Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    Current time is 02:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
    Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
    Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
    S O N/A %
    KylieTastic AE Successful 31 Jul 2025 374 66 101 85
    Kj cheetham AE Successful 31 Jul 2025 350 64 127 85
    Ser! AE Successful 31 Jul 2025 314 91 136 78
    Curbon7 AE Successful 31 Jul 2025 293 87 161 77
    Jlwoodwa AE Successful 31 Jul 2025 314 95 132 77
    Smasongarrison AE Successful 31 Jul 2025 312 98 131 76
    UndercoverClassicist AE Successful 31 Jul 2025 307 97 137 76
    CoconutOctopus AE Successful 31 Jul 2025 315 110 116 74
    Hinnk AE Successful 31 Jul 2025 260 100 181 72
    Hilst AE Unsuccessful 31 Jul 2025 233 117 191 67
    Pbritti AE Unsuccessful 31 Jul 2025 250 126 165 66
    Patient Zero AE Unsuccessful 31 Jul 2025 250 130 161 66
    Usernamekiran AE Unsuccessful 31 Jul 2025 232 127 182 65
    Darth Stabro AE Unsuccessful 31 Jul 2025 167 205 169 45
    North8000 AE Unsuccessful 31 Jul 2025 108 323 110 25
    Vestrian24Bio AE Unsuccessful 31 Jul 2025 56 341 144 14

    Gender balance in elections

    [edit]

    I have done a quick skim through the candidates in this latest election, and while I don't have enough data to claim any statistical confidence, and five of the 16 don't have a gender stated obviously enough for me to notice, but from what I can see we had four female and seven male candidates in the last 16, with five undisclosed gender (yeah I may have missed one or two). But the successful candidates were split three male, three female and three undeclared, while the unsuccessful candidates included four male and one female. I suspect we need some more elections to confirm a pattern, but from this I think we have a bit more evidence to support the theory that ladies are more likely to wait until they are confident that they meet the criteria, and we can at least entertain the hypothesis that there may be something about the election process that is tempting more of our female editors to run for RFA. So early days, it is only the second election, but this may be helping our gender imbalance as well as our RFA shortage. ϢereSpielChequers 18:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well that's a fun fact that it was split so evenly! I'm not sure I'm fully on board with the hypothesis, but I have to imagine that quality female nominators, such as Femke and Theleekycauldron, are also making quite an impact. Those two are newer to the nominating game and have found some great admins, and if someone prefers a female nominator, I definitely encourage them to reach out to either person. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a one-off observation, but I will note that both of the admins who asked me to stand for RfA in 2007 were women. Donald Albury 19:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Finished a data project I started in 2023

    [edit]

    Hi y'all! My work in User:Ixtal/Analysis on administrators' activity is done if y'all want to take a look. It shows the mean and median edits of each yearly cohort of admins for each year since and including 2006. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 08:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks cool. Is the "date of adminship" the first +sysop or the most recent +sysop? A lot of people resigned and then asked for the bit back in 2019; if the table uses "most recent +sysop" then this would explain why so many of the 2019 crowd have lots of edits before 2006. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kusma, I'm pretty sure the latter is the case. I'd upload the .csv results of the data collection for the community's inspection, but I'm unsure where/how would be best to do so. It's also possible that some of the ways we filtered out those kinds of false positives did not account for all cases, which checking the data would help spot. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 10:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like, on average, that admins gain the tools at or near their editing peak. I know the year I became an admin was my editing peak, with quite a fall off over the next four years. - Donald Albury 13:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how I would describe my pattern (I'm part of the 2023 cohort, getting sysop rights in December of that year). I know that there were only 12 of us that year (Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies/2023) so you're dealing with much smaller sample sizes in later cohorts. It seems like my activity actually increased after adminship, even if my namespace percentages have been remarkably consistent since I started editing in 2018. I wonder how typical that is compared to others. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Something I think I see is a change around approximately 2015, where earlier admins tend to have a significant falloff in activity after getting the tools, but the falloff is less pronounced for later admins. Perhaps this reflects changes in community expectations for RfA, but it could also be an artifact of fewer post-RfA years of data for the newer admins. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Split RFB?

