Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 81

message: *In reading this over, it jumps out at me that Doc is obviously concerned about provisional admins ability to block. This comes back around to my previous suggestion that the ability to block/unblock be separate from the "admin package". This would restore the perception that being an admin is merely having "the mop". I also think a great many more RfAs would "succeed", which would create the intended effect that's been discussed ad infinitum on this page ("we need more admins"). - jc37 13:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be more worried about a provisional admin being able to see some spilled^wdeleted Beans. A recently deleted javascript springs to mind. Agathoclea 14:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, get it oversighted.--Docg 14:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think splitting up into "partial" admins is such a good idea; it may be confusing and lend fruther credence to it being perceived as a hierarchy. >Radiant< 14:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note about the ability to block

message: Interesting idea, but I don't think I would support that. A lot of admins become very good ones after experiencing the tools for a while, and I'm sure many of those with potential will make bad decisions in the short trial period. I concur with the proposal by NoSeptember, we could always suggest non-admins to write their adminship decisions instead of actually doing them. Afterwards we could have other users review the decisions and compare it with the actual result. Also, it's important to note that some so-called pre-adminship testings already exist on Wikipedia, which include non-admin closing and WP:AIV. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning pre-admin trials ( see also comments two sections above), I would like to say this: The idea of doing pre-admin testing should only be done if there is a specific candidate whose judgement is questioned in an area he will get involved in as an admin. For example if there is concern that someone doesn't understand how to apply CSD policy we can run a test on that only. We pass plenty of admins without seriously questioning their decision making judgement, and other factors involving temperament can not be so easily tested. But in some cases, with a potentially close RfA, a test of a candidate could be useful to the community. But the idea of in-between admin levels is not a good idea (whether it be probation, provisional, or limiting the number of buttons they can use). Either you are qualified to be a full admin, or you are not. I'd preper a test for a questionable candidate to some of the in-between proposals I see. A test in this case is just an extra proof that you understand what you are doing, and may convince some that you can be trusted with the buttons. We need more "full" admins, but we don't need any "half" admins. NoSeptember 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My thoughts

message: I don't like this idea. Admins need to be trusted by the community, not just be trustworthy, but actually be trusted (very different things). Provisional admins would be exactly the same as full admins in every real way (adminship is just having some extra buttons, afterall), so having a whole load of people that haven't been vetted by the community having the admin tools would mean the whole body of admins would lose the trust of the community, which would cause no end of problems.
Also, a lot of failed RfAs are simply because there isn't enough evidence to base a decision on - another 6 weeks as a regular editor would often be enough to get them through RfA, they don't need 6 weeks as an admin. Some time as a provisional admin would help judge competency, but I don't think competancy is a big issue, the issue is trustworthyness, and not going on a deleting spree for 6 weeks doesn't prove much. And finally, desysoping takes a few minutes at best, a few minutes in the hands of a rogue admin can be very damaging (not irreparable, but still very damaging). --Tango 15:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be controversial here - maybe it's time for the community to have less of a say?  After all, a common complaint is that the right people aren't being confirmed, and I could probably pull together an entire demonstration of people's inability to judge poor administrative actions properly if I had the time or inclination.  If the community can't be relied upon to promote the right people/enough people, should the community continue to have that ability? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you make good points, I think removing the community from RfA would do more harm than good. We would probably get better admins, but those admins wouldn't be trusted by the community. --Tango 10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I said the same thing as your first paragraph up a bit. I strongly agree. ViridaeTalk 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiousity... if not decided by the community, how would you propose we increase the admin pool? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goddamn that bot is fast...--Isotope23 21:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the trial period is only 3 weeks at most, and the person wanting it must have 1,500 edits. This trial would get rid of all the "I don't know if we could trust you" on RFA's. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 21:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My main point was that a trial isn't going to prove trustworthyness. Putting a 1500 edit limit is just going to make it harder for people to become admins, not easier... strict edit limits like that have been rejected dozens of times, and with good reasons. --Tango 10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't. I see no problem with the current number, just their focus. RfA focuses strongly on a persons ability to edit the encyclopedia, wheras RfA work is quite often wikigonme style stuff. We therefore need to promote more people prepared to take on the wikignome tasks like speedy deletion etc. ViridaeTalk 21:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trusted vs Trustworthy

