Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Knowledge Seeker (talk | contribs) at 19:39, 8 May 2010 (→No active nominations!: In response to The Thing That Should Not Be, it's been that way for a very long time. It was that way when I joined Misplaced Pages back in 2004, and I suspect it was like that). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions.

Current time: 14:06:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Purge this page

RfA Stats

I made this chart showing the number of Successful & Unsuccessful RfA's versus time (chart axes descriptions corrected --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

The figures I used are shown below:

At first it looks as though there were more Successful RfA's compared to Unsuccessful one's but later on more there were more failures than passes. Also around August 2005 to Jul 2006 there were alot of successful admins compared to now. Paul2387 11:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps everyone who is interested in Misplaced Pages has already edited it. Those interested being an admin have offered themselves up already. We have previously had the luxury of people of all ages coming to WP and offering their services as admins, but now, we are mostly reliant each year on the youngest people joining. The fun of staking out new articles is being replaced by the hard grind of maintenance and reference finding. Have we reached peak Misplaced Pages? Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Stephen (also, haven't seen you in a couple years. Hope you are well.)

I actually find that, like facebook _shudder "older" folks are becoming more active editors. Our userbase is probably very much slanted to the under-25 demographic, but as software improves as well as knowledge of our projects, we are making inroads into the userbase of folks that know what USENET is. Just my opinion. Keegan (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking: my second child is not as Misplaced Pages-friendly as my first! Perhaps my USENET experience has dragged me back in - I have been around on-and-off, and obviously carried on as a user, but it's more fun being involved :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, what's with all the white space at the bottom? Jafeluv (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Few of our successful candidates are particularly new, the few who are getting through RFA nowadays include some who've been here for years. we only have ten admins who created their accounts in the last 12 months and 6 of them are bots. There are another 24 admins who aren't bots and who started editing 12-24 months ago, but a couple of them are returning veterans. The problem with charting unsuccessful RFAs is that it doesn't show the number of candidates who chose not to run because they suspect they wouldn't meet current standards of editcountitis and tenure. So we are largely reliant on persuading people to run who either never got round to it or are longstanding editors who might a year ago have been considered young but are a year older now. So the chart is interesting, but would be much more meaningful if the unsuccessful RFAs were split into separate lines - unsuccessful candidates with less than 2,000 edits, unsuccessful candidates with 2,001 - 4,000 edits and unsuccessful candidates with > 4,000 edits. ϢereSpielChequers 12:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What would be the easiest way of doing a chart with three separate lines for Unsuccessful RfA's, to include < 2,000 edits, 2,001 - 4,000 edits and > 4,000 edits. Paul2387 13:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well since you did the chart above I'm assuming if you had the data you could run it, and the fiddly bit would be getting the data. Perhaps one of our bot writers could help there? ϢereSpielChequers 14:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Great chart. But perhaps you should draw up one for the number of competant veteran Wiki editors too afraid to stand as an admin candidate - as they know they will be torn to pieces, chewed up and spat out during the process. Myosotis Scorpioides 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well hopefully we'd get some idea of that if we subdivided the unsuccessful ones as I mentioned above. However RFA is not the most consistent process on the pedia, and I'd suggest to anyone who has considered running that the RFA crowd currently seem to be in one of our gentler moods. I suspect that any "competent wiki veteran" has a pretty good chance of passing RFA at the moment, provided they have:

1. Over 4,000 contributions,
2. More than 12 months tenure,
3. Any previous RFA being over three months ago and hopefully some lessons learned from it,
4. A cleanish block log (clean for 12 months),
5. No recent warnings that they can't give a good explanation for,
6. Nicely varied contributions that show a mix of helping build the wiki and defending it.

