Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Graymornings

Output from SQL's and X!'s editcounters (see User:Dank55 for links):

Report for User:Graymornings
User groups: rollbacker
Edits (including deleted edits): 2812
Edits: 2541
Deleted edits: 271
Action Counts
Rollbacks: 289
Pages moved: 16
Pages patrolled: 184
Automated or script-assisted edits!
Not selected for this run. Enable
Namespace counts!
Namespace	Count	Percent
Main	999	39.32%
Talk	113	4.45%
User	242	9.52%
User talk	643	25.3%
Wikipedia	536	21.09%
Wikipedia talk	7	0.28%
Image	1	0.04%
Top 10 User Talk edits

   1. Graymornings - 17 edits
   2. Riker666 - 7 edits
   3. 76.65.1.228 - 6 edits
   4. 86.43.216.73 - 4 edits
   5. Stepansky - 4 edits
   6. Dammo87 - 4 edits
   7. Mymoodz - 4 edits
   8. Nathaniel25 - 4 edits
   9. XXDarkSnowXx - 3 edits
  10. Rthomp1953SF - 3 edits
  11. Dennisman - 3 edits

Top 25 mainspace article edits

   1. Harry_Potter_in_translation - 35 edits
   2. Muntader_al-Zaidi - 26 edits
   3. Sexually-induced_sneezing - 23 edits
   4. Street_dentistry - 17 edits
   5. ISmell - 13 edits
   6. Richard_Curtis_(politician) - 8 edits
   7. Hine_ma_tov - 8 edits
   8. Sarking - 7 edits
   9. Abraham_Simpson - 7 edits
  10. Teratospermia - 7 edits
  11. Smoking_jacket - 7 edits
  12. Albin_Moller - 7 edits
  13. Alexey_Lyapunov - 6 edits
  14. Plan_9_from_Outer_Space - 6 edits
  15. Dirty_thunderstorm - 6 edits
  16. Honeymoon_rhinitis - 5 edits
  17. Lindbergh_kidnapping - 5 edits
  18. Herbertshire_Castle - 5 edits
  19. Balti_wine - 5 edits
  20. Yazmany_Arboleda - 4 edits
  21. Propaganda - 4 edits
  22. Funyuns - 4 edits
  23. Infinity_Online - 4 edits
  24. Minnigaff - 4 edits
  25. John_Byrne - 4 edits


Output from X!'s editcounter (minus the bar graphs):

Username: Graymornings
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Feb 23, 2007 05:54:12
Unique articles edited: 1,562
Average edits per page: 1.80
Total edits (including deleted): 2,812
Deleted edits: 271
Live edits: 2,541

Namespace totals
Article	999	35.53%
Talk	113	4.02%
User	242	8.61%
User talk	643	22.87%
Wikipedia	536	19.06%
Wikipedia talk	7	0.25%
File	1	0.04%
Month counts
2007/02	6	
2007/03	0	
2007/04	3	
2007/05	74	
2007/06	8	
2007/07	5	
2007/08	1	
2007/09	71	
2007/10	65	
2007/11	28	
2007/12	0	
2008/01	15	
2008/02	43	
2008/03	12	
2008/04	17	
2008/05	4	
2008/06	1	
2008/07	0	
2008/08	1	
2008/09	3	
2008/10	2	
2008/11	42	
2008/12	1025	
2009/01	861	
2009/02	254	
Logs
Pages moved: 16
Pages patrolled: 184
Top edited articles
Article
    * 35 - Harry_Potter_in_translation
    * 26 - Muntader_al-Zaidi
    * 23 - Sexually-induced_sneezing
    * 17 - Street_dentistry
    * 13 - ISmell
    * 8 - Hine_ma_tov
    * 8 - Richard_Curtis_(politician)
    * 7 - Teratospermia
    * 7 - Sarking
    * 7 - Albin_Moller

Talk
    * 7 - American_civil_religion
    * 5 - Up_series
    * 4 - Sexually-induced_sneezing
    * 4 - Lindbergh_kidnapping
    * 3 - 5-alpha-reductase_deficiency
    * 3 - Homosexuality
    * 3 - Harry_Potter_in_translation
    * 3 - Computer_addiction
    * 3 - Orangina
    * 3 - Son_of_a_gun

User
    * 144 - Graymornings
    * 45 - Graymornings/sandbox
    * 20 - Graymornings/Somebody's_bored_at_work
    * 11 - Graymornings/This_is_Armenian_Radio
    * 4 - Graymornings/May_2007_-_Dec_2008
    * 3 - Graymornings/Dec_2008_2
    * 2 - Graymornings/sandbox2
    * 2 - Graymornings/Dec_2008
    * 1 - Graymornings/Talk_archive_3
    * 1 - Graymornings/monobook.js

User talk
    * 17 - Graymornings
    * 7 - Riker666
    * 6 - 76.65.1.228
    * 4 - Mymoodz
    * 4 - Nathaniel25
    * 4 - Stepansky
    * 4 - 86.43.216.73
    * 4 - Dammo87
    * 3 - Harriet.fuller
    * 3 - XXDarkSnowXx

Wikipedia
    * 9 - Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_19
    * 8 - Suspected_sock_puppets/Dimitree
    * 8 - Articles_for_deletion/Sex_sneezing_syndrome
    * 7 - Articles_for_deletion/Nancy_Snyder
    * 7 - Articles_for_deletion/Ruskets
    * 7 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 7 - Articles_for_deletion/Negro_Project
    * 6 - Articles_for_deletion/Nintendo_ds_stylus
    * 6 - Articles_for_deletion/Mr._Pibb_in_popular_culture
    * 6 - Articles_for_deletion/Aeroflot_—_Russian_Airline...

