my attitude has come around in a mere six months... indicative of the sea change my thinking has undergone on the whole topic. Jusdafax 04:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
          • User:Pgallert stood for ArbCom last time round, and is not an admin. --Stfg (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been prodded by a couple people to run; I will eventually, but I'm just not up for it now. Still in the zone with my massive undertaking (can hardly believe a few more days will make it 3 months), and if I ever finish that I've got another not quite as huge one to go straight to. Not intimidated by RfB or anything, just feels kinda insignificant right now... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well bureaucrats do tend to play an inconspicuous role... and do seem insignificant. :P *runs off* --Rschen7754 07:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, it's just a matter of when. Right now my mind is definitely not where I'd need it to be for an RfB (I'd like to think my current work is a lot more significant, but that's for everyone else to judge), so I'll wait until whenever that is. In the meantime I'd encourage someone else to start an RfB, because a few more bureaucrats certainly wouldn't do any harm. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Rschen, I don't think I can follow your argument. Technically I have the power to do quite a few things. I don't do them because it would do damage, most of us behave that way. I don't think a non-admin crat would ever even think of making themselves admin. That said, there is still the perception of not admin = not experienced or not willing to be scrutinised. Hard to say if and when that might change. --Pgallert (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have to be able to trust that they will not do that, and we also have to trust them in closing discussions, which admins do on a regular basis. --Rschen7754 07:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So a non-admin who regularly closes AfDs and RfCs to the satisfaction of the crowd should be eligible, the danger is just that a handful of opposers is enough to sink an RfB, and a handful might always gather. That someone with X thousand edits and years of tenure would suddenly go berserk if given new rights is not an assumption we should make, per AGF. --Pgallert (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• The issue of having non-admins as crats is a very interesting one and it would certainly be informative to see what would happen if a non-admin submitted an RfB (although I very strongly expect the candidate would not pass). However, in order for us to find out if a non-admin has a legitimate chance to be a crat without becoming an admin first, we would need somebody to try. It would have to be someone who actually had a decent chance to pass at RfA. Otherwise, the person would certainly not have been a legitimate contender for cratship. Of course, this would mean that somebody would possibly have to give up, at least temporarily, any hopes at becoming an admin just to be a test case in a situation where he or she would likely fail, as any non-admin who had an unsuccessful RfB might have to wait a while before trying an RfA. In other words, the risk seems to far outweigh the reward for any ambitious non-admin wanting to become a crat first. I realize that the crat bit might actually carry less real authority than the admin bit, but the perception does not really align with that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 15:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I became a crat in 2008. Generalising wildly, at that time, the crats who used their tools with any sort of regularity (see, for example, this analysis) were the half dozen or so who'd been appointed since mid 2007, with the odd notable exception. Since then, that 2007-> group has mostly remained active. We've sadly lost a couple through retirement but have net gained. I'm not sure there's any crisis now or looming, albeit I'm sure MBisanz would like more help with his heroic efforts at the CHU pages. Most of what we do is, as the name "bureaucrat" suggests, exceedingly boring. And with the small number of RfAs these days, I'd say the task has become more dull than it once was. I hardly ever get the chance to close an RfA. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

curious

Does anyone here know what the fastest WP:100 was? Just curious. — Ched :  ?  17:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Just grabbing some WP:100 RfBs, here are the following times:

• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/WJBscribe – a little over two days
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Xeno 2 – almost three days
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Anonymous Dissident – almost three days
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse – almost three days
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Essjay – over three days

Also WP:200 RfBs:

• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana – about 14 hours
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Juliancolton – about 21 hours
• Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/MBisanz – about a day and a half

These are just a few that I found and (roughly) calculated. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks The Anonymouse - looks like Riana has the time to beat then. — Ched :  ?  18:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the current RfB will get to 200. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 19:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised ASO. A very respected editor. (good call on the nom) — Ched :  ?  19:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)