message: I think the basic concept is potentially quite worthwhile, but I doubt it can get consensus as currently laid out.  Some thoughts:
*Any editor with (say) six weeks and (say) 500 edits can apply for provisional adminship - this is far, far too little experience for most people to support, I think.  Something like 1000 or more edits, excluding welcome notices, and at least five months with 100 edits or more, is much more in line with what the community would agree to, I think.
*Many RfAs fail because of objections to lack of experience in different areas.  Some light requirements here would (a) raise the barrier, discouraging trivial applications for provisional admin, and (b) provide a better basis for a 'crat to evaluate a candidate (as well as for objections by other editors).  I think something like doing at least 20 fixes of uncategorized articles (which could test knowledge of WP:N), and partipation in at least 10 RfAs, 10 RfCs and/or third opinions, 20 XfDs, and 2 editor or peer reviews isn't particularly onerous, but would help candidates, the project, and decision-makers.
*Bureaucrats should be given a pre-defined maximum limit for approval of provisional admins - say, 10 provisional admins per day.  This has a number of advantages - it does not result in a lot of failed candidates (bad feelings), but rather only a sense of delay (or bad luck that the other candidates were so much stronger), because 'crats don't have to fail anyone, just not pick them as being the best in the pool; many weaker candidates won't bother to apply; and it reduces the workload for 'crats and those evaluating canddidates, because it's easier to pick the top candidates than it is to do a yes/no for each candidate. (Implementation: There would be an applicant pool for each day, with no limit on the number of candidates; someone not chosen out of the pool would have to wait for 30 days before putting his/her name back into the pool.)
*One way to avoid "instruction creep" is to not have two paths to admin - provisional and regular.  Rather, the standard path to admin would be to become a provisional admin first, then be confirmed by the community.  Among other things, this would solve the current problem of obviously unqualified candidates going through RfAs.  (As a safety value, an editor who has applied at least three times for provisional admin status and not been chosen might be able to apply to the community for an RfA, as is done currently.) (The number of approvals per day by the 'crats should depend on whether the current RfA process continues as if; if it essentially shuts down - as I suggest - then the number should be increased; if it continues, then perhaps the target should be - say - 7 provisional admins per day.)
*The period for being a provisional admin should be longer - say, three months.  If someone hasn't messed up in three months, then the confirmation would be a formality, which is in keeping with the "being an admin is no big thing" concept.
*There should be a standard "profile" that a candidate has to fill out, which  would include counts of edits in various areas, but would also include things like being a mediator, participation in editor and peer and featured article reviews, participation on various help pages, participation in the cleanup areas most needed, etc.  Most editors, I think, have no idea of the number of places in Wikipedia (besides editing articles they happen to be interested in, and doing new page and vandal patrol) where editor participation is both needed and (unfortunately) lacking. The profile would open the eyes of most editors even thinking about eventually being an admin.
*There should be a lengthier standard set of questions for candidates, but they should be designed so that candidates can't simply copy/edit/paste answers from others: what are two are three articles where you're most pleased with your contributions; have you been in an edit conflict in the last six months, and if so, why and what was the resolution; have you ever be warned or blocked, and why; what are two or three XfD discussions in which you feel you contributed the most; what areas do you think you'd be most active as an admin, and why; etc.  A lengthier set of questions is a barrier that someone who will be a good admin should have no problems with, but will discourage trivial applicants, those who can't communicate well in writing, etc.  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 15:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes to consider

message: I think the above gets way too complex. Let's keep it simple.
*Any editor can request probationary adminship, if he meets some low suffrage requirement (e.g. one month, 1000 edits, no blocks). No editcountitis please. Enthousiasm is what counts.
*Probation is discussed for a few days and is passed unless there are compelling reasons not to based on the user's past deeds. Thus speculative reasoning, and 'lack of participation in process X' are explicitly not good reasons.
*Probation lasts one month. Afterwards, the user gets regular adminship unless (1) at least ten users (per suffrage above) object to that, in which case a regular RFA decides, or (2) the user has barely used the tools at all, in which case he probably doesn't need them.
*If necessary, probation can be revoked instantly by any bureaucrat (yes, I know they can't demote technically, but they get to make the decision; other users get to convince the 'crat).
*This applies only once per user.
*>Radiant< 16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: KISS principle

message: User:Radiant has found the under lying problem with the RFA process and thats a focus on 
:speculative reasoning, and 'lack of participation in process X'.
If the process here required oppose votes to focus only on "compelling reasons based on the user's past deeds" otherwise they could be discounted or even ignored at the closing of the RFA. Then to avoid newbie nominations a minimum edit count/time period requirement be established. Gnangarra 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, who judges "compelling"? It can't be the closing bureaucrat, because that essentially gives them the power to decide the RfA completely. -Amark moo! 00:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The community standards decide what are compelling reasons, such that RFA become more of a discussion of the editors past deeds rather than the current support/oppose vote. Gnangarra 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... that already happens. If a reason isn't compelling enough, then not enough people agree with it to make the RfA fail. If it makes the RfA fail, there was obviously not a consensus that it wasn't compelling. -Amark moo! 05:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Not

message: Ok, I don't know if it's been said up there already, but upon seeing this, I think it's similar to how Wikiversity does it. Basically, any administrator (though they call them 'custodians' over there) who is experienced enough to do so, can add them self to a page and become a mentor. When a user requests custodian status, they must find a mentor. Anyone who cannot find a mentor in 7 days has their request archived. (means no more Oppose - only 10 edits type things) Once a user has a mentor they are given a sysop flag, and their mentor is responsible for teaching them the ropes for 4 weeks. After that, there's a discussion about how the user has used the tools, and if there is no clear abuse then a bureaucrat will close the discussion and the user goes from being a 'probationary custodian' to a 'permanent custodian'. Over there at least, 'adminship is no big deal' seems to be working. (but is it scalable?) See v:Wikiversity:List of custodian mentors, v:Wikiversity:Custodianship, v:Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship and v:Wikiversity:Support staff. Cheers. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that adminship is a bigger deal than that. Not having clear abuse does not mean that I want you to be an admin, or even that I can trust you won't do something really stupid. People are cautious during trial periods, so they simply do not do everything they will, and borderline behavior may become clear abuse. -Amark moo! 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, that's a big concern. If someone entered the program with the intent to cause trouble, of course they'd keep it cool for the trial period. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compare to Wikiversity's 'RFA' process

