Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Elli 150 2 0 99 16:53, 7 June 2024 3 days, 13 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 02:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 03:21:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Admins

We had 117 mops handed out in 2009 and 75 in 2010, and every time somebody makes a chart, the number of "active admins" has been trending downward, so obviously were losing faster than we're gaining, I estimate losing 10 active admins per month. Of course I have no desire to be an admin, but obviously I would propose it's a better idea to give the mop to the new and upcoming editors that will likely be here for years, instead of the old conglomerates that will likely fade off sooner than later. Monterey Bay (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of "fading off", simply because this is my tenth year here. Besides that, I have seen no evidence to support the notion that newer editors are likely to stick around for years. Quite the contrary, in fact.--Atlan (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree that a new user is more likely to remain active. If anything, an admin who has been around a few years has contributed a lot more and will be more dedicated to the project than a newcomer. Having said that, I agree in principle that newer editors could potentially bee good candidates for adminship. However, that is only my personal view and I understand views to the contrary. As it is not unreasonable to oppose a candidate on the basis of time spent here, I think we need to leave it up to each !voter. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that new users are more likely to remain active than old ones, and I generally disagree with any generalizations made about users on Wikipedia. Everyone is different, and everyone should be considered for adminship on a case-by-case basis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Wikipedia is in a admin drought, I think an experienced admin should go poking around Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, give advice, and hopefully theyll be able to shape themselves up enough for a successful nomination. Also, pay special attention to those who are afraid of nominating themselves. If needed, I, even thought Im not an admin, am fairly experienced with Wikipedia, I can identify and notify obviously bad editing patterns (and those whom have requested adminship spite 7 mainspace edits **cough**Levonscott**cough**) Im fairly-confident it will work if you format your advice like a GA review. mysterytrey talk 02:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of any kind of drought? Some of us might argue that having fewer administrators is a good thing. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

By drought I mean when Monterey Bay stated that active administrators are decreasing at an estimated 10-a-month (only 117 mops were handed out, then 75), the evidence being the charts of active administrators. The how-to on more admins was merely a suggestion, however I do request your reasoning/explanation for it better when there are fewer admins (besides some delete-happy admins out there to get you **cough**Eagles 24/7**cough**). mysterytrey talk 03:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, fuck off. Maybe you should edit some articles instead of devoting one-third of your edits to your userspace. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)