User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Potential candidates

Admin suggestions (Archive 23)
I offer this list as a possible source of inspriation for nominations (posted by User:UninvitedCompany).

Please be aware that these represent old and active users. You should take the same care in nominating and voting for these as for any other potential administrator. Some of these have been nominated in the past but the nominations failed.

'''This is not an A-List for nomination. Feel free to nominate (or not) whoever you want for adminship.''' (Posted by User:Cecropia)

mysql> select * from tenure where months_active > 11 and total_edits > 4000 and admin = 'N' and yyyymm_last = 200410; +-+--+-+---+-+---+ | user_text       | yyyymm_first | yyyymm_last | months_active | total_edits | admin | +-+--+-+---+-+---+ | Andre Engels #  |       200103 |      200410 |            38 |       16425 | N     | | RK             |       200110 |      200410 |            35 |        7584 | N     | | Derek Ross  *  |       200111 |      200410 |            35 |        7514 | N     | | Ortolan88   *  |       200111 |      200410 |            16 |        6669 | N     | | Jeronimo    *  |       200201 |      200410 |            32 |        7175 | N     | | Gsl         #  |       200203 |      200410 |            12 |        4771 | N     | | Maury Markowitz*|      200205 |      200410 |            30 |        5342 | N     | | Daniel C. Boyer |      200206 |      200410 |            29 |        4507 | N     | | KF           * |       200208 |      200410 |            27 |        6863 | N     | | Ericd          |       200209 |      200410 |            23 |        5447 | N     | | Frecklefoot #  |       200209 |      200410 |            26 |        8102 | N     | | Kchishol1970   |       200210 |      200410 |            25 |        4308 | N     | | Liftarn     #  |       200211 |      200410 |            22 |        4016 | N     | | IZAK           |       200212 |      200410 |            15 |        9724 | N     | | TakuyaMurata # |       200212 |      200410 |            18 |       14097 | N     | | Wapcaplet   *  |       200212 |      200410 |            23 |        5981 | N     | | Arpingstone    |       200301 |      200410 |            22 |        6846 | N     | | Karada      *  |       200301 |      200410 |            22 |        6797 | N     |

| Ruhrjung       |       200304 |      200410 |            17 |        4396 | N     | | BRG         *  |       200305 |      200410 |            18 |        5130 | N     | | Lee M          |       200305 |      200410 |            18 |        7144 | N     | | Mulad          |       200305 |      200410 |            13 |        4069 | N     | | Mydogategodshat |      200305 |      200410 |            18 |        4621 | N     | | Hyacinth    *  |       200307 |      200410 |            16 |       10185 | N     | | Zoicon5     *  |       200307 |      200410 |            16 |        8457 | N     | | VeryVerily     |       200308 |      200410 |            15 |        7383 | N     | | Wernher        |       200308 |      200410 |            15 |        6628 | N     | | Adam Carr      |       200309 |      200410 |            14 |       10562 | N     | | Timc        *  |       200309 |      200410 |            14 |        4026 | N     | | Wetman      #  |       200309 |      200410 |            14 |        8624 | N     | | Robbot     %   |       200310 |      200410 |            13 |       13158 | N     | | LGagnon     *  |       200311 |      200410 |            12 |        5261 | N     | | Sam Spade      |       200311 |      200410 |            12 |       11413 | N     | +-+--+-+---+-+---+ 34 33 rows in set (0.00 sec) mysql> quit

I have added a * for users recently nominated, a # for users who have declined nomination, and a % for bots.

This is very amusing. Can somebody please take my name out of this table? Suggestion (specially for UC or whatever the name): Instead of nomination frenzy, what about joining Danny's Contest? muriel@pt 09:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Your name is in the list with a decline symbol - that way nobody will think you're an admin candidate and nominate you. Andre ( talk )A| 15:58, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Then take her off the list as she has requested. Since this is a list of "possible source of inspriation" that she does not want to be on. - Taxman 17:17, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Erm - is there any reason why you or Muriel couldn't be bold and do it yourself? I've commented it out, but its still in the source, in case anyone is interested. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Believe me i tried but the result was a total mess with the table format. I wonder what made uc and Co. think that i wanted to be an admin again... muriel@pt 10:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Non-admins with high edit counts (Archive 28)
By comparing the List of Wikipedians by number of edits to the list of current admins, I've come up with some users who should be considered for adminship based on their edit counts alone (of course, other factors should also be considered). If you recognize someone in this list, and you feel they would make a good admin, you might consider nominating them for adminship. Because this was automated, there are likely to be mistakes/omissions. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-15 17:49