message: Durin said Actually, the number of admins promoted per month has remained fairly steady over the last two years, with ups and downs happening at various times. ... It .. has settled into a fairly steady 25-35 per month since [December 2005].  
:I realize that there is always some discretion in analyzing numbers, but the trend here really is clear.  From May 2006 through January 2007 (the last nine months), the average has been 26 successful RfAs per month; there was only one month (November) where promotions exceeded 30.  By contrast, in the prior nine months, August 2005 through April 2006, the average was 43.  The second period included two months with record numbers - October 2005 with 67, and December 2005, with 68.  
:I'm certainly willing to accept arguments that automation has made it possible for admins and other vandal fighters to be more productive, or that growth of Wikipedia has slowed (I happen to think edits is a better measure of growth than articles, for the record), but it's absolutely indisputable that in the past nine months, the rate of new admins has slowed significantly. -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The number of admins promoted has not "remained steady" 

message: Agent86 said There could be dozens of explanations for that trend..  
:Yes, there could be.  But I think there is hard data that shows that editors with low edit counts (under 2000) were becoming admins in the first period above (August 2005 - whereas (for all practical purposes) no one with that low an edit count has become an admin in the past six months, as far as I know.  (One known exception: someone also an admin on another Wikipedia project.)  So we have two trends: (1) fewer admins per month and (2) a requirement (for all practical purposes, a policy, albeit unwritten) that editors have more edits (that is, have more months of experience) in order to succeed at an RfA than was the case a year ago.  
:No one has provided an alternative theory that is backed up by actual data that explains the first trend.  I continue to believe that the second trend is the one of the major, and quite possibly the primary, cause of the first.  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My RfA stats page gives data for all successful requests since June 12 last year, and eventually I intend it to go right back to the beginnings of RfA. There have indeed been successful requests with under 2000 edits in the past six months: Tango in December with 1596, Christopher Sundita in July with 1957 and Renesis13 in November with 2084, just over 2000. --Majorly (o rly?) 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you know what I have noticed, the number of participation in (successful) RFAs are declining. Just look at Majorly's tracker and look at the supports. If you go down the chart the participation is getting gradually smaller with the exception of "some" RFAs. Just pointing that out :). ~ Arjun 17:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe they were at a peak of sorts then... see this list from 2005. --Majorly (o rly?) 17:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has the number decreased? 