    [edit]

    WP:BRD: I just reverted a bold split of RFB to its own pages. I don't think this is needed, and will have downsides (such as that no one will be watching that page). If we want to split this, lets discuss first. — xaosflux Talk 18:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any reason for such a split; RFBs are incredibly uncommon and having them on a seperate page doesn't add anything other than more layers of pages to watch. CoconutOctopus talk 18:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you feel about moving the page to WP:Requests for adminship and bureaucratship? That way, the page title encompasses both pages. Interstellarity (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The old page title works fine, it is actually one of the few things about RfA that is not broken. —Kusma (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the current name cause any harm? Like yes, that would be technically more accurate, but like, WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism also handles spam and blatant socking; WP:Sockpuppet investigations also handles miscellaneous CU matters; WP:Requests for page protection also handles unprotection... I could go on. If we trust a newbie recent change patroller to understand they can report a spambot at AIV, I hope we also trust an RfB candidate to understand they can transclude their nomination on the RfA page. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, no one involved in applying for or joining these discussions seems to have any issues. — xaosflux Talk 18:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it ain't broke... GiantSnowman 18:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This feels like it would just overcomplicate the title for no real benefit. If a given editor even knows what a bureaucrat is, I think they know where to find RfB. ULPS (talk • contribs) 22:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CoconutOctopus (awesome name) says it best. RfBs are rare and a split means more to have to follow. It hasn't been a hassle, ever, for RfB to be lumped in with RfA, so splitting them fixes a problem that doesn't exist and could create others. Acalamari 02:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even RfAs are also rare. We haven't had one since April (likely due to the new ALECT) Back in the day, sometime before 2010, we had one nomination per day on average, and in recent times, its once a month. I think for every RfA, there's 50 RfBs. Before Barkeep became a crat, the last such nomination was in 2022. JuniperChill (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The downward trend on RfAs appears to be permanent. The idea that WP:AELECT would make it easier for people to become admins, and thus reverse this trend was laughably false. Anyway, splitting RfB off is not the way forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AELECT is working at boosting the # of admin candidates per year. The 2024 data is really clear, with the yellow bar in that bar chart jumping up a lot, coinciding with WP:AELECT1. AELECT seems to be a successful process so far. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, all the best admins have come from AELECT. On a more serious note, AELECT isn't increasing the number of RFAs but it is increasing the number of admins, and those have the same impact in the end. CoconutOctopus talk 16:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true. I didn't go through AELECT, and I'm an absolutely sucky admin. Here's another 'truth'; the number of people elected in the second AELECT dropped 30% from the first time. The mean number of elections hasn't really budged. What AELECT set out to do hasn't happened. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the reason why the first ALECT got so many participants was because of the fact that some people think that will be the only ALECT (as it was initally authorised on a trial basis), plus we'll get one of these every five months (next one in December 2025). We also had a discussion-only period for 5 RFAs, but most people wanted to discontinue that. Of course, 2024 had the most candidates since 2015. JuniperChill (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another 'truth'; the number of people elected in the second AELECT dropped 30% from the first time. It was 11 elected in #1 and 9 elected in #2, so isn't that 18% (1-9/11)? It's only truth if you do the math right. ;-) –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Two elections doth not a trend make, lets wait and see a couple more before we start predicting how many new admins we'll get from elections per year. What we can see though is that elections are currently more popular for candidates than RFAs, and that the first year with an election gave us more new admins than any year since 2013. I'm pretty sure that the highest support percentage in elections is far lower than the highest support percentages in normal RFAs, I don't know for certain that this is reflected around the pass mark, but it would be nice to see some unsuccessful election candidates come back with RFAs. ϢereSpielChequers 19:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop talking sense. You're bursting people's bubbles! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine those unsuccessful in elections might be more successful in a traditional RfA. For example, I had a 40% support in the first AELECT, then came back about 6 months later to a traditional RfA and ended with a no consensus at 66%, which, while not passing, is still a pretty good percentage to end out RfA with. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally would be in favour of a split since they are distinct processes. I think it's pretty funny to see objections about having to watchlist a second page... notices for RfAs and RfBs is posted on the watchlist anyway, everyone sees them regardless of if you follow the page(s). 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No point in a split. WP:BROKE, etc. JavaHurricane 18:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1307616031"