This list was moved to List of non-admins with high edit counts


 * Perhaps merge this with User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins where many people have already been contacted and indicated in some cases that they specifically should not be nominated. Rick's list is out of date, however, so the merge would be useful. -Splash 17:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Remember, editcountitis may be fatal. Kelly Martin 19:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! (and I'm not just saying that because of my edit count. No! Don't anyone dare look!) gkhan 19:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fatal? Do we have any casualties yet? :) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

would seem like an obvious one. dab (&#5839;) 19:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * He said not to nominate him until he's been here 9 months... so wait till November 20th. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-15 19:44
 * Which is why you should merge the info from Rick Block's list, where BDA gives that info. I'd do it myself, but it's too much of a task. -Splash 19:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * fwiiw, I did check the list before posting, where his name appears struck out. dab (&#5839;) 20:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a pretty little ole edit button at the top, you know? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-15 20:15
 * This list includes User:Gzornenplatz, whom even we newbies have heard of. Surely this should be collated with other lists - like banned users. Septentrionalis 20:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * nobody is going to nominate Wik, for example :oP dab (&#5839;) 20:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely you should feel free to do said collating. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-15 20:17
 * Ignoring minor differences due to sort order and age of data, the major difference between Brian's list and the one I put together is that every single user on my list has been invited to indicate interest in becoming an admin (* by a user's name indicates interest, and was added by the user) and the list has been cross checked with banned users and folks who have already denied invitations to be nominated (and includes at least recent unsuccessful nominations). A few folks deleted themselves from my list entirely.  Rather than restart from scratch, I think we should definitely merge these lists.  I'm willing to do this, but haven't gotten around to it since WP:1000 was updated.  Perhaps there should be a pointer to one of these lists from WP:1000 so yet another one isn't created. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've crossed out all users who were crossed out on your list. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-15 21:26
 * I've bolded all users who were starred on your list. If you can point out what other lists you cross-checked them with, then I can clean up this list more. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-08-15 21:45
 * I've cross-checked with Missing Wikipedians, and made the necessary changes. Any other lists? &mdash; BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-08-15 21:56
 * Other lists: Wikipedia:List of banned users, former and declined from WP:LA (and, BTW, although it seems I may be one shortly I'm not an admin yet). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done and done. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2005-08-15 23:13
 * Remember that several who have declined in the past may be interested at some future stage (Zscout370 wasn't interested when I originally asked for instance, but stood for admin a couple of months later). There are a couple of people I've suggested adminship to on that list who at the time said they weren't interested (Ceyockey and BD2412), but I didn't cross their names out because it was a while ago and who knows? They may change their minds. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if someone refuses nomination then - rather than scratching their name out - it should be noted that they have refused nom and when. That way we know not to pester them again for a few months, but aren't put off ever asking again. Grutness...  wha?  09:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A list of non-admins with high admin potential
This would make it easier to size up admin hopefuls and perhaps make any future voting go quicker and smoother. This would be the place to make sure a potential nominee wants to be an admin, and give admin hopefuls feedback and suggestions before any voting occurs. This would also reduce the number of ridiculous and hopeless nominations.


 * Rule 1: All self-noms must pass through here.
 * Rule 2: A user can only be posted here by a consensus of 5 or more users.
 * Rule 3: Minimum stay of 7 days.
 * Rule 4: A presiding administrator or bureaucrat give a final assesment at the end of the feedback period. If the presidor deems the feedback good enough, the candidate moves on to voting. If the presidor deems the feedback not good enough, then the user is stricken from the list and rule 5 applies:
 * Rule 5: The period between feedback sessions no shorter than 3 weeks.

What do you think? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Like It, But...

