Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Nomination data/All RfA nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Initial section

Hmm, I'm missing JRM and Bishonen, among others? --Kim Bruning 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Bishonen's RfA and JRM's RfA both predate the beginning of the data, which is mid-June 2005. There is some data from before that point, but it's all from 2003. --Durin 14:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That long ago!? :-O --Kim Bruning 05:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we add the disclaimer that counting starts from mid-2005? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why? There's data from before then, and my intention had been to fill in the gap. I've requested a bot to work on data from January 12, 2007 forward. Once written, it can also fill in the blanks from the past. --Durin 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The title says 'All RfA nominations' - many seemed to be missed. Till we fill in the gaps, the disclaimer could be useful to mention the lacuna in the data. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's just semantics. I'd rather not change the title of the page to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Nomination data/All RfA nominations from June 2003 to September 2003 and June 2005 to January 2007. In time, the data will be filled in. --Durin 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    I've not asked you to change the title. I've simply asked for a disclaimer to be placed on this page mentioning that the page lacks data from Sep 2003 to June 2005, and will be filled soon. Nothing too complex. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
How about this:
Info This page blah blah blah

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps we could include such a disclaimer on all wikipedia articles that are not featured status. --Durin 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Careful! Your cynicism is showing... :-) I'd be happy to maintain this page if no-one else will. Would you be agreeable to that? Carcharoth 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Along with my streaky underwear too, yes. Hope someone has a camera. It's moments lak them thar that make me prowd. Want to maintain the data by hand? Go for it. I'll award you a blithering idiot barnstar for being insane enough to try :) --Durin 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the need for a disclaimer. I came rushing over here thinking to find overall stats and found, well, stuff from 2003 onwards, or so I thought. I hadn't noticed the 2004 stuff was missing! This is still a very helpful data chunk, but the title is misleading without a disclaimer. I'd be happy to help out, but I think people tend to hold off when they see bots mentioned. Why do stuff like I did below if a bot will do it all much better? Carcharoth 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Because the Mk.I Human Eyeballtm is still much better. Fixing the data we already have is not in the likely purview of the bot. Put a disclaimer if you like, I don't care. Perhaps we can start with "This data is all crap" :) Seems appropriate, anyways. --Durin 15:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad links to RFAs

I counted more than 20 redlinks to RFAs - seems worth fixing. For example, the RFA for Iamzork doesn't link correctly because the user listed it as /iamzork (lowercase "i"). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Some others are (ALL CORRECTED NOW):
I think that is the lot. If you do get a bot, get it to run over all the subpages of RfA (found here) to check the data you have here. Carcharoth 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll re-iterate; I'm not going to be doing this work. I've exited it, along with most other activities at Wikipedia. I made a request for a bot. If a bot comes along to do it, great. If not, *shrug* I don't care. --Durin 16:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've got the message by now! :-) You still seem to be around giving advice, so that's why I'm typing away on this talk page. If this page isn't going to be maintained, then tell me not to bother. But I'd like to tidy it up a bit while I'm here, and any input you want to give will help. Carcharoth 16:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't say I'd left :) Just that I'd retreated from most functions on Wikipedia, including maintaining data like this. In this particular case, being the regular butt of insults over it makes it entirely unpalatable to me. I don't think maintaining this page manually is the right direction to go, nor do I think anyone is insane enough to try. Of course, I was insane enough to start, so who knows *shrug*. If nobody writes a bot to support the data, then it becomes purely historical. If it is maintained, either by bot or human, there's plenty of stuff that can come from it. Lord knows I tried to derive a lot from the data, but being insulted for the work was not something I tried to derive :) That just happened naturally! Anyways, the derivations of the data don't really do much good anyways. As soon as someone produces information from it, it's used in support and in opposition to the position-du-jour at WT:RFA. I.e., it doesn't help, just muddies the picture. --Durin 16:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Total numbers

Just some sumchecks for total numbers, to give an idea of the overlap and size of missing data:

  • Total number in the table (22/03/2007) - 60 before transclusion and 1337 after = total of 1397
  • Subpages of RfA (as of 22/03/2007), including non-nomination subpages, redirects, non-opened RfAs and so on - 2402
  • Number of nominations listed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Past nominations - 964 failed ones here and 885 successful ones here (from around 23 Sep 2004 onwards) = total of 1849 nominations using the subpage system. Earlier nominations used the RfA page, but not the subpage system.
  • Number of nominations (only successful ones listed) listed at User:NoSeptember/RfA chronological - 864 using subpage system (only up to February 2007) + 73 using the mailing list and other means + 254 from the RfA page before the subpage system developed = total of 1191 (close enough to the total of admins)

Can anyone fill these numbers in? Carcharoth 18:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Total in the table is somewhere around 1200, as memory serves. Also, the total number of RfAs performed through WP:RFA isn't entirely accurate; there are more nominations (plenty of them) done before nominations became subpages. --Durin 19:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I just pasted it into Excel. 1398 rows. But that includes "Gap" :-) so the total is 1397. I'm now going to attempt to calculate the other numbers. Carcharoth 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

Total of subpage nominations seems to be around 1849, with another 450 or so pages not identified yet. Of the 1849, only 1337 are listed in this table, so around 500 or so are missing. Carcharoth 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Any of the RfAs before the gap do not have subpages, so add the number of RfAs before the gap to that 500. --Durin 22:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • OK. Will do. I now have, in text form, the list of all the subpages and a list of all the subpage nominations we have records for (mostly from the lists above). Do you know a way to extract the items that only appear on one of the lists? Or to put it another way, to eliminate the items that appear on both lists? Carcharoth 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subpage confusion

No wonder the numbers aren't matching up! From User:NoSeptember/RfA_chronological#September_2004 I got the impression that the subpage system starting in September 2004, so I was very confused to see failed RfAs listed on subpages at User:NoSeptember/List_of_failed_RfAs_(Chronological)#April_2004 (for example). A bit more investigating, and it seems that people are pasting (or did paste) from the page history to create historical subpages as a record for the older RfAs. For example: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jor - see the note at the top of that page. I wonder how widespread that practice was? Anyway, it helps explain part of the 450+ figure... Carcharoth 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can anyone help?

The two lists are here: User:Carcharoth/RfA data. I'm sure it is simple to eliminate items that appear on both lists, but I can't quite figure it out at the moment. Carcharoth 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Doh! Forget it. I remembered the "easy" way (if you only have Excel). Combine the lists, sort alphabetaiclly, set up adjacent column to record if two identical pairs exist (combine IF and EXACT functions), then resort to eliminate the pairs. I knew I'd done this before, but just couldn't remember it. Carcharoth 00:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have unix tools, sort -u does the job too --Kim Bruning 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_adminship_Nomination_data_All_RfA_nominations_4f83.html"