User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Editcountitis

Immortal Words (Archive 21)

One of the most amusing (and perhaps insightful) comments I have seen on Wikipedia on the issue of edits-as-voting-qualification was made by Ezhiki during his adminship voting:

I could stop using "Show preview" button for a while :)

func(talk) 13:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Some people IMO put far too much stock in edit counts. I've noticed something over time about this page. When the page was new people were made admins with but a handful of votes.(I think I had about 6) This was partially due to the fact that wikipedia was smaller then but also IMO partially to do with the fact that the only people who voted were those who actually knew the candidate concerned. When only actual friends and foes vote, then edit counts tend to be irrelavent, because people can actually discuss how trustworthy the candidate is based on the behaviour they have seen. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 16:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Editcount-itis (Archive 28)

So when did editcountitis take over WP:RFA? -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Over a year ago, now. Andre (talk) 03:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I consider it amazing to have gone through RFA without anyone either stating my edit count or linking to Kate's tool. I though that was impossible at this point. Dragons flight 03:47, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Every once in awhile I will see one w/o it, which I think is good in some ways. I am not interested in how many edits, but am interested how much someone has contributed. ∞Who?¿? 03:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

While I don't think edit counts matter all that much, I feel that at the very least there should be enough so that users such as myself can gauge the quality of their edits as well as be able to recognize the user as being responsible. K1Bond007 06:03, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Editcountitis standard used in RfA process. (Archive 30)

(Contradicts: Gut Feeling)

"Editcountitis is particularly bad. There was a case recently where someone had been around for two years, made lots of good (and lengthy) contributions, never caused any trouble, had helped people out, but was blindly rejected because he had only made 1,000 edits or so...In short, adminship should still be no big deal. We should work at loosing the RfAd culture up. Pcb21| Pete 09:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)" (From Jimbo's talk page) [1] I have no reason to disbelieve Pete, here.

More Data:

• User:GordonWatts, (apparently prematurely failed) RfA candidate [2]
  • Total edits 2801
  • Distinct pages edited 238
  • Edits/page (avg) 11.77
  • First edit 2005-05-02 16:20:23 Kate's Tool for GordonWatts
• User:Phroziac, successful RfA candidate [3]
  • Total edits 1605
  • Distinct pages edited 965
  • Edits/page (avg) 1.66
  • First edit 2005-06-02 01:29:59 Kate's Tool for Phroziac
• User:Robchurch, "failed" RfA candidate, but it was close, and many (like Pete, quoted above) say that someone of his caliber would make a good Admin: (33/9/4) his vote his failed nomination
  • Total edits 2183
  • Distinct pages edited 1211
  • Edits/page (avg) 1.80
  • First edit 2005-07-01 22:43:42 Kate's Tool for Robchurch

Conclusion: I've only listed three (3) candidates, to keep things simple, because each one is representative of a larger sub-group. GordonWatts was criticised harshly for his rebuttals in his failed RfA, but his initial problems centered around his "stats," so we look to the other two groups for clarity. Robchurch was in the same boat as user that Pete described in the quote off of Jimbo's page: A good editor who failed but did not complain about it. GordonWatts also had other complaints about the way that he handled his recent FA-nomination, but those critiques are minor and shall be discussed in the "Double Standard" section here. (Criticisms of Watts' constant rebuttal to each and every answer also were a factor in his failed RfA, but they did not come initially, because the RfA's voters could not have anticipated this in advance, and thus could not vote on this.) Now, assuming all of the foregoing was correct, we can conclude one thing: All three of these candidates, Robchurch, Watts, and the anonymous editor described by Pete, were experienced at the outset, but "did not have the numbers," either in total edit count or "diversity." This does go against the "no big deal" policy for every editor in good standing, but moreover, it goes against gut feeling: What used to be an open club has become a closed clique of insiders, who arbitrarily raise the bar, when arbitrarily denied users would probably be good admins: Although the writer of this analysis has his personal differences with

