Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Current time is 15:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC). —

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Typ	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
Asilvering	RfA	Successful	6 Sep 2024	245	1	0	>99
HouseBlaster	RfA	Successful	23 Jun 2024	153	27	8	85
Pickersgill-Cunliffe	RfA	Successful	15 Jun 2024	201	0	0	100
Elli	RfA	Successful	7 Jun 2024	207	6	3	97

pre/post-RFA edits for admins

Hi! Thanks to some helpful folks over at WP:QUERY, we now have a query that returns the number of pre- and post-RFA edits for (almost) every admin. I am planning on using this information to compare how the activity levels of admins have changed over the years in a user subpage, but was wondering what ways would be most useful/illustrative. One basic idea would be to take admins that gained adminship in each year (e.g. 2010), then sum the number of edits they made for each year (e.g. 2017) and compare with other cohorts. This could show differences in activity new admins have to old ones. I've long suspected that the high edit-count requirements on new admins comes from us relying on a smaller number of excessively-active admins as opposed to a larger number of moderately-active admins. Are there other ideas y'all have on how to explore this data? I'd be happy to do the dirty work myself of creating the data visualizations, forked queries, and data processing but am sure many of y'all more experienced editors have interesting ideas I haven't considered on what to do with the data. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It's also worth noting not all edits are of equal value, per se. 2,000 edits fixing typos aren't the same as 2,000 edits making major additions to articles (both are useful, but one shows a lot more experience and skill than the other). Unfortunately there isn't an easy way to determine this for any individual editor, so edit count is often used as a proxy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Trainsandotherthings. It's a shame we can't actually quantify "admin activity" or qualify edits in a meaningful way. Nonetheless! I still think looking at edit counts can give us some more information on admins over the years/health of adminship now. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There are some ways, actually, just not as simple as looking at edit count. You can look at edits that aren't marked minor [1] and you can specify that further to a specific namespace [2]. You can look at the percentage of automated edits (these tend to take less time per edit) [3]. I think one of the best ways is to use something called Wikiscan. [4] It includes estimated hours of time spent here and more specific details on text changes. It's fairly accurate (just ignore my misleading sysop logs, it's confused by WP:MOR because that gives me a deletion log). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue with counting edits that are constrained to specific namespaces is that not all the things admins do to help maintain the wiki is logged or constrained in particular namespaces, nor do I think devaluing automated edits gives us a better account of admin activity (after all, they still had to be done) once we account for bots. Also some logged actions, such as page moves, are not admin-only. What I meant is that a lot of the positive influence, responsibility, and actions taken by admins are more soft power in nature. My analysis therefore will just limit itself to pure edit count, even though this is somewhat of a dull and weak analysis as a result. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you but what people look for in an admin candidate differs so I figured I'd offer alternative options. Edit count isn't everything. I think it's actually kind of interesting that my edit count varies dramatically but my average daily hours spent on the project stay relatively consistent.[5][6] I guess what I'm saying is that people are complicated and dedication can be shown through different ways. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I do appreciate it, Clovermoss! I wasn't aware of Wikiscan. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Expanding on that, you can spend hours doing extremely valuable admin work at AE, PERM, CR, and SPI, and sometimes have only a couple of edits and no admin actions to show for it. I'm not challenging the value of this work as such; it will be indicative; but the variation in activity based on venue is very real. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm interested in seeing what comes of this. A quick note based on a skim: you're double-counting admins who turned their tools in and then took them up again. I'm in the database twice, for instance, as is Valereee just above me, because we took brief breaks. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, that can be fixed when processing the data by just counting the earliest timestamp. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  As far as I can see, the earliest entry for me is more than 13 years after my RfA. —Kusma (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I know early admins' rights weren't logged like new ones are, so I don't know if that is what is happening in your case , Kusma. See for example in your user logs, where your adminship in 2006 just says "changed group membership" within the parameters with "+sysop" as a comment and then in 2009 says "changed group membership from [...] to [...]" within the parameters. That might be the reason. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 18:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  It is weird to hear myself called an "early admin" :) The log clearly says "+sysop", though; I think that's what hundreds of sysoppings are recorded as. —Kusma (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  About "early": Ignoring desysops, I am in the earlier half, but not in the earliest third of admins. —Kusma (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Kusma, yes but as a comment. I'll try and work on a fix soon. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 18:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  This fork I just made does include the 2006 adminship. I'm unsure about its accuracy, though, as I'm not really knowledgeable about early sysop right logging. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 18:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Update, fork now removes bots. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Update, fork now only accounts for earliest sysopping. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This sounds interesting. Will your visualisation show this data or the (rather different) edit count before and after RfA? I don't think the current data is worth visualising, but I could be wrong. —Kusma (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

So the query including edits before RFA is not something I was planning, other editors misunderstood me and now it's there, Kusma. My visualization(s) will show the data after RFA as IIRC some other editor already has done extensive analysis on edit counts at RFA (see the graph at WP:INFLATE, for example). However, when I'm done I imagine the work can be extended backwards as further questions arise. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 20:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Typo

