Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Unsuccessful RfAs
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RfA reform 2011/Unsuccessful RfAs page. |
|
Interesting work, I'm surprised at the number who stopped editing in Feb 11, was this survey done in March 11 and if so could it be just that their most recent edit was in Feb? Also you have one editor who will stop in Nov 11, is this planning for the future or a typo? ϢereSpielChequers 08:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not exactly a survey, but more me looking at their edits. Editors who stopped in Feb 11 could indeed be taking a break, it was done at the end of March, so about a week ago. You're right, the Nov 11 was a typo, I meant Nov 10. WormTT · (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think you'll find that a month is too soon to assume someone has left. A couple of tweaks would make this more useful, especially as a hunting ground for potential candidates. Firstly at least one of these candidates (Ironholds) has subsequently become an admin, marking the ones that have since become admins would be helpful. I have a script in my monobook that displays userrights when I visit someone's talkpage, you might find it useful in maintaining this. Secondly it would be good to get comparisons, though trends need to be very unsubtle on these volumes before they can be seen as statistically meaningful There is the expected and lamentable pattern that a proportion of rejected candidates leave, I'm hoping that the measures we took a year or two back may have reduced this, so it would be useful if this could be taken further back in time. Comparisons with retention of admins and other editors would also be interesting, I am fairly sure that admins are less likely to leave than other similarly active editors, but it would be interesting to know how the retention of unsuccessful candidates compares to that of non-running editors. ϢereSpielChequers 14:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, which is why I mentioned specifically when they stopped editing if I wasn't certain they had. At the time, I hadn't considered this as a means to finding candidates, but it's certainly a possibility. Jenks24 went through and added any users who had gained adminship as a comment, but I'll have a look at colour coding the table so that it's clear who's still editing. I'll mark anyone who is still editing, unsuccessful or withdrawn, and not yet an admin - that should be a start. Interesting idea on the comparison of editors who leave to admins who leave, I'm not sure how that would work out!
- What would you say is a good metric to count editors who have left? WormTT · (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good question, I suppose you the trite answer is that for statistical value you want the same criteria as are used by whatever you are benchmarking against. But for the purpose of finding potential RFA candidates you want something more like "100 most recent edits go back to....", as RFA is not keen on editors with little recent activity. However on a wider note if you are going to analysze editors like this it would be polite to screen out those on this list. ϢereSpielChequers 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I went for 50 edits go back to because, quite simply, it was easier! I've also highlighted potential candidates (non-admins who haven't had an RfA in 4 months & have made more than 50 edits in the past month) - Many would be unsuitable, but it might help someone. WormTT · (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good question, I suppose you the trite answer is that for statistical value you want the same criteria as are used by whatever you are benchmarking against. But for the purpose of finding potential RFA candidates you want something more like "100 most recent edits go back to....", as RFA is not keen on editors with little recent activity. However on a wider note if you are going to analysze editors like this it would be polite to screen out those on this list. ϢereSpielChequers 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think you'll find that a month is too soon to assume someone has left. A couple of tweaks would make this more useful, especially as a hunting ground for potential candidates. Firstly at least one of these candidates (Ironholds) has subsequently become an admin, marking the ones that have since become admins would be helpful. I have a script in my monobook that displays userrights when I visit someone's talkpage, you might find it useful in maintaining this. Secondly it would be good to get comparisons, though trends need to be very unsubtle on these volumes before they can be seen as statistically meaningful There is the expected and lamentable pattern that a proportion of rejected candidates leave, I'm hoping that the measures we took a year or two back may have reduced this, so it would be useful if this could be taken further back in time. Comparisons with retention of admins and other editors would also be interesting, I am fairly sure that admins are less likely to leave than other similarly active editors, but it would be interesting to know how the retention of unsuccessful candidates compares to that of non-running editors. ϢereSpielChequers 14:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting list. Suggestion for improvement: provide links to the RfA. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Will do. WormTT · (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Now done. I'll be looking at the "100 edits goes back to" next WormTT · (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Good progress
[edit]Kudos for the sweat-work, Worm.
I've already said that I'm not so sure that people storming off and quitting is a sign of RFA being bad, but more of us dodging a bullet with giving the tools to a drama queen. TCO (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think "quitting in despair / disheartenment", or "walking away from the playground you've just been bullied in" is possibly just as apt a way of putting it as "storming off". A severely injured animal doesn't "storm off", it retreats to a safe place where it can lick its wounds and either recover or not. And maybe the 'perceived drama queen' is simply somebody who's sensitive enough to be hurt - that in and of itself wouldn't mean they'd make a bad admin. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe it does mean they would not be a good admin. It shows that they can't handle unfair savaging. And they will be getting it as an admin. And it shows their dedication to the project oriented around wannabeamoderatorship (not a good sign). And in all reality, most of the people who lost did not do so unreasonabley and were not savaged that much by the community. It's just a bitter pill to swallow.TCO (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the point is that these leavers would have made good admins, and I don't think anyone is trying to suggest that they would. However, it is a significant form of rejection by the community and if we can make it less of a slap in the face, I don't see how that's a bad thing. I don't believe that failing at becoming and admin is the same as failing at wikipedia. WormTT · (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, to be more precise, it shows that they can't handle unfair savaging from which they have no defense or recourse. Unlike RfA, on the rest of Wikipedia, when a bunch of editors gets together and tells you that you and your contributions are worthless trash fouling up the place after you've put in a year or 3 of solid work, you can go to AN/I or WQA or wherever and perhaps wring an apology out of one of them if the moon is in the right house. On RfA you're expected to bend a little lower and ask for another whack.
- Frankly, I don't find putting up with abuse an admirable trait in humans generally and especially I don't like to see it in admins. --Danger (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Criteria for th prvention of WP:SNOW/NOTNOW
[edit]A script is available here that could easily be adapted for users and candidate's to check on candidates' eligibility. This script could also be automatically triggered by an attempt to transclude. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)