User talk:Jaberwocky6669/Laboratory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi - I saw your link on the RFA talk page. I think your analysis will be very useful in summarising what the wikipedia community is looking for in admins. I like your final comment too about why help - diversity and respect for diversity is so important as well a understanding why this community is not quite as diverse as it could be.--User:AYArktos | Talk 09:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm flattered! Thanks. =) Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 16:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Very interesting
Could prove a useful tool in defining the psychology of Wikipedia. I will go ahead and do the successful candidacies from September 2004. The only problem is that the time period they have been here will need to change. Unless you just want to look at it overall. Someone up for adminship in 2004 who has been here since 2004 is way different than someone up for adminship in 2005 that has been here since 2004. What do you think? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Also, do we do things by the date they were nominated, or the date they end? We don't want overlap. If someone is nominated near the end of the month, things could get confusing. I suggest doing things by the day they were nominated, not the day they end. Thoughts? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I never thought about it really lol. If you think it's better to do by date nominated then we'll do that. I had plans to do october over again because there were some phrases and stuff that I didn't keep track of so this is an opportunity for me to really see what you mean. Like I say, you don't have to take on a whole month -- it took me a number of hours to do October! I was thinking about putting a whole month of nominations into a program such as open office and as I came across new phrases I would use the 'Find in page' function! Something for you to consider as this does get tedious. Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 16:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- So we are not looking for specific phrases? Solid editor and good editor can be grouped together? Should we combine other like phrases? I think that would be good because intent is probably more important than content. And when I am done, should I just update the numbers and listings on the page, or give them to you separately? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
That's what I'm not sure of yet. Strong editor and good editor -- do they mean the same thing? Let's count them separately for now and later on we can combine them. Let's do the numbers separately for now so that we can see how wikipedian's standards change over time. Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 17:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I just realized: only count the occurance for a phrase once per nominee. So one nominee may have several people say 'good editor' but only count it once. Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 18:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] August 2005 analysis
[edit] The sorts of things mentioned in support votes
I am having a look at August now. As well as the phrases you have mentioned, I have found that fighting vandalism now comes up very frequenly. Less fequently is "experienced" which would seem distinct from "knowlegeable" and also affirmation of how well candidate has dealt with controversy - often specific instances mentioned. It seems almost mandatory that the candidate is regarded as a good editor. Regards--User:AYArktos | Talk 21:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your message to my talk page.
I think to focus the project I suggest you pick up on some key things that people support or oppose. I believe you also want to get a sense of whether things change over time. Top do this you don't need to track every comment, nor do you need to distinguish between apparent nuances (probably).
In looking at 18 of the 39 successful candidacies finalised in August 2005, I found the following
- noticed user - 11 candidacies mention in support vote
- but needs to do more edit summaries in future - 2 candidates had this qulification added while a support vote was being made
- noted lots of edits - 7 candidates
- helpful editor (or some variation thereof) - 17 candidates
- good wikipedian (or some variation) - 9 candidates
- assumed adminship status already (though sometimes a bit tongue in cheek) - 8 candidates
- knowledgeable - 2 candidates
- understands and upholds policy (or to that effect) - 4 candidates
- fights vandalism now - 10 candidates
- fair - 3 candidates
- level-headed - 9 candidates
In general all candidates had a high number of edits and had been here a reasonable length of time as far as the voters were concerned.
I conclude that voters were looking to have had interaction with the candidate or be able to see from their edit summaries that they were a helpful or judicious editor who left edit summaries. They expected the candidate to have already had a role in fighting vandalism. They appreciate when the editor had experience in controversy and could demonstrate level-headedness and understanding of policies.
I really need to test that by looking at the failed candidacies for August.
I am not sure that much is to be gained by looking more exhaustively. One thing would be to look at who voted and why some candidates attracted 50 votes and others much smaller numbers. Regular voters did identify their criteria for support a while ago at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards. It might be interesting to see whether they did in fact apply their standards. How important was a good descrioption at the time of nomination? How important were the answere to questions?
If we could test a couple of months in the same way with some time gap in between to see if there were changes that might be interesting to understand the changes. We don't need to look at every month/
To progress - you really need to know why you are doing it and who the intended audience is - prospective candidates so they understand what is being looked for? Regards--User:AYArktos | Talk 00:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Analysis of unsuccessful candidacies
I have had a look at 13 unsuccessful candidacies finalised in August 2005. The reasons for Oppose votes were reasonably diverse. Oppose votes also tende to snowball - that is if a reason was raised, other editors would also oppose for the same reasons.
Of the 13: Reason and Number candidacies where reason cited at least once
Too short a time - may be inconsitent editing over time 8
lack of grasp of policy 6
Inadequate wikipedia or wikispace presence 5
poor nomination format 5
lack of edit summaries 4
Poor quality edit cited, incl spelling 4
too few edits by some perspective 4
Not level headed 3
Poor interaction with other wikipedians 3
Sysop powers not needed for answers to ?s / Doesn't understand sysop status 3
lack of wikiquette 2
Opposed noms of others 2
RFC / Arbcom 2
too little interaction to judge conflict handling 2
too many minor edits 2
Doesn't seem interested in vandalism or clean-up 1
lack of presence on RFA 1
Some candidates had much support but didn't get over the line because of oppose votes. Others were thoroughly opposed. Not a lot of consistency to say definitely anything about why candidacies fail.
| Candidate | Selfnom? | For | Against | Neutral |
| Agentsoo | yes | 0 | 5 | 4 |
| Bancroftian | yes | 0 | 8 | 2 |
| Boothy443 | no | 1 | 11 | 1 |
| Casito | no | 10 | 5 | 3 |
| NSR | yes | 12 | 5 | 1 |
| Celestianpower | no | 17 | 8 | 3 |
| Coolcat | no | 4 | 15 | 5 |
| Gkhan | yes | 4 | 11 | 0 |
| Journalist | yes | 4 | 11 | 5 |
| RI | no | 26 | 14 | 2 |
| Sam Vimes | no | 24 | 11 | 3 |
| SWD316 | yes | 0 | 10 | 2 |
| Wikifan | yes | 2 | 12 | 4 |
If I was going to predict failure it would be too few edits, not enough evidence of a presence in the wikipedia space, existence of a recent, or even worse, current RfC or RfArb, lack of wikiquette in past edits. Regards--User:AYArktos | Talk 23:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