• Special note on differences: In looking at the above, it is apparent that GordonWatts started editing exactly one month before Phroziac and has almost twice as many edits. Phroziac, on the other hand, has edited 1211 "Distinct pages," many more than GordonWatts, which is more "diversity," by far. However, GordonWatts has edited 238 "distinct pages," and with the many months and many edits of experience, 238 is not a small number. It surprised Mr. Watts when he saw that number, and since he was criticized for being too focused on the
  Terri Schiavo articles, it is apparent that these would only comprise at most 10-15 pages; the other 223 or so pages (238-15=223) would be "non-Schiavo-related" and thus still very diverse (even if not as "diverse" as others like Phroziac). Before Watts began objecting (protesting the RfA process as applied to his RfA), his "edit numbers" were the main criticism, which also caused Robchurch to fail, but the "numbers" that Watts and Church have are still very strong, and neither one was a "newbie" when they were failed. This is additional evidence of "gut feeling" speaking.--GordonWatts
  17:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? Aquillion 21:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"Why are you talking about yourself in the third person?" Well, Aquillion, it is because I am not defending myself in this post (where I'd use first person), but, instead, defending a standard. (I am writing an article, and good writers, of which I hope I am one, speak objective third person, not "subjective' first person, to avoid being myopic or giving the impression of bias.--GordonWatts 12:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Kate's tool... (Archive 31)

...isn't working for me and I notice a comment on the page about it's removal. Is it gone? Marskell 00:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's working for me as of 01:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC). A few days ago it wasn't working with a notice saying something like, "To remind you what Wikipedia is about, Kate's tool is down for now. Why don't you spend some time contemplating what Wikipedia is really about? I'm sure it'll be back up tomorrow." Is that similar to what you're getting? --

talk

01:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The newer version is down, but this one still works. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 03:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC) (warning, this user is infected with editcountitis, engage with extreme caution)

Editcountitis (Archive 31)

Considering the fact that so many voters are suffering from a serious case of editcountitis, should we not indicate on the top of the page that 3000 edits is an expected minimum for admin candidates? If an good user and admin candidate is voted down because s/he only has about 2000 edits, such a warning could spare the candidate a lot of suffering. I would hate to see great candidates leave because they have been voted down by people afflicted by editcountitis.--Wiglaf 07:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I would rather not. 3000 edits seems far too high for me. I was nominated for adminship right when I passed 1000 edits, and no one commented on my "low" edit count; of course, that was six months ago, and RfA voters seem to have become more picky since then. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No I don't think it is too high based on observing votes. Many voters base their votes NOT on the qualifications of the candidate but on whether the candidate has an even edit pattern during many months, and enough edits. Some will even vote against, if the edit pattern indicates a little enthusiasm for the priviledge of becoming an admin. I do think we should consider the fact that candidates are people with feelings and try to spare them rejection for having too few edits during a certain period of time.--Wiglaf 07:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This would only give editors the incentive of making bad faith edits to blowup their edit count. I have seen a lot of very good editors with less than 3000 edits, that I would trust as an admin. There are several other things to consider, style, copyedit abilities, personality, policy understanding,

being bold, and many others I consider over edit count. When I even look at edit count, I look at where the edits have been and for what. If you look at some of the current RfA's you will see that there are these same questions. ∞Who?¿?

07:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but based on past observations, I fail to see that such qualities really count. Edit counts and edit patterns appear to be more important to certain voters.--Wiglaf 07:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I recognize and understand your point of view. It is just sad that this is the case with some users. I think its better to stay away from more restrictive and discriminating rules; ie m:instruction creep. ∞Who?¿? 07:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is a semi-complaint about the oppose votes on

T | @ | C

07:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not based on your vote, but it is based on the contrast between the support votes and the oppose votes. The support votes claim that this is a good candidate, whereas most oppose votes pay more attention to edit patterns and edit counts. The nomination page says at least 1000 edits and three months, and I think this is misleading.--Wiglaf 07:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It can be sometimes - but not for that candidate. According to edit history the candidate has only really been here around two months - and the two months have an unusually large amount of time seperation between them. For example, I've only technically been a little over two months, but I did one edit back in march - does that somehow mean I've been actively editing for three months?

