User:Ikip/Desysop

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
It was last substantively updated January 2010.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. It was last substantively updated January 2010.

From User:Cool3/Desysop in case editor decides to delete user page (as has happened in the past), valuable information is retained.

De-sysopped users are taken from Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. This is not an analysis of what went wrong; I have specifically not attempted to present any judgment of my own on the admin's actions (I have removed, though, desysopping due to compromised accounts). This is instead an analysis of the RfAs of admins who were later desysopped t see what, if anything, we can learn.

Sample

Notes:Users with no RfA removed. User:Guanaco removed; too complicated for our purposes and one removal shouldn't skew results significantly.

Data

#	User	Number of RfAs	Months Active	Edit Count	Support !Votes	Oppose !Votes	Neutral !Votes	Support %	Self-nom?	Year of RfA
1	Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason	1	4	800	19	3	0	86.4%	No	2004
2	Carnildo	1^[1]	19	5000	40	4	2	90.9%	No	2005
3	Karmafist	1	14	2359	53	2	1	96.4%	No	2005
4	Husnock	1	21	10510	43	2	1	95.6%	No	2006
5	Yanksox	1	5	8200	104	4	7	96.3%	No	2006
6	Geni	1	8	1200	17	5	1	77.2%	Yes	2004
7	Freakofnurture	1	9	2956	64	2	0	97.0%	No	2005
8	Robdurbar	1	13	7313	48	3	2	94.1%	Yes	2006
9	Shreshth91	1	6	2300	22	0	0	100%	Yes	2005
10	Zscout370	1	6	Roughly 8500	98	2	0	98.0%	No	2005
11	Ike9898	1	8	500	7	0	0	100%	Yes	2004
12	Bedford	1	34	14873	82	4	5	95.3%	No	2008
13	Hemanshu	1	3	2000	13	0	0	100%	Yes	2004
14	Mitchazenia	2	25	15356	55	6	2	90.2%	No	2007
15	Freestylefrappe	2	14	3000	38	11	3	77.6%	No	2005
16	NSLE	1	3	2040	71	1	2	98.6%	No	2005
17	Dbiv	1	10	2000	14	0	1	100%	Yes	2005
18	Everyking	1	3	5200	20	1	0	95.2%	No	2004
19	Marudubshinki	1	7	4600	19	2	1	90.5%	No	2005
20	MONGO	1	8	6107	58	14	3	80.6%	No	2005
21	Seabhcan	1	20	2642	22	2	5	91.7%	Yes	2005
22	Betacommand	1	11	7630	73	3	3	96%	No	2006
23	Runcorn	1	8	5700	39	1	0	97.5%	No	2006
24	Rama's Arrow	2	12	19000	159	0	0	100%	No	2006
25	Alkivar	3	16	7000	69	20	8	77.5%	No	2005
26	Archtransit	1	7	3143	53	0	0	100%	No	2008
27	Tango	1	8	1596	58	0	5	100%	Yes	2006
28	FeloniousMonk	1	11	2750	64	15	9	81.0%	No	2005
29	Henrygb	2	16	4880	24	0	0	100%	Yes	2005
30	Eyrian	1	24	4943	39	8	11	83.0%	No	2007
31	Can't sleep, clown will eat me	3	6	18000	246	12	5	95.3%	Yes	2006

Exemplary sample (crats, checkuser, oversight)

Data 2

#	User	Number of RfAs	Months Active	Edit Count	Support !Votes	Oppose !Votes	Neutral !Votes	Support %	Self-nom?	Year of RfA
1	Andrevan	1	14	1801	20	0	0	100%	No	2004
2	Anonymous Dissident	2	7	10000	165	1	2	99.4%	No	2007
3	Avraham	1	11	3700	63	5	1	92.6%	No	2006
4	Cecropia	1	3	800	36	10	0	78.3%	No	2004
5	Deskana	1	10	2000	54	2	3	96.4%	Yes	2006
6	Dweller	1	18	8700	108	0	0	100%	No	2007
7	EVula	1	11	3000	62	0	0	100%	No	2006
8	Linuxbeak	1	4	2583	45	4	1	91.8%	No	2005
9	Nichalp	1	8	2000	14	2	1	87.5%	No	2004
10	Carcharoth	1	33	26455	147	0	0	100%	No	2007
11	Casliber	1	10	8344	49	0	0	100%	No	2007
12	Cool Hand Luke	1	7	1050	16	3	1	84.2%	Yes	2004
13	Coren	3	7	5055	51	1	2	98.0%	No	2007
14	David Gerard	1	4	4000	39	0	0	100%	No	2004
15	FT2	2	29	14000	56	7	3	88.9%	No	2007
16	FayssalF	1	8	4099	39	1	0	97.5%	No	2005
17	Charles Matthews	1	8	4800	7	0	0	100%	No	2004
18	Daniel Case	1	29	23648	40	5	3	88.9%	No	2007