Wikipedia talk
    * 3 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
    * 2 - Flagged_revisions/Trial
    * 1 - Editor_review
    * 1 - WikiProject_Harry_Potter

File
    * 1 - Heathrow_Terminals_After.png

How long?

How long between RFAs ... have voters converged on a rough consensus these days? If Graymornings hasn't produced enough for us to know how to critique what he's done or predict what he should do, does than mean 6 months? If he gets support from people who think he's given us enough to guess that he's mopworthy already (he's got 4 supporters at the moment), then does that imply that we do have enough to go on, and are his odds at least 60/40 of passing in May if he continues on the same trajectory? (If so, if coming back in May would be a good-faith "I think I'm ready" effort, then I'd be fine with him coming back in May ... and if he's not ready yet, we can tell him then.) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the opposes I'd say 3-4 months would be fine; see opposes 1, 2 and 3. Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say ask a user who is experienced at nominating people successfully to nominate you after 2-3 months. After all, it depends on the candidate really and the user asked will surely tell you to wait further if needed. So Why 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about if I come back in May or June? I'll have had more time to get better-acquainted with policy and to broaden my experience, and I'll be out of college for the summer, so I'll have more time to devote to an RfA. If I show a couple of thousand more quality edits and it looks like I've gained more experience in different admin-related areas (and perhaps find someone experienced to nominate me), do you think my RfA would be successful? Graymornings_(talk) 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While "it depends" is always in play, 3 months seems to be the general minimum, unless the previous candidate "barely missed" and most of the opposes were in effect saying "come back in 2 months and try again." The question you need to ask is: Why did the nomination fail and what is the minimum time before such an issue will be fixed. "Brand new user" - 6-9 months for most RFA participants. "Blocked 3x in the last month for heavy vandalism and uncivil behavior" - try at least a year. "Been on the wiki for 2 years. Knows policy by heart but doesn't seem to respect it - candidate displays a consistent pattern of disregarding it claiming IAR then getting overridden by the masses, and is rude when responding to criticism" - maybe longer than a year. In each case but the first, it's like starting over with a new account but with the extra baggage of proving you really are reformed. My personal recommendation: Take what you think is the minimum in your case and add at least 50% to it before running. Why? Because there will be editors whose minimums are longer than the consensus, and the more of them you can get to not oppose or better yet support you, the better. Nothing works better on a 2nd RFA than to have most or all of the former opposers supporting or co-noming. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first RFA failed at 65%, I then took ANI off my watchlist and concentrated my wiki time in diverse areas that I found interesting. After three months I asked some of my opposers for updated feedback, and the first one I asked offered to co-nom me. And five weeks later I seem to have done OK. My own view is allow a month for every 10% you need to improve your score - and yes on that basis I was more than a tad cautious, but I wasn't in a hurry partly because I'm doing far less adminny things than when I first ran... Were Spiel Chequers 23:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I see consensus here or not; I'd like to separate out what we are and aren't expecting the candidate to know about how soon they should come back. For instance, if voters indicate they'd like to see more AIV work, and the candidate comes back in several months and says they're still interested in AIV work, but they haven't participated at AIV, then it's reasonable to expect that the candidate should have known they weren't ready to come back. On the other hand, if we have certain minimums in mind for all candidates "like this one" (whatever that means), then the candidates and the admin coaches can't read our minds. I guess my question is: for candidates with this "clue level", what's the minimum number of solid months of work you want to see, ideally, before they pass? (Obviously, the candidate is welcome to show up before the ideal minimum, if they think they have a case.) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Re: WereSpielChequers) I'm not sure it's sensible to base anything on the percentage -- where the editor is clearly heading for non-promotion, many people tend to withold comments for politeness. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some food for thought: "Long enough to address the issue or issues." If if the issue is "not quite enough experience in 1 area but ok everywhere else" it might be a month or two, especially if you were > 65% but not handed the mop. If it's "overall not enough experience, but well on your way" then I'd go for 3 months or 6 months after you started editing heavily, whichever is later. If it's a particular issue and you ignore it, then the answer might be "never" or "until RFA editors turn over or change their own attitudes, so that what was an issue in Feb. 2009 isn't an issue because nobody cares anymore." Obviously, newbie-editor NOTNOW and disruptive-editor-SNOWs are special cases, NOTNOWs should be treated as if they never ran, and editors with past issues must address those past issues and typically must establish a longer-than-new-editor history of rehabilitated editing before they have a chance. Rehabilitated editors will almost never get in the 90% range unless the time spent editing well is several times as long as the time spent editing disruptively or the time spent well is several years. The bottom line: In most cases, if you got over 50% and you wait 3 months after your last RFA and you wait until you've been here 6 months, you have a shot. If you are cautious and wait 6 months and until you've been here a year, you've got a much better shot. If you are really cautious and wait a year, and your last year's editing has been good and there were no "must address" issues besides experience in your previous RFA, your previous RFA will likely be a non-issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]