435:'s subpage. Note that I used a style guide whereby "voters" is replaced by "contributors" to steer people away from the notion that RFA is an election, as it is about determining concensus, and not an election. Feel free to edit what I put in the draft; this should be a joint effort to help improve the RFA process in general. As you can see from the page, it is already quite long and I can easily see it getting significantly longer. That's why I was suggesting a secondary page of more direct advice that was short, concise, and very to the point. I don't think the guide as it stands will help to reduce the number of withdrawals that we are seeing, but I think it's a worthy project to help the RFA process improve in general. --
592:), so let's estimate that there were 500 back in October. Thus we get a ratio of 1854/500 or 3.7 active users for every active admin. Of course, this doesn't take into account anonymous users or those users who made less than 100 edits in October. Still, I think this shows that while we'll always need new admins, we're not really in an emergency situation at the moment. We can afford to examine each candidate thoroughly and possibly request that they get a bit more experience before being promoted.
455:
instructions on RfA (such as campaigning, or putting a link in your signature to your RfA) but is standard practice in the RfA process. One does not need to follow RfA for a few months in order to be a good administrator, nor should we expect anyone to do so. Catching them on errors is hardly beneficial to
Knowledge. Instead, I think we should be working to prepare people appropriately for the RfA process and adminship in general rather than laying traps for them to trip over. --
338:. WP:GRFA, starting with suggestions by RobyWayne (RFA Etiquette), is as a mental concept for me greatly expanding. What does concensus mean? Should you avoid pile ons? What's the policy on early withdrawals? How do you withdraw? etc...etc...etc... I was hoping for a far more concise guide directed strictly at potential nominees as per the original discussion this section. But, I see now that there's potential for both and reasons for both. Thoughts? --
380:(working on the draft now). My concern is as I noted above; "keep it short or expect it not to be read". But, perhaps there's so much text in this section you didn't read that ;-) Seriously, I think part of the goal needs to be educating would-be horribly failed nominees as to the likely result of their nomination. Having a looooong document for them to read is unlikely to result in that effect. Regardless, I think
682:
Agreed. Another way of looking at this is whether the new policy of preventing IPs from creating new articles has had any impact. Initial returns on the statistics says no; the number of new articles per day has remained more or less static. Meanwhile, the number of new accounts per day has more than
238:
Durin, great contribution, as always!! Preparing oneself mentally for the RfA journey is a really good idea. Being nominated and then thrust out "naked" into the open can be a very humbling experience. I might add that you may wish to include a section on RfA ettiquette discussing such matters as
96:
I slightly disagree with any worry about this, specifically in regards to
Zereshk. Zereshk, IMHO, overreacted and called the oppose voters the bad guys. He was definitely not civil, and voters were calling him on this. He also was insulted that a voter called him on his lack of experience with using
52:
be provided as an obstacle to nomination, but as a guide. Beyond that, I don't know what more we can do. I don't think we should be responsible for user's poor reactions to contentious RfAs, assuming we do the above. Some users are just ill-suited to being an admin. We might be able to head some of
64:
I was just about to write exactly what Durin said. Anyone coming up for RFA should steel themselves for a possible pounding by all the POV warriors with whom they have ever collided, and accept it--as best they can--as an inevitable part of being part of this huge and chaotic community. A lot of
108:
That's four of us now that think the RfA guide might be a good idea. Pending time availability today, I'll craft something. When I've got a rough draft, I'll let you guys know about it here. In the meantime, I'd certainly welcome input on what should be on it. I do think it's important we keep it
80:
Those are some good points, Durin. I'd support having an "RfA Guide" that would explain the process and potential complications. I also think that a user fit for adminship should be able to withstand a harsh RfA. If the candidate starts lashing out at users who challenge them or act in an incivil
168:
I think the idea of a guide is a good one. As to what it includes, well links to some of the harsher RfA's would be useful. In answer to
Borisblue, I think that if an editor leaves because of a failed RfA and/or get upset at their RfA then they probably don't have the temperament to be an admin.