message: I've been in and out of looking at this talk page recently, trying to follow what everyone is saying and I've come to a conclusion of my own. It seems that people are complaining that there are not enough admins taking care of work, but a prominent argument I see out there (and I even got oppose votes for it too) is the "doesn't seem like he needs the tools" argument. With this apparent all-time low of admins, I don't really think this should be a viable argument, but what could be done about this? 
Now, I feel that telling people what to say and what not to say on an RfA defeats the purpose, but with so many people giving votes that are obnoxiously stupid or without backing, it seems that the current system has a problem. People are not being promoted simply because an abundance of voters believe that the user "clearly shows no need for the tools," etc.
I don't want to propose that anything be done about this myself, but I hope that I'm not the only one who sees this apparent paradox! └Jared┘┌talk┐  02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Apparent all-time low of admins"What?  We have more admins now than ever before. —Doug Bell talk 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, then it would be better to say that the backlogs are at an all-time high instead of making an incorrect statement.  As to the "no need of tools"...if someone doesn't indicate interest in working on the backlogs in their RfA answers, then how will making them an admin reduce the backlogs?  I don't see the connection. —Doug Bell talk 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adminship isn't solely about backlogs though, but it's just one indicator that we might be really rather short of admins, for whatever reason. I know we're also short of admins able to deal with spam, though I dunno about vandalism and such. -- Heligoland 03:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you need to be an admin to deal with spam?  Most of dealing with spam anyone can do...at the point that a spammer needs to be blocked, requesting an admin is not a big deal.  I would guess that most of the vandal fighting is probably being done by non-admins right now, and spam fighting would be equivalent.  I'm not really trying to defend this reason for opposing, but I don't understand the argument that the problem with the backlogs is related to some people opposing giving admin tools to people that aren't planning on using them.  The problem to be addressed is getting enough people to combat the tide of inappropriate stuff occuring...this is not something that in many cases requires admin bits.  I just don't see the no tools thing being a problem and it's not a completely irrelevant reason to oppose—no more so than edit counts or any of the other yardsticks people use. —Doug Bell talk 04:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, requesting an admin that will block for spam is a big deal. -- Heligoland 14:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The way I see it, if you don't give them the tools, then they definitely won't help with the admin backlogs, but if you do, they might.  If you don't actually see any harm in giving them the tools, then why not do it?  It's free labor, after all. delldot | talk 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I have to agree. When everyone was an admin, many people probobly didn't do much of the admin style work, but the occasional helping hand, reduction of a backlog etc etc cannot hurt at all. Thus, as long as they have demonstrated behaviour fitting of an admin, I don't see why they shouldn't be granted the tools. Admin isn't a big deal. (How we are goign to address this as an oppose vote I do not know, possibly challenge people to explain their oppose votes when they use this (in the nicest possible manner of course) or discuss with beuracrats how much credance they give to such !votes. It is a discussion not a vote after all.) ViridaeTalk 05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've voted both ways on this.  Sometimes, I feel a candidate doesn't really know why they want to be an admin; when their stated reason(s) for becoming an admin doesn't actually require them to be an admin, then I tend to oppose.  But I've also voted support even though I thought the candidate would underuse the tools, because I trusted that person not to misuse the tools.  Regards, Ben Aveling 11:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We can look at related non-admin actions to see if someone is going to follow through with their stated plan once they become an admin. If they say they want to do CSD deletions, we should be able to see a history of good CSD tagging that they are doing as a non-admin. (Well, we would see the tags that have been refused, unless we dig into the logs ;) NoSeptember 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But assuming they're good at CSD tagging, its pretty hard to check how often they do it... WJBscribe 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warning the creators of articles tagged for speedy helps with this. The number of deleted edits may also be an indication (why can't we browse a user's deleted edits?) Kusma (討論) 16:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kusma makes a good point. Do we still have that tool that shows what deleted pages you have edited? NoSeptember 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do, but the functionality has been shut off for security reasons. --Durin 17:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, part of the speedy process is to leave warnings, so the inability to see deleted edits is a non-issue. If we have someone who's planning to clean out C:CSD and hasn't left oodles of , etc, templates behind them, I sense a problem. Either they've never done much speedy deletion tagging, or they have but didn't leave warnings. Both of these would be problems for a would-be CSD-cleaner-outer. If they leave warnings, I can check what happened to the articles. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I've only placed a few speedy tags, and I thought the point was to make it speedy. Having to decide who the 'author' of the page is, and place a template on their talk page, seems to defeat the purpose of obvious speedies. If I felt the author had misunderstood something about Wikipedia, I would talk to them, instead of using templates. The permanent record of a CSD will be in the deleting admin's deletion log, though if I was organised I would make a little list somewhere of articles I'd tagged for speedy deletion, and watch the blue list turn red. Would be like watching paint dry. Similar things apply for PRODs. Do you use a 'warn' template for every single page you PROD? I too wish it was possible to view at least your own deleted edits. The security thing was, IIRC, to stop people viewing libellous edit summaries, or edit summaries with personal information. Carcharoth 03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With a couple of exceptions, the speedy deletion tags all have a line that says something like "Please consider placing  ~~~~ on the User Talk page of the author." Many speedy deleted articles are the work of new editors; how are they supposed to know that they're missing the point unless they're told? If they create an article and it disappears, with no explanation, should they assume that it's been deleted for a good reason, or should they shrug their shoulders, say "Must have been a glitch" and recreate it? The list thing and the personalised message idea are nice ideas, but editors doing recent changes/new pages checking are unlikely to have the time for them. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 12:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: User Casey states that he/she doesn't need tools because they are here to edit articles and certainly to edit articles you do not need admin tools.  I wonder why I've seen RfA oppose votes that state the candidate has done a lot of vandal fighting, but "Hasn't contributed enough" otherwise.  Tools would help a vandal fighter but are of little use to a pure editor.  I'd like to do more to improve the few article's I've created and to write more, but everytime I look at my watchlist I'm greeted by vandalism galore.  I can't see creating new articles when what exists is spoiled.  I have no particular desire to be an admin and would never nominate myself though I possibly would not turn down a nomination by someone else.  I'm certain though that if nominated, many votes would go against me because for the most part all I do is fight vandalism.  Saying: Why do you need to be an admin to deal with spam? Most of dealing with spam anyone can do...at the point that a spammer needs to be blocked, requesting an admin is not a big deal. I would guess that most of the vandal fighting is probably being done by non-admins right now, and spam fighting would be equivalent. Is kinda like maintaining that your community doesn't need any professional firefighters because most of the fires are being put out by amatuers.  Dan D. Ric 15:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need of tools argument 

message: Contributors to discussions on this page may wish to comment on CyberAnth's proposal to create a special class of admins to enforce WP:BLP. The proposal can be found here: Wikipedia:BLP Admin. WJBscribe 03:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP Admins

message: ...is that an admin candidate "must" have significant XFD participation (which generally means AFD) because that's apparently the only way an admin can show his merit. Since I believe most of our 1000+ admins stay well away from AFD for a variety of reasons, this rationale seems spurious. Can we perhaps encourage people not to use this particular form of editcountitis? >Radiant< 15:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point it out on the RfAs where it is used so newcomers to RfA won't think it is a good argument. Kusma (討論) 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's also one of my pet peeves. Especially when a candidate makes no mention of closing them in their nomination, or any kind of deleting for that matter... --Majorly (o rly?) 15:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh, I don't know. I've always felt that this stuff is irrelevant. I don't really care whether or not someone's going to use the tools a ton, or if they've closed AfDs or wrote in the Portal talk: space. All I care about is whether or not I know them and trust them. I know I don't spend hoards of time cleaning out CSD, nor do I think I should have to in order to stay an admin. Sometimes I need to use the tools, and I'm really glad that I have them and so don't have to bug someone else to do it for me. No one's perfect, and all of these arguments around lack of perfect percentages or too many edits to Pokemon or too few edits to WP:AN strikes me as silly. As far as I'm concerned, I just don't vote on anybody I don't know or don't care about, and if I know them I vote on my experiences with them. In my mind, the only real criteria should be "is the user trusted"? I would certainly fail RfA if these things were applied to me, but as far as I can see the only thing that giving me the bit did was have one more person helping out with maintenance stuff when he feels like it. I don't think I burnt down the project because I can't abide AfD, nor do I feel that I'm a bad admin because I don't put in 50 edits a day. In fact, many of my favorite admins are barely active... Kyle Barbour 18:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think pre-September time was a better time to request. People just aren't as trusting anymore. --Majorly (o rly?) 21:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yeah, that was likely because of the admin politics that have occurred since, starting around that time. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 23:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Myself tagged hardly any articles for speedy prior to adminship, but quite often delete speedies as housekeeping. Agathoclea 23:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This week's pet peeve 