T | @ | C

07:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I had no clue about that technicality when I nominated her and I would never have put her through this if I had had a clue. If you think this is important enough for rejecting the candidate I think we should state clearly that edit patterns over several months is a criteria.--Wiglaf 08:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, a fixed number does not determine the true worth of a candidate. Its possible to rig up your stats by fixing minor errors, repeating a procedure repeatedly, or even surreptitiously using a bot. What about those users who actually compose a full article offline and paste it here? No fixed counts please, please also go through the archives. 1000 seems to be a rough indicator that the person knows more or less about the wiki process. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright, what about an editcountitis and edit pattern caution?--Wiglaf 08:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You may read this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately, I see that they have forgotten to mention that wikibreaks during the last six months may disqualify an otherwise deserving candidate.--Wiglaf 10:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I find that Editcountitis is a contentious issue. Thus, a moderate page may be created with just one edit, whereas a sentence may result into several edits. Naturally, there must be several other factors which the community may be taking into account while deciding such matters. --Bhadani 11:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

it should be noteded that someone "fixing minor errors and repeating a procedure repeatedly" would logicaly be a better janitor than someone who writes big articles. In my role as an admin I've just made over 100 changes to wikipedia that involve nothing more than "repeating a procedure repeatedly" and they won't even show up in my edit count.Geni 12:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, you're only inviting unwanted debate on which department in WP is more valued. Lets nix the debate right now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

what on earth does what makes a good admin have to do with which department in WP is more valued? Adminship does not exist to reward good editing.Geni 14:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you claimed that those who fixes minor errors logically make better janitors. Well, by using the term janitor, I assumed you meant admin, since both the terms are more or less linked here in WP. Anways, if you do mean that janitor=admin, I'd politely disagree. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think having a specific number of edits is any kind of reasonable measure. For what it's worth, in a study of 126 admin nominations over the past few months, I've observed that 2,000 seems to be the point at which nominees gain acceptance. Please see [User:Durin/Admin_nominee_charts#.22Isn.27t_2000_edits_pretty_arbitrary.3F_Why_not_3000.3F.22]. But, as noted by several others here, edit counting is a horrible way to evaluate a nominee. An "edit" is too vague of a definition of a contribution to Wikipedia. Use of it as a measure equates all edits as equal, when in reality the value of a given edit is highly subjective and impossible to measure in any objective way.

The root issue seems less to be about the number of edits than about the ways in which WP:RFA voters make determinations about the acceptability of a nominee. I don't think we should be in the business of warning people off from being nominated or nominating themselves. Instead, I think we should be proactively looking for ways in which to encourage people to not focus on edit counts, but instead focus on subjective measures. Please see my User:Durin/Admin_voting_measures, which bend strongly towards subjective measures.

I do think there is probably room for developing a page notionally titled "What makes a successful admin nominee". I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards focuses far too much on number of edits and time on Wikipedia. For the article I'm suggesting, substantial research will need to be done to establish patterns of behavior common to successful admins and admin nominees and similarly for unsuccessful admins and nominees. Even before that, some moderately strong definition of what "successful" and "unsuccessful" within this context means would need to be determined. The concept for this page is still nebulous; I've not begun any work on it, just some thought experiments.--Durin 13:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly spelled out that voters may use their own criteria. For some, edit counts are important. For others, they are not. For some, edits in the Wikipedia namespace are important. For others, they are irrelevant. I don't see how we can spell it out any clearer. If your observations indicate that 3000 edits are required to pass, you clearly haven't observed very much. Jdavidb 13:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but we really should warn about editcountitis and 3000 was my suggestion.--Wiglaf 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, if an nominee with 1500 edits - half your suggested number - and otherwise an excellent candidate, was voted on by the 60 Wikipedians who currently list their standards at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards, they'd pass 49/11. They'd still pass with 1000 edits. If they had 2000 edits, they'd romp in 59/1. Grutness...wha? 07:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Since when is it 3000 edits? My RfA passed July 22 and I had 49 support votes and when I was first nominated I had 2000 edits (I think at the end of the week I had like 2600). But who decided 3000?? Redwolf24 (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

3000 does seem to be the number now for some reason. I just saw one person oppose because there wasn't 10,000. The standards seem to be jumping, except for "popular" people (which I still assert popularity alone is really bad to evaluate a candidate by, even though it is tough to buck the norm, as it were).