470:) just lost a support vote because he advertised his nomination on IRC. There's no statement anywhere that he should not have done this. Yet, he's lost one vote and will probably lose more because of it. That's entirely unfair to editors who are not familar with RfA who are up for nomination. --
193:
Just as a point of data; over the last 35 admin nominations, 12 have been withdrawn early. That's 34%. Over the preceeding 207 RfA noms, 22 were withdrawn early. That's 11%. This is a bit paradoxical; we recently changed the nomination process to make it a requirement that nominees accept their
454:
I've seen a number of noms that are virtual "a HA! Gotcha!" because some nominee did not follow process (for example voting for themselves when in fact voting for yourself/your contributions is perfectly normal elsewhere on
Knowledge), or made some other "error" that is not outlined in any
69:
who has been brave enough to tackle Israel-Palestine or Bush-Kerry or
Lilliput-Blefescu or whatever, will likely be subject to oppose votes, and sometimes downright nasty comments. A subpage giving warnings and advice on how to handle the stress of RFA might be a good idea.
47:
It is a concern certainly. I think it might be a good idea to have a very prominent link on the nomination page to a subpage that concisely lays out the potential consequences of RfA, what the user should expect, how the user should be prepared, etc. This should
393:
Nah, I caught it, but perhaps I am simply underestimating the length of this guide. Or have some sort of shortcut to just that section. Or have that section near the top where people might notice it. I can't wait to see what you come up with. Have you looked at
286:
There's a first time for everything :) Actually, in your first comment on this section you said it would be a subpage. Not a big deal for me, though, I'd just thought it would make more sense since the guide would be intricately linked to RFA.
97:
Wiki code. While
Zereshk may be a valuable contributor, he may not be a good admin candidate. Durin is right: we shouldn't be responsible for user's poor reactions to contentious RfAs. I edit conflicted twice, so I think we're all on the same boat.
716:
Lots of our admins are students. Many academic institutions are winding up about now; exams are finishing, deadlines have ended. It doesn't surprise me that there'd be an increase in admin activity around about the first week or two of
December.
728:
Allow me to rephrase. What I mean is the # of edits that are done per day divided by the number of admins we have has increased. Thus (assuming vandalism as a proportion of total edits stays the same), the load on admins has recently increased.
443:
In my rather unsympathetic approach to RfA, I think that any good candidate for adminship should already know all that before they go ahead with a request. I suppose it may serve as fair warning to editors likely to be unsuccessful, however.
514:
I think we should note that of the 40,000+ accounts that people have signed up for here (sure I saw that number somewhere), fewer than 750 editors have been promoted thus far (ergo, tho adminship is no big deal, neither is it a given).
300:
Actually, I found some precedent but I think it's not a good one to follow. For quite some time now, there's been a general opinion that subpages are bad, and linked articles are better. I've created the guide as per convention of
619:
Not sure whether the active user stat is significant. Not only do a very large percentage of the active users create no trouble, most do some sort of vandal fighting. It is the less active ones who often need admin attention.
239:
advertising your RfA, campaigning, er, uh, voting on your own, etc. Noting that there are no rules against such things, but they often land the candidate in an ill light. I'd love to see the draft when you post it.
180:. Some good editors have left the project because of bad RFAs, and WP has lost good contributors because of that. Zereshk has 5000 edits for instance, though thankfully he isn't leaving the project. My main example is
116:
I'm not sure if you counted me as one of the four, but let me throw my hat into the ring just to be sure. Yeah, I think this is something that is way overdue. Good on Durin for volunteering.
487:
Better guidance could help to make RfA more positive and reduce the number of hopeless applications. The proposed guides appear mature now, and I propose that the third paragraph of
647:
The active user stat is useful for boiling down the absurdly inflated figure of 650,000+ users. The overwhelming majority of these users have made only a handful of edits.
480:
32:
502:
200:
the number of nominations that were withdrawn. I'll try to get to work on the guide. Maybe that will have a reducing effect on the number of withdraws. --
498:
494:
467:
381:
377:
335:
223:
262:
Now that I think of it, making it a subpage of the RFA page makes more sense than making it a page by itself, as per Durin's original suggestion.
588:
I think this is a pretty good definition of "active", since that's slightly more than 3 edits/day. There are currently 576 "active" admins (see
109:
concise; one of the things I do in my professional job is web development, and an age old maxim is keep it short or expect it not to be read. --
585:
and found out some interesting info. The most recent data was for
October 2005. There were 1854 users who made at least 100 edits in October.