message: Due to recent discussions here on this page, I decided to revisit statistics I gathered on admin function use in January of 2006. The results are posted at User:Durin/Admin_activity#January_2007. Of particular note; 
*Of the 20 top most active admins in blocking in January of 06, 30% of them are no longer performing functions as admins due to leaving the project or no longer being an administrator. I've no idea if this is an excessive attrition rate because I have no idea what the attrition rate of all other admins has been. Still, that number rather surprised me and seems high. 
*Blocks increased by 56% over January 2006. 
*Whereas in January of 06, the top 20 most active admins in blocking accounted for 52% of all blocks, in January of 07 the top 20 accounted for just 41%. For January 07, it took the top 31 admins to get to 50% of all blocks. 
*The 80/20 rule noted by others on this page recently seems to apply very closely. The top 20% most active admins accounted for 78.3% of the blocks. 
--Durin 17:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A request, if the data is available, it would be interesting to see what the equivalent percentages of the blocks in each month contained 'username' in the block reason.  This might illuminate whether or not username blocks are responsible for the delta. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There would need to be some sort of exception for doppelgänger accounts used to guard against impersonation. —Doug Bell talk 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 06 to January 07 admin function comparison 

message: Hi all. I intend to nominate User:VegaDark for adminship, though I've not always agreed with him, because I think we need more admins and I think he's a rational person. I'd like an admin co-nominator, however, as I've a dearth of experience in this area. His edits are spread across article, user talk, and XFD, the last of which is where I got to know him. Does anyone here wanna help me/VegaDark out? I will write up the lead nom. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 02:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. I've seen him around plenty so I'll co-nom.--Wizardman 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have seen him occasionally and I am very impressed by his contributions, I will also add a co-nom (was beaten by Wizardman). ViridaeTalk 02:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice nomination statement. -- Heligoland 03:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice nom statement. Go through the nom stages and I'll submit my nom at roughly 1 PM EST tomorrow. (I'd do it earlier but alas, I can't).--Wizardman 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both. I actually can't do it so soon - Wikipedia is rather time-consuming - but I'll post here as soon as I get my affair in order. Thanks in advance. Xiner (talk, email) 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: People are always trying something new. But sometimes you get bit for doing that. We see oppose votes because someone has multiple co-noms and other RfA procedural things these days. You never know if what new things you try will have a net positive or negative impact. That's part of what makes RfA fun to watch ;)... and frustrating sometimes. NoSeptember 09:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Matthew... it's a request for a co-nom, which is slightly different from posting here saying "Hey, I wanna be an admin! Who'll nominate me?" which would probably make for an "interesting" RfA... (Mind you, I'd guess it's probably happened already) --Dweller 09:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's the only reason I posed it here. There will only be two nominators, I'm not asking for a pile-on, only an admin familiar with VegaDark. For the record, I don't like too many nominators on one RFA either. But I've voted less than ten times on RFAs, and I'm not myself an admin, so I thought I needed help. Since people don't like it done here, however, I will not do so again. Maybe an RFC is better? VegaDark refused to put an "I want to be an admin" message on his user page, even after I volunteered a nomination for him, so I don't have much choice. Xiner (talk, email) 17:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with having these discussions here - this is a great place to find a co-nom or get any other help you need with an RFA. --BigDT 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a co-nom 

message: I agree with everyone who says - no, no automatic criteria that could be gamed.  But.  If an individual is prepared to go looking for potentially good candidates using any mechanism they can think of, then I'm going to support them in that.
In the unlikely circumstance that I haven't made a dumb mistake somewhere, these are the top contributors, in terms of number of edits, looking at the last 5000 edits (Basically, since 15:11, 31 January 2007). 
* 20 - User:Shyam_Bihari - is admin
* 21 - User:AndonicO
* 21 - User:Corpx
* 22 - User:Bmg916
* 22 - User:TeckWiz
* 23 - User:Persian_Poet_Gal
* 25 - User:Snowolf
* 26 - User:Big_Brother_1984
* 26 - User:Wikipedian27
* 27 - User:Nlu - is admin
* 27 - User:Seraphimblade
* 28 - User:Lpgeffen
* 30 - User:ArmadilloFromHell
* 30 - User:Mr.Z-man
* 31 - User:P.B._Pilhet
* 33 - User:RJASE1
* 34 - User:HighInBC - is admin
* 34 - User:John254
* 40 - User:HagermanBot
* 40 - User:SpuriousQ
* 41 - User:Yuser31415
* 108 - User:AzaToth
* 124 - User:Qxz
* 133 - User:Chrislk02 - is admin
* 152 - User:HBC_AIV_helperbot2
* 185 - User:HBC_AIV_helperbot3
* 1561 - User:HBC_AIV_helperbot
There are a lot of users with high teens, so I've taken 20 as an arbitrary cut off.  Have a look, see what you think, see if you can find a good candidate or two who isn't already an admin.  Let us know what you find.   Regards, Ben Aveling 11:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I personally don't see any of those bots making it through RfA. Remember what happened the last time? WarpstarRider 11:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well some of the bot owners are not yet admins, so that could be looked into. NoSeptember 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support the attempt