Back in the good old days, 2004, there was no such thing as Kate's Tool, and as a result, this editcountitus disease didn't exist. People were nominated for their work, judgement and experience. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My question is, hasn't anyone got the idea, from the number of responses and arguments contrary, that to the majority of us edit counts aren't as important as what they've edited, how they have acted, etc.. Administration, when it boils down to it, has nothing to do with editing articles, its about ADMINISTRATION, you dont' need a mop to make pretty articles. ∞Who?¿? 08:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

WHOA - that is not good! Lest someone forget that at the end of the day there's an encyclopedia to build - someone's gotta actually wikify an article rather than just tagging it. Not only that, but an ideal administrator is not an administrator - rather an ideal administrator is a good editor with administration tools. I.E. the user would ideally spend most of the time thinking about/editing the articles he likes, then take care of a little bit of vandal-hunting linkspam etc., then have time at time at the end of the day to give a peer review.

Dont' get me wrong, the main reason I have so much enjoyment from working on Wikipedia, is the fact that it is an encyclopedia. I feel that every users contribution helps a great deal of people in many ways. But lets look at it from another perspective for just a moment, the bad paper version first. If you were publishing a paper encylopedia, well for that matter any media format, you would normally have writers, researchers, copy editors, editors, etc. Would you also not have systems engineers and programmers and technicians that work on all of the equipment, are they not as important to the produciton of said project? Yes, that is to the extreme technical side of things, but it boils down to each user has certain talents, some users write very good articles, and have a very high edit count. Maybe they just add a great deal of one time entries for further improvement, but don't contribute in any other fashion. Would this person necessarily be familiar with or comfortable with dealing with other users, categorization, vandalism? Does this make them less or more important to Wikipedia? Now take the opposite of that, you have another user that has a "low" edit count, but enjoys dealing with other users (welcoming, VIP, VfD, ANI), does RCP , maybe categorization and templates, but is not very good at writing articles. Does this make this person less or better on Wiki? The answer to both is no, there is no better, all users are equal, except maybe to those who think editcounts count as more. As stated, we are here to build an encylopedia. However, the latter user case maybe better suited as an administrator, even though they don't really add to the content of the encyclopedic portion. That's mainly what I meant, I didn't mean to imply that the encylopedia was not important, its the reason we're all here. IMHO. ∞Who?¿? 07:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Extreme editcountitits! (Archive 32)

Look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#RoySmith. Is the standard for admins now 2000 edits? How do we reconcile that with the apparent cosensus here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_29#Do_we_need_more_admins.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisblue (talk • contribs) <insert date here>

There's no consensus, nor should there be. Its a highly personal thing, varying person to person. If there was a consensus on how to vote then every RfA would be either 20/0/0 or 0/20/0 ;-) If you're wondering for when you should run, try about 2000. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Personally, I got in after a month and with maybe 200 edits max. Course that's unlikely to happen today, but I'm just bringing it up as an example .— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

IIRC you were the fourth person ever mentioned at RfA. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but my request was still made on the mailing list. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh the comment that there is emphatically no consensus on any part of the reasons for supporting/opposing candidates, but particularly not on edit count (non-)requirements. -Splash^talk 01:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I eighth that comment. Just look at NicholasTurnbull's RFA. He doesn't even have 1000 edits, yet he is clearly going to get promoted. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

A backup for Kate's Tool? (Archive 36)

Would it be possible for someone to make a backup for Kate's Tool? It is down now, and has gone down for days at a time before. 'Ere any editcountitis contentions arise, by the way, I actually use it primarily to scope possible vandals/sockpuppets, and to update the list of non-admins with high edit counts - and, of course, to obsessively track my progress towards personal editing goals in various namespaces! ;-D  BD2412 ^talk 04:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep it down, I'm tired of seeing qualified candidates get piled on opposition for no reason. It's not an error that it's down, it's Kate being 1337 ;-D and as for sockpuppet checks, Special:Contributions/Foo, is there a link to "next 50"? Redwolf24 (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, he's not the only one who uses it for those purposes! Especially the "various namespace" one, that's my main use for Kate's Tool. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Kate's counter is important to check the mix of contributions someone has made when they're standing for adminship. It's not so much the overall numbers, as the percentages to main, talk, user talk, project. There's no way we can work that out manually. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I will concede, actually, that it is possible to sort contributions by namespace - but it's a fairly arduous task.  BD2412 ^talk 05:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I wish people wouldn't nominate people for adminship on the basis of high edit counts. That's really quite irresponsible, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. Just like one should not nominate solely on the basis of contributions, ideology, gender, seniority, age, or any other of the myriads of factors that we (should) consider in an RFA. Edit counts are only a piece of the puzzle- but they are a piece. --