You might even get through if you don't quite make one or two of those, and in any event if you don't quite make it this time you are likely to learn what you need to address to get through in three or four months. ϢereSpielChequers 17:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that it might be better to specify a recent clean block log as some admins here have been blocked before they applied. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Good spot, now fixed. ϢereSpielChequers 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that to pass an RfA nowadays, one would have to double the above requirements. From the fly-on-the-wall perspective of which I have been observing the RfA's, people seem very petty with their oppose !votes. --It's me...Sallicio! 05:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WereSpeilChequers: I think I can make a hcart with your suggestions, adding in NotNows, cratchats and so forth. Of course, I wouldn't be able to post it here, and my activity would pluumet, but it's possible. just give me a lot of time in Excel. Buggie111 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure thats worthwhile unless you can post it on wiki. Is it possible for you to generate charts that you can post or are you offering to gather the data for Paul2387 or someone else to generate the charts? ϢereSpielChequers 12:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just dropped in to WP:RFA to see who is nominated and how they are doing—and no one is nominated. –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@ WSCHQ, I'd be able to put it on wiki, but all that searching through archives and Excel work would put a dent in my contribs. CAn't multi task. Buggie111 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiDan61 RfA

I couldn't find any on-wiki indication that WikiDan61 is aware of this nomination, so I left a note on the nominator's talk page to check. Is the fact that it was transcluded prior to acceptance sufficient to close this pending WikiDan61 expressing interest?--~TPW 16:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I already reversed it and left a note on WikiDan's page. Tan | 39 16:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I see - I didn't notice the nom invite there as I only scanned for sections. Thanks!--~TPW 16:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He has just posted on my talk page that he is not interested and he wishes for the RfA to be closed. ToxicWasteGrounds 16:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In the future, TWG, please make sure your candidate is aware and interested before you launch a live RfA. Tan | 39 16:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Is it possible for the RfA to be closed (if not already). ToxicWasteGrounds 16:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No active nominations!

WP:AAAA! There's nobody nominated! Someone should make a lament to why we have so few sysops! Stifle (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Old news, old joke. Aiken ♫ 15:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll nominate ya, Stifle ;-) Doc Quintana (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not worth the hassle for a few buttons. The standards have risen to astronomical (i.e., ridiculously unreasonable) levels.--It's me...Sallicio! 18:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As an astronomer, I take offence at that. I may be unreasonable but never ridiculously so. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

lol...touche!--It's me...Sallicio! 05:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No section on the fact that there are no active nominations

..... :) Pedro :  Chat  15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

...lol. Sorry for being an arse about this a while ago. ;P  f o x  16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You know what we need? A bot that posts these threads every time RfA goes blank. –Juliancolton |  17:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