I noticed, at the section 'Discussion, decision, and closing procedures' in the first paragraph, there is a random explanation mark in the middle of nowhere. Was this made on purpose? Also, Can someone fix this? I can't fix it because I'm a new user on wikipedia. Thanks! 🌭Aaro🍟Dude🍕 (Talk) 7:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@AroDude: thanks for wanting to improve Wikipedia! That exclamation point is there on purpose, because it's a "!vote" not a "vote". The paragraph explains the difference. "!" is a reference to a computer negation symbol. I hope that helps. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! 🌭Aaro🍟Dude🍕 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

!problem :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The post makes me wonder whether we shouldn't rather avoid this bit of jargon if we can. —Kusma (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm...it's part of wikispeak too. Lectonar (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it is explained. The relevant text of the section reads: This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't love it. I usually use "recommendation." Joyous! Noise! 12:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think explaining it is reasonable enough, because it is ingrained into our culture at this point that encountering it is inevitable. Perhaps a parenthetical "it is sometimes referred to as a !vote (pronounced not vote), using the computer science negation symbol)" could be added, but removing it entirely will just generate more questions. Courcelles (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Okay. But I don't necessarily need everyone to reply to this thread because I already understand why it is like this and it makes sense already. You're right about that, it will generate more questions. 🌭Aaro🍟Dude🍕 (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You may be fine now that you have received your answer, but the discussion has now become one about potentially changing the wording to make it more clear to the next person, so please let that discussion proceed. Primefac (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I've always found that grated my nerves. It's a vote, putting an exclamation mark in front of it to pretend it's not looks, dare I say it, pretentious. Same thing with the insistence on "userboxen", Wikipedia is opaque enough without monstrously counterintuitive and ungrammatical shibboleths. When I was a new user I found it enormously confusing, you're voting by saying you're not voting; makes perfect sense, right? But given the nature of Wikipedia there's not a way to prevent it, I do my best to look past it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

At RfA it is literally a vote, so I don't know why we pretend it isn't here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. It is doublethink, and the closer is trusted to apply either a majoritarian or consensus-based close, and policies just kinda...hope things will turn out alright in the end. But if we went one way we'd have votes for everything and the other we'd have oligarchy. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Accepting an RfA nomination from a non-admin nominator

Regarding a comment (in the RfA current at this posting's timestamp) and the engendered comments that followed: an ingrained prejudice against RfA nominations by non-admin nominators may exist. While I do have an opinion, I'd rather flesh out the merits (in discussion) and ask others: is such a prejudice one that we ought to embrace (as reasonable) discourage (as being rooted in bad faith) or leave alone for each by there own? I was inclined to comment at the RfA but decided against disrupting the intended (RfA proper) discussion with continuations of off topic commentary . Perhaps something can come of it here? Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the aspersion, however subtly implied, John Cline. SN54129 13:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I had not clicked on the link when I replied; mine was a general response without having viewed the RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Aspersion was not my slightest intent (I hope you will come to believe this truth). Yet, without design I have offended you and for that: I am sorry. If, by fault of my own, I've opened a thread requiring that a villain exist, it's proper that I should be that villain for writing while ignorant of any such rule. With so much before me to learn, I'll close on that note before anything else (by my hand) is wrongly implied. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• So a self-nom, would be a nom by a non-admin. (shakes head.) We're all Wikipedians here. Adminship is merely an extra set of tools and responsibilities. Anyone should be able to nominate anyone. The nomination section is just a courtesy anyway. Anything in the nomination section could be placed under support. Anyway (just like any RfA comment), this is of course merely me expressing my opinion/perspective. YMMV. : ) - jc37 06:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Came to say this, but this is much more elegant. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spicy; self-nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what purpose you see nominators serving. If it's to boost the chances of an RfA through association with a respected editor, then yes the preference for admins seems like a prejudice. I'm not sure that's a good line of thinking overall, though. With my RfA I appreciated my nominators most for a) encouraging me to go for it in the first place, and b) being on hand to give advice during the 7 days. For that, it does actually make sense to choose someone who's done it themselves. – Joe (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I have ten RFA noms and zero fails. Not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Worth mentioning though that aside from Ajpolino (which I supported), the previous one was in 2010 and co-nominated by a (then) administrator. Things might have changed since then. In any case, I agree with Joe that somebody who has the skills to identify successful RfA candidates is likely to be an administrator as well. However, that's a heuristic, not a hard and fast rule. I might hesitate if the nominator was inexperienced or had a chequered history on Wikipedia, but aside from that, I probably wouldn't notice or care if they were an admin or not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

More relevant re the dates of my noms is that most of them were made during the time I was the WP:FAC delegate and FAs mattered at RFA; they don't so much anymore. But I think the point is still valid-- you don't have to be an admin to be someone the community acknowledges as being in touch with and vouching for the character of the best RFA candidates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not see any problems in having non-admin noms. Three non-admin nominators would probably look bizarre, but this is about it. Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the two pieces Joe lays out for what a nom does. And I 100% disagree that it requires an admin to do it and do it well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't care if the nominators are admins. Do care if they're editors whose opinions I trust. Either way, I'm not sure the comment at the RfA was meant to carry policy weight. It seems more like a casual aside than a criticism of any particular group of editors. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)