(talk) Contribs

05:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the list that someone set up of editors with high edit counts who aren't admins. I think it's irresponsible to nominate people from that list, unless you know them well i.e. unless you'd have nominated them anyway. Many of them have their high edit count precisely because they never bother to discuss their edits on talk pages and just go charging ahead; others have them because they make mostly minor changes; others again because they never use preview. I think looking at the balance of edits is important, but not the totals. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. --Bhadani 10:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

But, at the moment, we can not even look at the balance of edits! What if Kate were to leave and take her tool with her? (not saying that would happen, but I've seen solid participants burn out and disappear many times). As I noted above, it has uses beyond evaluating potential admins. I'm not up on the programming end of things, but surely someone can replicate what Kate has done...  BD2412 ^talk 13:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why people act as if Kate's tool were the only way of looking at a person's editing history. Go to User:BD2412 and notice the "User contributions" link on that page (at the bottom in the skin that I use). Click on it. You can view the editor's entire editing history from there. 500 edits per page is too little? Edit the URL parameter to say "limit=5000". Want to see the earliest edits? Click on the "Earliest" link. Want to look at only article edits? Select "(Main)" in the namespace dropdown. It's far more versatile than the widget known as "Kate's tool". --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony, it's a matter of convenience as opposed to toil - really, can you look at my contributions and in just a few seconds tell me just how many edits I have in each namespace?  BD2412 ^talk 14:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

So we can spend more time contributing. --Celestianpower ^háblame 15:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Muy caliente!  BD2412 ^talk 15:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having multiple tools, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. I also seem to remember a developer mentioning that displaying thousands of user contributions was somewhat of a strain on the server. Perhaps I'm mistaken or maybe it's not an issue anymore. Carbonite | Talk 15:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I'm as tired of editcountitis as Kate apparently is. Edit count (or edit distribution) is a weak proxy for what people SHOULD be doing to evaluate admin candidates. There is no substitute for actually checking a candidates edit history, no substitute for actually talking to and getting to know the candidate. RfA has not been doing a good job of screening admin candidates lately; hopefully Kate's removal of this tool will encourage more appropriate methods of review that will perhaps reduce the strain on RfC and the ArbCom. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In the last 10 days I opposed one nom with 4000 edits largely based on lack of Wiki edits (and edit summaries) and supported another with 1200 edits who actually had more in Wiki (and looked more conscientious and uncontroversial generally). Kate's tool allows me to do this in half a minute. This isn't editcountitis and I'm not "piling on" anybody. And I can only suppose Kate gets a certain satisfaction condescending to people--these stupid warnings like we're signing up for medical trial and it suddenly going down all the time without explanation. I know nothing about the development end either but it would be nice if someone made a new one and we could forget Kate. Marskell 15:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Truly, I have little use for the edit counter for RfA's (most nominations mention the overall number anyway) - but I would like to be able to check my own edit stats!!! BD2412 T 15:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Kelly, I won't ask you to name specific users, but could you be more specific about RfA's poor screening of candidates? When do you think the screening started to break down? What percentage of successful nomination do you believe should have failed? Are there changes to the RfA process you believe could improve screening (other than the removal of Kate's tool)? Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 16:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Responding on a number of points:

• Kate's tool provides a fast way for ascertaining information about a candidate that is otherwise difficult to put together. Distribution of edits, total # of edits, # of edits per page, time on Wikipedia...these are all pieces of the puzzle for evaluating a nominee. They are not the only means. SOME people use them as the only means, but it is unfair to the people who use it as one piece of the puzzle to say they suffer from editcountitis, and the only way to cure them it so remove the tool. If I have an itch to scratch it doesn't mean I have skin cancer.
• Nominating people on the basis of high edit counts is irresponsible. However, it does serve to give a very rough idea of the experience level of an editor. It's entirely natural for people to look at someone with 1 edit and think "they are not experienced" and look at someone with 10,000 and think "they are experienced". Not only is it natural, it's virtually guaranteed to be accurate. As a large granular evaluation, it is very useful as one criteria in deciding to nominate of support someone.
• It isn't irresponsible to nominate someone from WP600 not admins if you are not using edit counts as the sole criteria. That list provides a long list of people who most likely are experienced enough to be an admin. Furthermore, you do NOT have to be familiar with someone to nominate them or vote for them. You can do extensive reviews of that person to develop your own opinion of them. Recently, I nominated User:Edcolins. I'd never had a single interaction with him before. I came to him because he was listed on WP600 and had indicated desire to be an admin there. I spent literally hours reviewing his contributions, comparing it all against my (insanely?) high standards. It was only after I asked him some questions and reviewed his contributions against my standards that I nominated him. His nomination cleared 27-1. This was not improper. In fact, far from it. I will continue to evalute editors on that list. Once again, if the only criteria someone uses to nominate someone is edit counts, then they are making a mistake. But, using such a list as a means of helping to identify experienced editors is not flawed.
• I think we can expect Kate to keep the tool down permanently. Whether it is now, or later, it will disappear. The community has come to depend on that tool for a variety of reasons. Some of them have been laid out here; most have not. In a microcosmic way, we've been given wheels for our cars, used them for a while, and have now had the wheels ripped out from underneath us. Kate's tool was very important. There is now a vacuum, and it will be filled (the sooner the better in my opinion).
• Kelly Martin has indicated that RfA has not been doing a good job of screening admin candidates of late. Without some basis in evidence, I find this comment lacking in validity. If there in fact is a feedback loop to evaluate the success of administrators, I would LOVE to see it.

--Durin 16:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The only feedback mechanism I can think of is the number of RFCs filed for mis-use of powers and/or requests for de-admining. There really doesn't seem to be that many. Either there isn't a problem or not very many of the issues reach the level it would need before someone wants to take the effort to file something.

Rx StrangeLove

17:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Durin's points about nominating a candidate with high edit count, as it does indicate experience, and if one is responsible and does spend a long time looking through contributions and determining whether or not an editor really will be a good candidate before nominating I don't see a problem in that. (I prefer myself to nominate only candidates I have personally interacted with, but even then I do look carefully before doing so, though my standards differ from Durin's!)

Edit count is a tool. And it's not an intrinsically bad tool but rather a useful one; I use(d) Kate's Tool myself even as I bitch and moan about "editcountitis". It's useful to know whether someone has 20 edits or 2000, and what the distribution is. (FWIW, I rather liked the disclaimer message.) But when I see people on RfA say things like "looks like a good candidate, but I can't support someone with less than 2000 edits", then I really question how people see it. Even with the namespace breakdown, it's not the end of the story. Someone may have 500 Wikipedia: space edits that all consist of "nn, delete", and someone else only 5, well-reasoned contributions to policy discussion, and the latter will get opposition for having too few Wikipedia: space edits. I'd prefer not to make a case study out of anyone in particular, but I'd think the trend is apparent.

As for evidence of unsucessful admin behavior, how about

WP:RFC? I don't think it's proper to name specific incidents publicly outside of personal communication with the user or a dispute resolution process, but I do not find Kelly's point invalid. The process encourages people to give the benefit of the doubt, and to regard adminship as "no big deal", and I wouldn't change that—but as a result, some candidates have been promoted (both recently and further in the past) whom I believe were better off without admin rights than with. Do you disagree? Mindspillage (spill yours?)

17:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

People decry editcountitis as if there's something wrong with wanting someone to have a decent amount of experience before supporting their RfA. Should I sit and count the 2000 edits someone has by hand? Is that any different from having it packaged in a tool? Am I not allowed to want a decent level of experience as well as goodness of contributions, and am I not allowed to want that they be distributed in a manner so as to show that experience extending across several fields of Wikipedia? Of course I am. If that information can be provided easily, then why insist that it be provided the hard way? If some people are incapable of handling statistics adequately then educate them: the tone of many of the above messages is that anyone looking at the numbers must be a mindless zombie when, really, most people are not. Kelly Martin's reference to admins before ArbCom sounds a little like sour grapes in light of recent events given the fact that all of about 7 admins have ever been down that road. -Splash^talk 16:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Back to BD2412's question about a replacement, how did Kate get direct access to the database? Once you have that, a replacement is rudimentary.--Commander Keane 17:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

By being a dev. -Splash^talk 17:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

How do I figure out my % edit summary usage, methinks it has gone way up over the last few weeks.

Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza}

17:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• You ask me :) It's not a publicly available tool, though I've asked Kate to add it to the tool. Unfortunately, I think that's gone the way of the Dodo. Your edit summary usage overall across 2160 edits; 46%. First 500 edits, 27%. Last 500 70.8%. Last 100 85%. Thank you VERY much for your hardwork improving this. --Durin 17:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

We don't have to be a dev to put a tool in place to do what we want. We have to get a dev to give the tool the access that it needs. Kate's often referred to the tool as "my tool". I think it's high time we made a tool that belongs to all of Wikipedia, rather than just Kate...even if Kate's tool comes back. Kate opened a pandora's box that can not be closed again. Kate can remove the tool, but the need of the tool is apparent. --Durin 17:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was more directly answering how Kate himself (yes) got database access. I would agree that we should simply write ourselves one, and I would help if could speak Perl, but it's not a language I've yet had cause to learn. -Splash^talk 17:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I still don't think that anyone has adequately addressed my point that the existing user contributions tool is far superior to the widget known as "Kate's tool." We shouldn't be commenting on an RFA without looking at their contributions, so the objection that this puts a strain on the database is a spurious one--it doesn't put an unnecessary strain on the database. It's perfectly adequate for obtaining a rough count of user edits, and much better, it shows exactly what those edits have been, whether the editor uses the "minor edit" flag well, whether he provides good edit summaries, whether he edit wars (this always sticks out a mile) and so on. Kate's tool discouraged a proper examination of the fitness of a candidate, and I don't miss it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I don't think anyone has adequately addressed my point - I would like a tool to quickly count and sum up my own edits - and counting contribs is an unnecessary pain. I put a lot of work into Wikipedia, and it's a strong motivator to be able to see a snapshot of my progress, and particularly to set benchmarks and surpass them. It also happens to be useful for getting an RfA snapshot, but to me, that's very secondary. BD2412 T 18:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The two are complementary. "Ok, these look like decent contributions, but I think there are only a few of them and I'd like more experience. But am I getting that right? I wish I could see quickly how much good experience they have".-Splash^talk 18:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it's actually impossible to look at someone's contributions without also being exposed to the buttons and links that, if one clicks on them, give one a pretty good picture of the amount of experience an editor has. Knowing the precise number of edits is unnecessary; if the editor has thousands of edits that's quite a lot, if he has dozens that's a few. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There used to be a time when admins were elected without editcountitis problems. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Times change. -Splash^talk 18:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That's right, nowadays we look for teenagers with the gift of gab on IRC who can manage a few thousand edits in the course of hangin' out on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.21.107 (talk • contribs)