 * 1) "A consensus of 5 or more users" sounds a bit unrealistic or at least hard to achieve. Normally, as per the current procedure, one user approaches another one, like would you fancy it?!. I can't see how a minimum of 5 would gather in a room to discuss who will be the one fancying it next. Unless it would be the user himself approaching 10 and that would not be a good idea in terms of ethics. -- Szvest 15:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;

Have you lost your freaking mind?!

 * 1) No. It is against the entire process to create "A-lists" of people for adminship or any other function. This is worse than unnecessary, especially given the current ease of making a self-nom. -- Cecropia 14:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) No. The above phrase isn't my exact sentiment, but it's the only no option. :-) The process right now is good enough, this adds instruction creep. --Deathphoenix 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) No. I agree, it creates crinstruction eep. &mdash;  J I P  | Talk 20:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) No.  I agree.  What if we miss somebody?  For example, on List of non-admins with high edit counts, there are probably a lot of editors that should be listed there but are not.  It's also instruction creep.  There are probably just too many users here for something like this to work.  I've seen several nominations in the last few months get closed early by bureaucrats who knew that the nominations would probably fail.  I don't see anything wrong with their continuing to do that.  The community puts a lot of trust in bureaucrats as it is, and the number of requests at any given time isn't that high.  --Idont Havaname 03:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) No. This will lead to excessive politicking and wannabe-ism. Next thing you know, all the newbies on the anti-vandalism "unit" will be high-fiving each other onto this list, thinking they'll make swell admins. Oy. --Improv 10:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) No. As above. enochlau (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) No. It would add more red tape to something that "shouldn't be a big deal and per reasons above. Youngamerican 16:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "There are probably a lot of editors that should be listed there but are not." Yeah, including me. I had 2,700 last I checked. Kate's site is down so I can't be sure. Anyway, I see your point. Wikipedia's gotten so big, it's almost impossible to deal with a group of users on an induvidual basis. It was just a thought. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Other
Don't 1 & 2 contradict each other? I mean, a 1-self doesn't equal a 5-in-agreement... or is that to be read as "self-nominations will require 4 sponsors"? The Literate Engineer 02:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rule 2 might be interpreted as "Rule 2: A user can only remain posted here by a consensus of 5 or more users.". In that case, a 1-self sitting un-attested by more than 5 users, for a 7 day stretch, might then disappear from the list. --Ancheta Wis 02:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh. Yeah, that'd make sense. The Literate Engineer 02:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You could interpret it that way. I didn't originally think about it that way but it makes sense how it would contradict itself. So how about: "Self noms must have the support of at least five other users"? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is something that our bureaucrats can determine for themselves. --Deathphoenix 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Types of potential admins, and how each type fares in RfA (Archive 65)
I think it would be good to look at recent RfAs and determine how the community responds to each type of admin candidate. When I say type I mean: 1)the vandal fighter, 2)the article editor who could use the tools, 3)the tech expert 4)the WP policy wonk, and so on. Which types are being most supported and which are being passed over for adminship. Ultimately, what mix of admins are we creating? Six months from now, are we going to have a group of admins dominated by one or two types? And how is this going to affect the ongoing operation of WP? This is so subjective, I am not sure where to start, but I think looking into this sort of thing would be useful. Any ideas of how to analyze this? NoSeptember 08:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We can look into his/her contributions and identify his edits. This is a tough one though, but I like the idea. --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 09:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Vandal fighters and AfDers are reigning supreme, because if you don't do those things, you are absolutely worthless. H ig hway <sup style="color:#FFCBDB;">Return to Oz...  14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No one's ever said Article Editors are worthless, but I have seen many people !vote oppose for these folks based on "doesn't need the tools".-- Firsfron of Ronchester 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But even then, AfDers are only reigning supreme if they're supporting the right articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think that's a very good view, because article editors can do everything, they revert vandalism, they protect, they move and they occassionally log AfDs. So Article Editors are Jack-of-all-trades, is that a bad thing? H ig hway <sup style="color:#FFCBDB;">Return to Oz...  15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To get back to NoSeptember's original question... I suppose, for new RfAs, you could simply ask each candidate which category s/he felt s/he was in. For analyzing old data, you could compare them with the "what would you do with the tools?" question, which is asked in many (certainly not all) RfAs. Making some sort of chart might be useful. Didn't User:Durin create something like this? I don't rightly recall.