message: Another user I've seen around occasionaly.  Lots of good contributions over the last 5 months.  Has already put herself up for editor review and been well received.  Anyone have any thoughts on her?  Regards, Ben Aveling 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've seen her around as well. I have a largely positive attitude about her, and think she'd make a fine admin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Husond is going to conom since I offered before and thats what she said. ~ Arjun 22:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, groovy. I look forward to supporting that particular RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I am going to beat you to it :). ~ Arjun 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys were discussing all this activity on the talk page :P...*rolls on the floor laughing*¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said you could join this conversation?  We're talking about you, not to you.  ;-) But since you are here, save us a trip to your talk page: what about it?  Ben Aveling 02:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if it is rude of me to impede on the conversation...I couldn't resist, it was just too funny :).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's not rude of you.  <spinning hypnotic thing> There is no cabal that decides who applies for RFA.  </spinning thing> This is the perfect time for you to become involved in this conversation.  Would you accept?  If so, any preference for your nom?  Regards, Ben Aveling 05:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: lollollol -Amarkov moo! 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OIC. :-) Well, this proves that if there is a cabal, we ain't it!  On the other hand, our conversation started before the RFA was lodged, even if it we've been overtaken by events. It does suggest that the stragey of looking for candidates in the contributors to, well, probably a couple of places, might be sound.  Regards, Ben Aveling 06:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe you aren't in it... ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-P  Sad but true.  :) Ben Aveling 23:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Persian Poet Gal]]

message: A solid contributor who has been exceptionally active for a year or so. I think she'll pass RfA in a month or so (only reason I say that is to satisfy editcountitis). Helped elevate at least one (or is it two?) articles to featured status. — Deckiller 07:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  Mind you, I've never been one to say no to a stressed girlscout with a chainsaw.  Regards, Ben Aveling 10:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Darthgriz98]]

message: Not yet, I think.  A keen vandal fighter with lots of good work.  But still learning the ropes.  Probably one to watch for the future.  Ben Aveling 11:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Qxz]]

message: I hadn't really thought much about how Mediation Committee members are chosen, but in fact it's a vetting similar to an RfA (one has to get a consensus of the existing committee members to be chosen, rather than (say) 80+% of !voting editors here).  It would seem to me that if someone has been on that committee for at least (say) 90 days and has no negatives, that ought to be good enough to be an admin.  I haven't compared the list of 40+ members (past and present) at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations to Wikipedia:List of administrators, to see who's not an admin, but perhaps someone else would?  Also, perhaps the list of 40+ failed candidates might be mined for possibilities?  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Committee members 

message: *There's also a whole category of people who you all may be looking for: :Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. Agent 86 06:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll notice that neither of those is exactly vying for the "most active admin" spot, though.  (In other words: sure, you can nominate someone who doesn't want the job, and maybe they'll even get it; but they're unlikely to actually do a lot of admin work—particularly the boring types of admin work—if they didn't want the job in the first place.) Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whole category of those who are eager