683:
doubled. Also, the # of edits per admin per day has increased somewhat. I don't think this new policy has had the intended effect. --
207:
I've retitled this section with a more appropriate title. This might draw more people's eyes to the discussion in this section. --
589:
331:
131:
579:
You're right, but the need isn't quite as dire as that stat makes is seem. Here a copy of a comment I made in a section above:
39:
I get concerned when good editors get upset in RFAs. Sadly, some have even left the project. Is anyone else worried about this?
269:
536:- "User statistics - We have 658,721 registered users, of which 721 (or 0.11%) are administrators." But yes, I agree.
302:
146:
550:
21:
418:
367:
170:
53:
the off before they go up for RfA, but once they are up for RfA we can't control what happens nor should we. --
252:
142:
792:
Some of the new accounts will, for a while, be established but anonymous users converting to identities.
754:
And an greater number of new users have been created after the anon-indiction (some stats here, courtesy
184:. I feel guilty because I voted oppose on his rfa. He was a good editor, but we've lost him for good now.
586:
214:
Hear hear. Happy to contribute from the perspective of a user who has recently had an unsuccessful RfA.
384:
is a good idea...even its focus is less about advice for nominees than about the process in general. --
65:
good editors who stay away from controversial articles still go through 40-1, or so, while now almost
652:
597:
413:
404:
399:
362:
353:
348:
154:
102:
86:
74:
722:
533:
755:
525:
324:
In considering issues for the guide, I've come to realization that there's perhaps need for
583:
621:
507:
347:
I'm not sure you need two pages. Why can't the first just be a section of the second? --
648:
593:
544:
428:
288:
273:
263:
243:
227:
185:
150:
135:
117:
98:
82:
71:
40:
793:
785:
718:
573:
556:
463:
432:
395:
256:
215:
17:
516:
445:
730:
684:
471:
456:
436:
385:
339:
306:
280:
231:
208:
201:
124:
110:
54:
537:
777:
december 3rd/4th (10000 users ago) it was 500 users in 4 hours 54 minutes
376:
I definitely think it could be. In fact, that's the way I'm structuring
181:
774:
november 30th (20000 users ago) it was 500 users in 3 hours 38 minutes
771:
november 27th (30000 users ago) it was 500 users in 6 hours 43 minutes
768:
november 23rd (40000 users ago) it was 500 users in 5 hours 21 minutes
194:
nominations prior to being posted on WP:RFA. This was done in part to
765:
november 19th (50000 users ago) it was 500 users in 7 hours 0 minutes
398:'s subpage yet? There are a couple of decent points on there. --
334:
as suggested by
Borisblue. Another would be as I suggested,
780:
current (0 users ago) it was 500 users in 2 hours 4 minutes
222:
Modifying
Carbonite's suggestion, I've begun working on
330:
articles. One would be something along the lines of
81:manner, they're probably not ready to be an admin.
251:Cool stuff. I've scribbled some thoughts down at
505:gives useful advice on applying for adminship.
8:
431:. LV: Yes, I used substantial material from
332:Knowledge:Advice for administrator nominees
132:Knowledge:Advice for administrator nominees
572:Seeing that: we need more admins ;-)
382:Knowledge:Guide to requests for adminship
378:Knowledge:Guide to requests for adminship
336:Knowledge:Guide to requests for adminship
224:Knowledge:Guide to requests for adminship
176:I concur, but they could still make good
230:. Anybody disagree with these titles? --
270:Knowledge:Requests_for_adminship/Guide
130:Might as well get started on a title.
784:which had to be expected, after all.
7:
501:before submitting your request. The
503:miniguide to requests for adminship
226:. There will be a shortcut for it,
28:
489:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
725:| 20:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
1:
788:13:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
733:02:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
576:13:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
530:12:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
510:11:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
450:14:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
283:18:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
276:18:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
266:18:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
259:18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
248:17:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
234:17:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
173:15:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
127:15:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
120:15:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
113:15:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
105:15:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
43:14:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
796:13:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
687:14:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
655:14:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
624:13:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
600:13:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
563:13:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
495:administrators' reading list
493:Please be familiar with the
474:18:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
459:15:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
439:21:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
420:20:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
388:19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
369:18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
342:18:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
309:21:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
291:19:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
218:17:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
211:17:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
204:17:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
188:15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
157:15:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
138:15:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
89:15:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
77:15:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
57:15:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
582:I took a look at Wikistats
303:Knowledge:Guide to deletion
147:Knowledge:Guide to deletion
811:
491:should be revised to read:
427:Ok, I completed the draft
255:; hope they are of use.