-- Firsfron of Ronchester 15:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, and I think between the nom statement, the answer to "what would you do once an admin?", and the supports/opposes, you could get a (very subjective, but perhaps useful) metric. Maybe rate them on each of the four types? That gives you an automatic fifth type: the eager newbie who applied WAY too soon. I like the idea. -- nae'blis 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we're kind of barking up the wrong tree here, although the study could be interesting if done the way Nae'blis describes. The point is that people who are exclusively any one of those stereotypes are more likely to fail than editors with experience in all four areas, or at least the first, second, and fourth. My perception of votes is that people are lookin for a balance. But, as I said, if someone comes up with some rough rating in each area as Nae'blis said, perhaps it will reveal how much experience is being required in each topic, and we can evaluated if that's a good thing. -- SCZenz 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's probably archetypal categories you can pigeon-hole candidates in, but the above four doesn't get at the two things I see most often taking candidates down in flames: civility and POV-pushing. Maybe a "skill" based analysis would be better than the above categories:
 * a) article-writing
 * b) civility
 * c) NPOV
 * d) general policy knowledge
 * e) anti-vandalism
 * f) MediaWiki knowledge (trying to get at the "technical" type).
 * Try to rate them from 1-10 (obviously former admins like Sean Black would have a bonus in some categories), and see where we end up? I'd hypothesize SCZenz is right, about the well-rounded candidate being best, but some will likely come up as more consistently high than others. I know where I'd rate myself... -- nae'blis 16:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you try something like that, be sure you include things like inclusionism/deletionism and copyright stringency. Opinions can count for a lot; many RFAs fail because the person is too harsh/lenient on notability or copyright in particular (since both are very relevant to many admin tasks).  Likewise belief in IAR vs. consensus vs. process regularly comes up. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want a Guinea pig to first disect this thing, you can use me when I'm not so shiny new. Yank  sox  20:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe inclusionism/deletionism is too subjective to be measured (as is eventualism/immediatism). IAR/process is likewise very subjective, though you could argue it falls under "does the user known/is familiar with policy?". Copyright definitely comes under policy awareness IMO. I was trying to limit the list to things that were unequivocally good, but individual standards may vary as to what "score" is needed. -- nae'blis 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Along the same lines of what the candidates do, another polarising factor seems to be does the candidate hang out in IRC. It seems that those who do get an initial rush of support. The oppose votes tend to come later when others happen to pass through RfA. At least this is my impression, has anyone esle noticed this phenomenon? David D. (Talk) 16:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If an editor has a record of contributions to the project and no history of causing problems and they want to be an administrator then they should be an administrator and it should be no big deal.--JWSchmidt 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "no history of causing problems": And there lies the subjectivity. David D. (Talk) 17:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Current Wikipedia policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Most users seem to agree that the more administrators there are the better." (source) --JWSchmidt 17:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Preemptive notification? (Archive 75)
I've run across a few users who have userboxes saying they hope to one day become admins, but in my dealings with them have noticed problems with civility, abuse of process, etc. Is there any good way to get a notification if and when these people ever put up a request for adminship? I know I can watchlist the main page, but then I will hear about tons of requests I know and care nothing about. --Dgies 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling is to not prejudice against 'squeaky wheels' and treat their RfA's as one would any other. I'm coming down on the side of 'assume good faith' without having investigated the instances you have in hand, but my gut says don't be preemptive and hold out hope that they've learned/grown/mellowed by the time they make it here ... if they ever do.  The larger question, though, is how to weight past activity, as an extended present or as a time-resolved series. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 22:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually, you would watch the possible RFA page, even if not created still. That is how many are acknowledge about RFAs. However, I would trust the community to know when a candidate with civility problems applies. -- ReyBrujo 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, it's possible to watchlist a nonexistent page? Does that really work? --Dgies 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, go to its edit page, click watch and it will show up in Special:Watchlist/edit as a red link and when the page is eventually created, it will show up in the watchlist as a new page. Tra (Talk) 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I've used this approach before. It works great for a first RfA, but less reliable for a second or third as the naming conventions vary somewhat. —Doug Bell talk 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)