RfAPanicBot? . . . no . . . how about NoNomBot?--~TPW 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What, and miss out on all the easy extra edits? No thanks ;P - Kingpin (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a bot that automatically closes these threads when they appear? (I jest, I jest... ;) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a bot that automatically reacts to the conditions noted at Raul's laws - Laws by others #288: Phantomsteve's Laws of RfA -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually almost started a thread the other day about how quiet this talk page gets when there are a couple of ongoing RFAs. Seems like we all found better uses for our time for a week or so there... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a bot that blocks users who create these threads. Oh snap. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What if the bot nominated the person who started the thread? Useight (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in order for the bot to block everybody, somebody would need to nominate it for adminship. Which of course means that's one less week it can block people... –Juliancolton |  00:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Trots out graph and continues flaying horse carcass. MBisanz 04:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd give it another shot, but I wouldn't consider myself ready yet. Maybe in the summer. Any good candidates out there still that could use the buttons? Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, plenty of people who'd make great admins, not so many who would pass the absurdly high RfA standards. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, don't let your ego get too big. :) Hi878 (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I don't think RfA standards are as high as many people—and I'm guilty of this as well—often perceive them as. Sure, we're tough on the candidates, but even formerly banned users have been known to pass. An extreme example, of course, but chances are if a user is right for the tools, they'll pass without issue. –Juliancolton |  01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think things are getting better- I can pick a few candidates out of 2010's unsuccessful noms whom I feel should have passed but only a few. I think good candidates are given a tougher time than they deserve, though I'm quite happy with the 3 promotions so far this month (well, I would be, i was one of them!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The RfA standards aren't astronomically high, but they still are very high, nowadays. We haven't had a serious self-nom in a bit, if I can remember correctly, I mean, not many people would want to put themselves through what is, literally, hell week. --Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that standards have risen. In fact the standard of participation in RfA voting has become desparingly low. Many of the votes are made by inexperienced and/or immature editors who don't understand the principles involved, but think it is cool to vote, and to invent ludicrous extra optional questions. (Check these voters out sometimes). This is what is putting people off wanting to be nominated. It's also difficult to vote objectively for candidates who don't have any info about themselves on their user pages, or conversely, have user pages that are full of adolescent self-promotion. Perhaps only admins or users with a minimum length of service and number of edits should be allowed to vote on RfAs. Maybe this has all been previously discussed, but I'm saying it again.--Kudpung (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure that's a huge issue, and I've never seen anything to suggest that votes from inexperienced users are putting off prospective candidates. Just my $0.02. –Juliancolton |  01:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, Kudpung, I think that it is pretty easy to ignore votes by people "think it is cool to vote". Unless you are saying that nobody reads the comments? Hi878 (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well,Julian & Hi878, it was just my 2 cents really. I know that the final decision is made by the 'crats, but a lot of song and dance seems to be made of the Support/Oppose/Neutral vote barometer and theoretical pass marks, and recently some (what I thought) reasonable contenders were bullied into withdrawing following totally unreasonable character assasination, and silly optional questions. I'm not saying nobody reads the comments, but it's true that many of the votes seem to be either arbitrary and unresearched.--Kudpung (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that it might be kind of easy to look at the percentage of votes, and decide on that. And I suppose that people might just bully other people. So I'm just going to say we're both right. :) Hi878 (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung: What would in your opinion be an inexperienced/immature editor? I'm pretty sure you're not talking about edit count, but perception of what RfAs are, which is harder to monitor. But would I be one of the arbitrary !voters? {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 05:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can't tell, then it's you ;-) Actually, I suspect it's not a comment directed at anyone in particular, but more of a general feeling. Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No active nominations!

And we're all feeling as if there is nothing to do. Does this mean #1 is no long an issue? User:Akirn (talk) previously User:Icewedge 06:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is one soon to come, and a good candidate at that. ceranthor 10:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd self nom if I had a week to spare - which I don't right now. RfAs can be quite time consuming for the candidate. Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/USERNAME made a short appearance! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, well I'd love to be able to clear some CSD backlogs. But even if I were interested in running again, it would take a miracle for me to pass with 1 1/2 years of almost nothing but vandal-fighting, CSD, and UAA work under my belt, and only 3 mainspace pages. (Which is exactly why I would never pass) I wonder when the mop turned into the pen and paper, requiring content work to do something as menial as blocking vandals and deleting attack pages... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 14:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are there two block buttons then? One for blocking vandals and another for blocking established and productive editors? Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There are 3 block buttons actually, but we're not allowed to talk about the third around the plebs;)--Jac16888 14:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, there's a lot more than that ;). Bad usernames, vandals, socks, personal attacks, Malleus, edit warring, wheel warring, the list goes on and on. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 14:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm flattered to learn that there's a specific block button, just for me. Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would be reasonable to change the 3 standard questins from "optional" to "mandatory" - anyone who doesn't want to answer those probably shouldn't be an admin anyway! (After all, an admin needs to explain themselves). As to further questions, if I asked a question which was not answered, I wouldn't view non-answering as a reason to oppose (a neutral, perhaps) - obviously, an answer may cause me to support or oppose, but not answering wouldn't cause an oppose. I don't think there should be a limit to the questions on an RfA - I had 16 questions on mine (although the 15th was mis-numbered!), and my RfA was a relatively (!) stress-free one - I didn't feel the number of questions was too much (although obviosuly I would have been quite happy to have only had the 3 standard questions!) - and I know that the answer to one person's questions caused my only oppose - and I knew from the outset (having followed RfA beforehand) that a lot of questions was more the norm than the exception. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)