253:User:The Land/RfA Guide
279:Precedent examples? --
143:Knowledge:Guide to RfA
171:CambridgeBayWeather
534:Special:Statistics
449:
141:How about simply
802:
559:
553:
547:
540:
523:
448:
416:
411:
402:
365:
360:
351:
810:
809:
805:
804:
803:
801:
800:
799:
562:
557:
551:
545:
538:
517:
506:
492:
485:
462:Case in point;
414:
405:
400:
363:
354:
349:
123:Five :) --
37:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
808:
806:
798:
797:
782:
781:
778:
775:
772:
769:
766:
762:
761:
760:
759:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
567:
566:
565:
564:
542:
484:
477:
476:
475:
460:
441:
440:
424:
423:
422:
421:
390:
389:
371:
370:
344:
343:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
305:and others. --
295:
294:
293:
292:
220:
219:
212:
205:
191:
190:
189:
166:
165:
164:
163:
162:
161:
160:
159:
158:
139:
93:
92:
91:
90:
78:
59:
58:
36:
31:Guide to RfA (
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
807:
795:
791:
790:
789:
787:
779:
776:
773:
770:
767:
764:
763:
757:
753:
752:
751:
750:
732:
727:
726:
724:
720:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
686:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
654:
650:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
623:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
599:
595:
591:
587:
584:
581:
580:
578:
577:
575:
571:
570:
569:
568:
560:
554:
548:
541:
535:
532:
531:
529:
528:
524:
522:
521:
513:
512:
511:
509:
504:
500:
496:
490:
482:
478:
473:
469:
465:
464:User:Babajobu
461:
458:
453:
452:
451:
447:
438:
434:
433:User:The Land
430:
426:
425:
419:
417:
412:
410:
409:
403:
397:
396:User:The Land
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
372:
368:
366:
361:
359:
358:
352:
346:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
323:
322:
308:
304:
299:
298:
297:
296:
290:
285:
284:
282:
278:
277:
275:
271:
268:
267:
265:
261:
260:
258:
254:
250:
249:
247:
246:
242:
237:
236:
235:
233:
229:
225:
217:
213:
210:
206:
203:
199:
198:
192:
187:
183:
179:
175:
174:
172:
167:
156:
152:
148:
145:, similar to
144:
140:
137:
133:
129:
128:
126:
122:
121:
119:
115:
114:
112:
107:
106:
104:
100:
95:
94:
88:
84:
79:
76:
73:
68:
63:
62:
61:
60:
56:
51:
46:
45:
44:
42:
34:
30:
23:
19:
783:
756:Kelly Martin
526:
519:
518:
499:how-to guide
488:
486:
442:
407:
406:
356:
355:
326:
325:
244:
240:
221:
196:
195:
177:
66:
49:
38:
22:RFA Subjects
18:User:Useight
508:dave souza
481:Archive 42
479:Guidance (
245:Roby Wayne
72:Antandrus
33:Archive 35
649:Carbonite
594:Carbonite
401:Lord Vold
350:Lord Vold
289:Borisblue
274:Borisblue
264:Borisblue
186:Borisblue
151:Carbonite
136:Borisblue
118:Borisblue
99:Linuxbeak
83:Carbonite
41:Borisblue
794:The Land
786:Lectonar
719:Shimgray
574:Lectonar
257:The Land
216:The Land
20: |
429:WP:GRFA
228:WP:GRFA
182:User:Rl
178:editors
622:Tintin
520:BD2412
446:Splash
197:reduce
75:(talk)
67:anyone
731:Durin
685:Durin
472:Durin
457:Durin
437:Durin
386:Durin
340:Durin
307:Durin
281:Durin
241:>:
232:Durin
209:Durin
202:Durin
125:Durin
111:Durin
55:Durin
16:<
723:talk
653:Talk
598:Talk
590:here
539:NSLE
497:and
415:mort
364:mort
155:Talk
103:Talk
87:Talk
558:CVU
468:RfA
327:two
50:not
758:):
729:--
721:|
651:|
596:|
272:?
153:|
149:?
101:|
85:|
561:)
555:+
552:C
549:+
546:T
543:(
527:T
483:)
466:(
444:-
408:e
357:e
134:?
35:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.