message: Per discussion earlier on this page based on data provided by User:Jim182, here are four charts regarding admin activity from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2006:
It appears the load per admin has doubled in the time frame. --Durin 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet more evidence that rfa standards should not, in fact, be getting stricter as time goes on. I assume the deletion spike in mid-October was an image deletion spree. Picaroon 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's so shocking? —Centrx→talk • 21:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That the average admin does twice as much work now as they did a year ago? Although a more plausible explanation is perhaps the super-admins who make 500+ deletions a day and so on. --W.marsh 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops, I misread those :), sorry about that. ~ Arjun 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Even if some of the super admins are still doing those sorts of 500+ sprees the average amount of work an admin needs to do has still doubled. That isn't acceptable. JoshuaZ 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disallow page creation for the newest user accounts. —Centrx→talk • 21:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Your preaching to the converted in here. Just got some data from the VandalProof guys, apparently there's a 30% increase in the amount of diffs vpbot for VP2 is processing since November/December time. Spambot (irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-en-spam) is struggling under the increased workload too, we're having to seriously reduce the size of diffs it goes looking at for external links during peak periods as it's just backing up all the time. We're running close to 10,000 external links being added per day and that's about as much as the bot can deal with.-- Heligoland 21:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely ignorant babbling on my part, but could a secondary bot be set up and have them monitor different sets of articles (such as Bot X covers A-M articles, Bot Y covers N-Z) to lessen the load on any one bot? EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Freenode specifically disallows such networks, which is a great shame. -- Heligoland 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, instead of technical fixes, why not promote more admins? JoshuaZ 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please nominate one ... or two ... or ten. Please see User:BigDT/List of potential RFA re-applications if you would like some inspiration.  I've started going through NoSeptember's list of unsuccessful RFAs and creating a table showing users who are still active and about whom the primary concern was that they needed more experience. --BigDT 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, there was one I wanted to nominate. Unfortunately, he was slightly over-eager a few weeks ago, didn't achieve consensus and now I'm going to need to wait at least another month before nominating him. I will however look through that list. JoshuaZ 22:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Instead of throwing more eggs at the wall, why not do something about the wall, so that these people get through the first time? If one finds nothing wrong but a lack of "experience," and they then oppose for this, I think that's being unreasonable. I invite someone, anyone, who has opposed based on experience alone to explain how more experience can help a candidate you see no actual flaws with. Picaroon 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well part of that sort of objection seems to be that without more experience we can't always tell how they will react. JoshuaZ 22:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Throwing eggs at the wall? Oh no. I now have this mental image of RfA candidates being fragile eggs that are being thrown up and over a wall (RfA) to (hopefully) land softly on the other side. Some eggs hit the wall and break. Some fall back down and go splat. Humpty Dumpty anyone? :-) Carcharoth 01:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's approximately what I was getting at. Picaroon 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To do that, you need to make more people aware that there's a shortage of admins. As long as vandals keep getting blocked and random crap keeps getting deleted, few people are aware of the problems lurking on the horizon. Until that changes, people won't be prepared to overlook really minor deficiencies with candidates and will keep opposing. -- Heligoland 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one thing that can be done is make sure to support candidates you see who are trusted users and consider informing those who consistently oppose for reasons unrelated to capability of performing administrative functions. --BigDT 22:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a real risk that trying to give unreasonable opposers the kick up the arse they need will ruin the RfA for the candidate, and there's nobody here willing to risk screwing up RfAs to try and sort out this problem. -- Heligoland 22:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, some increase in edit count isn't completely unreasonable since semi-bots and similar things are so common now. Part of the problem is that the editors aren't actually looking at the edits in question. If they did, they'd be able to tell how many semi-bot edits there were for a candidate and how many were not. So this might be dealt with simply  by encouraging people to actually spend five  or ten minutes looking at candidates. JoshuaZ 22:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe the "core cabal" has been doing a good job, so it's getting another three jobs? But in all seriousness, have many mediators applied lately at all? In the 5 months I've been keeping an eye on rfa, I can recall having seen "Mediation Cabal" or "Mediation Committee" in q2 or contribs twice at most. (And other than ^demon and Essjay, I can't think of any of those people off the top of my head, either.) Is this a sign that Wikipedia-space is developing into islands, or just a coincidence? Picaroon 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a sign that people have stopped treating adminship as something that everyone deserves after being good for a while, which is good. Maybe now we'll get fewer people applying for no apparent reason, meaning that people won't be reflexively paranoid about such things as namespace balance. -Amark moo! 00:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence is quite the opposite if anything. Someone tried to talk me into going for admin, but I declined.  I don't want to go through the procedure only to be told "come back when you have at least 6000 edits with a minimum of 832 in Wikispace and not more than 1756 in Talk, and sufficient experience with $ESOTERIC_CATEGORY..." etc. etc. Raymond Arritt 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but that's not really relevant to what I said. My point was that people asking for adminship when they have done nothing but article writing is pointless, because there's no way to see if they will use the tools well, nor will they use them. -Amark moo! 01:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dragons flight 08:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Remarkably, 840 of the 1108 admins had at least one del/undel in this period.  Dragons flight 08:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charts on admin activity 

message: Last 500,000 Deletions / Undeletions (since mid October)	Last 500,000 Deletions / Undeletions (since mid October)	Last 500,000 Deletions / Undeletions (since mid October)	Last 500,000 Deletions / Undeletions (since mid October)
1                                                       	Gurch                                                   	35355                                                   	No longer active
2                                                       	NawlinWiki                                              	27104                                                   	Active
3                                                       	Fang Aili                                               	13077                                                   	Active
4                                                       	Shyam Bihari                                            	11925                                                   	Active
5                                                       	Naconkantari                                            	11391                                                   	Wiki-break ?
6                                                       	Mailer diablo                                           	10955                                                   	Active (lying about wikibreak)
7                                                       	Misza13                                                 	10373                                                   	Active
8                                                       	Lucky 6.9                                               	9877                                                    	Left Wikipedia
9                                                       	Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh(previously Kimchi.sg)    	8707                                                    	Self-declared active Feb 9
10                                                      	Nv8200p                                                 	7679                                                    	Active
11                                                      	Jimfbleak                                               	7404                                                    	Active
12                                                      	TheParanoidOne                                          	7381                                                    	Active
13                                                      	Centrx                                                  	6884                                                    	Active
14                                                      	Angr                                                    	6642                                                    	Active
15                                                      	Merope                                                  	5906                                                    	Active
16                                                      	Sherool                                                 	5663                                                    	Semi-wikibreak
17                                                      	Quadell                                                 	5600                                                    	Active
18                                                      	Eagle 101                                               	5415                                                    	Active
19                                                      	RHaworth                                                	5349                                                    	Active
20                                                      	Cryptic                                                 	4754                                                    	Active
21                                                      	Tone                                                    	4728                                                    	Active
:Dragons flight 08:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Remarkably, 840 of the 1108 admins had at least one del/undel in this period.  Dragons flight 08:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More fuel to the fire 