Control Group Twenty Random Admins

Data 3

#	User	Number of RfAs	Months Active	Edit Count	Support !Votes	Oppose !Votes	Neutral !Votes	Support %	Self-nom?	Year of RfA
1	Johan Elisson	1	24	10000	64	0	0	100%	No	2006
2	SoWhy	1	54	7681	123	15	8	89.1%	No	2008
3	Tabercil	1	27	9018	44	1	0	97.8%	No	2007
4	Maury Markowitz	1	24	5000	10	0	0	100%	No	2004
5	Garzo	1	11	Roughly 4000	37	0	0	100%	No	2005
6	Edcolins	1	17	11000	27	1	0	96.4%	No	2005
7	Lacrimosus	1	14	4727	36	1	0	97.3%	Yes	2005
8	Nv8200p	1	25	8200	25	0	1	100%	No	2005
9	Exploding Boy	1	3	Roughly 1000	22	3	1	88%	No	2004
10	Henrik	1	12	3000	39	1	1	97.5%	No	2007
11	MoRsE	3	10	6300	50	2	0	96.1%	Yes	2007
12	Phaedriel	2	8	5168	271	6	5	97.8%	No	2006
13	Encephalon	3	8	Roughly 4000	125	1	0	99.2%	No	2006
14	Utcursch	1	13	3750	19	0	0	100%	No	2005
15	Aqwis	1	13	2576	49	3	4	94.2%	No	2008
16	Arjun01	1	5	9000	111	1	2	99.1%	No	2007
17	BD2412	1	10	32763	183	0	0	100%	No	2005
18	Dinoguy1000	1	34	11036	83	1	2	98.8%	No	2009
19	Pengo	1	35	7484+	47	11	3	81.0%	Yes	2006
20	Kzollman	1	7	2297	24	0	0	100%	No	2005

Questions and preliminary conclusions

Multiple RfAs

Many editors are suspicious of candidates who have had multiple RfAs. Are editors with lots of RfAs really more likely to end up as problem admins?

The evidence here is somewhat mixed, but on the whole I'm not really seeing any strong correlation between lots of RfAs and a bad admin, although there is some sort of connection. Of the 31 desysopped admins, 6 (19.4%) had multiple RfAs. In the exemplary group, 3 out of 18 admins had multiple RfAs (16.7%). Out of the control group, though, only 2 (10%) had multiple RfAs. I'll leave you to form your own conclusions based on this data, as there is room for interpretation in many directions. On the whole, though this data certainly suggests that reflexively opposing multiple RfA candidates is clearly unjustified.

Experience

How long does it take to become good admin material? Are inexperienced admins more likely to end up being desysopped?

Because our samples span the entire history of RfA, and standards have changed, straightforward averages are unlikely to be useful in answering this question. A simple examination of the data, just eyeballing it, though seems to show no link between experience and later quality. Just about all of the admins here, in all categories, had what was considered "enough" experience for the time when they were promoted. Candidates with very high levels of experience ended up desysopped (e.g., Rama's Arrow and Bedford) while others with low levels (Cool Hand Luke and Cecropia) ended up in the exemplary sample. There is undoubtedly some minimum level of experience required for adminship, but no evidence here shows that either barely reaching that level or amply exceeding it results in a better administrator.

The Discretion Zone

Are candidates whose RfAs pass in the "discretion zone" (<80% support) more likely to end up as poor administrators?

The data here is really insufficient to render a verdict. Only 4 of the admins studied here passed in the discretion zone. 3 of them came from the desysop group (9.6% of those desysopped) while 1 came from the exemplary group (5.6% of exemplary admins). So yes, there is some suggestion here that "discretion zone" admins are more likely to be desysopped, but it's really hard to form a conclusion on such limited data.

Overall support percentage

Beyond the discretion zone, does the overall support percentage matter? Are those who receive more support more likely to turn out as good admins?

The answer here is again complicated. 8 of the 31 desysopped admins passed through RfA with unanimous (100%) support. So clearly, it was hard for the RfA !voters to see their future coming.

On average, the desysopped admins received 92.96% support in their RfAs.^[2] The exemplary group received 94.64% support in their RfAs. The control group admins received 96.62% support in their RfAs. So for all of the groups, the percentage was in the 90s. The desysopped group did have slightly less support, but hardly to a significant level. Whatever the link between support percentages and outcomes, though, I think it is fairly clear that raising requirements wouldn't do much good. In order to eliminate 50% of the desysopped admins, we would have to raise the requirement in excess of 95% which would also eliminate 39% of the exemplary sample.

Self-noms

Many editors regard self nominations with a certain suspicion. Is there reason to believe that editors who self-nominate will make poor admins?

It seems that there may some reason for this concern. In the desysop group, nearly 1/3 of editors self-nominated (32%) while in the exemplary group only 11% self-nommed and in the control group 15% self-nommed. This is the most statistically significant finding in this study so far, but we are still dealing with a fairly small set of data.

Notes

^ RfAs after desysopping are considered irrelevant
^ These percentages are the averages of the percentage supporting, not the overall support percentage that one would get by adding up all supports and opposes.

[1] RfAs after desysopping are considered irrelevant

[2] These percentages are the averages of the percentage supporting, not the overall support percentage that one would get by adding up all supports and opposes.

[1]

[2]