message: What should happen to admins who have either left the project or have stopped editing? Should they be desyopsed? For example, please see User:Sango123, who is an administrator, but left the project in October?  Real96 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not again. Covered many times before, and it doesn't hurt to actually look, does it? IT's been shot down every time it's been asked. Not many people would support it - these people do return (case in point). – Chacor 03:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even apart from the problem that they return, why should anything happen? I've yet to see a good reason why inactive admins should be desysopped. -Amark moo! 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's always shot down because the reason for desysopping is always - what if the account is compromised but there's always a proposal that sysop functionality would be reactived upon return. The problem being, if the account is compromised we've no way to tell and we happily return the bit. There's no other good reason for desysopping dormant admins, there might be a perfectly valid reason for their absence, not that they've left the project (active service, illness etc). We're not rationing adminship, and apart from the few dormant admins spoiling NoSeptember and Durin's graphs (if indeed dormant admins aren't removed from the data already) they really aren't affecting anything. It's also more complex to desysop than it is to promote, needing to find a steward to desysop, but just a 'crat to promote. -- Heligoland 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I don't support the idea, I can think of a reason. Someone who has left is no longer showing the sort of ideological commitment that would preclude coming back and going postal for fun. And someone who has left probably had a reason to leave - for instance, a growing distaste for the project. Dekimasuが... 03:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Heligoland said, we'll happily give them back the admin bit upon return if they left in good standing, which means they can just as easily go "postal" with this. -Amark moo! 03:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were seriously considering desysopping people due to inactivity, then we probably wouldn't simply give them admin back because they left in good standing. We would probably require another RfA, in which case the lengthy inactivity would (for better or for worse) probably appear in several oppose votes. Dekimasuが... 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well then that introduces a new set of problems. We must define inactivity, and we must define it well, because a good admin is going to do enough things people don't like that they might not pass another RfA. I bet if we ran an RfA right now on all the active admins, pretty much all but the newest would fail. -Amark moo! 03:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly the costs outweigh the benefits, so we are in agreement. Time has also shown that this isn't a problem we are likely to have with inactive admins. However, I thought that to say there were no reasons to consider the idea was incorrect. Dekimasuが... 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Worst case scenario: Admin X comes back, deletes a dozen articles, blocks some users, and is then de-opped, the articles are restored, and the users are unblocked. Life continues. Nothing an admin can do is irreversible [to my knowledge]. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pointed out so many times... I mean, I personally would support desysopping admins after 3-4 years if for no other reason then it's pretty certain that they're not coming back. At the same time, no real reason to do it if they're not comig back anyway.--Wizardman 03:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive Admins 

message: This is a good thing for new admins and aspiring admins to help on. We desperately need to deal with things like the Microsoft-Wikipedia kerfuffle without it becoming a media circus (, , ). So WikiBlue (the Foundation's communications and PR person, Sandra Ordonez) has drafted a simple page at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from enterprise).
What we need now is (1) OTRS volunteers (these are always needed ... they deal with a firehose of crap and can burn out quickly) and (2) Wikipedia:Help desk. The Help Desk NEEDS sensible people, and admins are picked for their judgement.
So please dive in and help :-) - David Gerard 17:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't current new admins all suck for that kind of work? :-/ --Kim Bruning 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I do. Which is a bummer, because a firehose full of crap sounds pretty cool. Kafziel Talk 17:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you're speaking metaphorically. ;) ChazBeckett 17:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you're not. <:x − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Those crazy new admins with their backlog-clearing attitudes... when will they learn that bickering in back channels and saying good faith editors "suck" is what made Wikipedia great? --W.marsh 07:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand you - in what way do new admins suck at that kind of work? --Tango 13:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Last I heard, it was almost impossible for non admins to get OTRS access, has this now changed, if so, I would be interested in helping out. -- Heligoland 18:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Desk personnel needed 

message: People are too often thinking that the ideal admin has an editing pattern which matches theirs. Someone who does lots of article writing will usually explain "blah blah blah article writing is the base of the project blah blah process wonkery blah", while someone who does lots of deletion discussions will usually explain "blah blah blah I can't give you the tools because you won't use them enough blah blah too involved in disputes blah". And if you somehow manage to find a happy medium between the two, you have vandal fighters with "blah blah blah it's important to defend our encyclopedia blah blah evidence of civility with vandals who feel like posting 'fuck you, ' 50 million times blah". Does anybody really step back and say "Hmm, am I really so special as to have the ideal editing pattern?" -Amarkov moo! 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can all agree that Cyde's criteria are the best.  I refuse to support anyone who can't meet them, especially #24.  That's the most important.  --BigDT 07:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think people must step back from those standards... because many candidates still pass unanimously or close to it. There will still be some token objection if you aren't involved in the pet projects of various RfA people, but it doesn't really sink any candidate so long as they have some presence somewhere. You can still get by just being strong in one or two areas related to the Wikipedia namespace, but you have to have at least one area. Editors, no matter how great they are, without a lot of Wikipedia namespace edits basically have no chance at RfA nowadays. --W.marsh 07:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random unsolvable complaint