Personally, I regard both IRC and mailing list activity as poor second cousins to on-Wiki activity. I do not and will not import any judgement on RfA candidates from IRC, where I only turn up irregularly anyway. I agree that others do, and have noted that several recently failed RfAs appear to have stemmed from knowing someone on IRC rather than studying them on-Wiki. But that is all secondary to the debate in this section, really. -Splash^talk 22:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Tony; Perhaps you're aware of a tool (other than Kate's) which showed distribution of edits over namespaces. I'm not. Perhaps you're aware of a tool that shows average # of edits per article. I'm not. Perhaps you're aware of a tool that shows the number of edits a user has anywhere near as fast as Kate's tool does. I'm not. Perhaps you're aware of a means to ascertain time of first edit that's as fast as Kate's tool. I'm not. You see, it ISN'T about edit counts. There was a broad range of things that were shown on Kate's tool, and they were produced rapidly. By ripping away Kate's tool, sure we've "solved" the problem of editors being addicted to the # of edits a means of determining the suitability of a person to be an admin. But, we've also ripped away a highly useful tool for a broad, broad range of other very valid activities. --Durin 22:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Last time I looked at Kate's tool, it only gave some raw edit counts. If it has been modified to do the other things then those are recent modifications. In those circumstances, I don't see how it can possibly be regarded as some essential tool in deciding whether a RFA candidate is any good. Indeed if it's become so sophisticated recently, and people were relying on it, I regard that as sufficient reason in itself to deprecate its use. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No one thinks is "essential", no one "relys" on it, it is useful thats all. Call me crazy but you can look at contribs, talk interactions, user pages and (now heres the crazy bit) kates tool! Martin 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Sour grapes? Why would I have sour grapes about anything having to do with RfA? My own RfA passed 72/1/0 last June, and the one candidate I nominated passed easily as well (despite a relatively low edit count). No, I just happen to be one of the few people on Wikipedia who pays attention to the conduct of other administrators, and lately I've seen more instances of administrative misconduct leading to problems on the 'pedia, including several which have come to my attention through RfCs and a couple that are now RfArs. But I've been more involved in conflict resolution for the past three months than anything else on the 'pedia, so I see more of these problems than perhaps most other admins do. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The counter isn't working, and hasn't been for the last few days. I've known that happen before, and I wouldn't give it a second thought, except that from reading these posts I get the impression that some of you "know" that Kate is withdrawing the edit counter. Is this just speculation, or have some of you got some inside knowledge that I don't have? Kate's last contribution was 26 October, so surely it's just a question of a tool being (temporarily) broken, and the person who created it and could fix it being (temporarily) away. I don't see how the fact of this tool not working – something that has happened before – should have led to such a long discussion of what we'll do without it. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 00:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hope for the best, be prepared for the worst. Even if Kate's Tool comes back on line in the next five minutes, what harm in having a back-up? And one that is under the control of the community, rather than under the control of one person. BD2412 T 00:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It opens up the larger idea of whether or not it's a good idea to have such an important tool: a) outside of MediaWiki (and so more likely to break, etc) and b) under the control of one person (who has shown a bias against its use). I imagine a Special: page to do everything KT does would just require a few small SQL queries. ~~ N (t/c) 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with making it a Special page. But aren't SQL queries currently disabled? Titoxd^(?!?) 01:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Queries using Special:Asksql are... but WP wouldn't work at all if it couldn't make them internally. ;-) ~~ N (t/c) 01:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well. -- Svest 01:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

I for one am glad it's gone. Edit counts alone, even when broken down by namespace, are at best a poor analytical substitute for actually reviewing contributions and hitting the "diff" link a bunch of times. There are users who have made thousands of ephemeral additions to pop culture articles, whose net contribution to the project is less than that of editors who have made perhaps a few hundred more substantive contributions to articles where rather more research is required to contribute.

In a technology-mediated community, technological features affect culture. The effect of Kate's tool, culturally, has been negative. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like such a tool primarily to keep track of my own edits. Is that a negative? BD2412 T 01:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• The EC doesn't harm anybody! How come it is considered negative, Uninvited? -- Svest 02:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

• I can't agree more. Of course nothing beats looking at a few diffs and seeing some recent contributions, but it is definitely useful to get a brief summary of the user's activities over a period of time. The contention that it causes bad decisions to be made doesn't quite size up; by removing the tool from the equation, you limit the information available to other editors to make decisions on RfA. Checking one's own edit count, while it may be a sign of an unhealthy addiction, doesn't do any harm for most of us; if anything, it's worthwhile because it brings some sense of satisfaction of reaching personal milestones. I would definitely support the placement of Kate's tool in public hands. Enochlau 10:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

hi. i'm not particularly interested in this discussion, but i hear on the rumour mill that the edit counter is gone for good. well, it's not, it just broke while i was away over the weekend. it's fixed now... kate.

• No offense intended - however I do strongly believe in having a backup for every useful tool that, for whatever reason, may go on the blink. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

er, well, yes, i'm not going to be offended if someone else wants to make their own edit counter  ;) kate.

• Would you be interested in donating your counter to the project then rather than us having to recreate the wheel? --Durin 19:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

i don't understand what you're asking. the source is already in CVS if you want it... kate.

Basically, can it be made into a Special: page easily? (I admit it would be slower, but then, it would be just a backup.) Titoxd^(?!?) 23:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

yes, it could. (i think someone may have done that already, actually, although i don't know any details). kate.

• Proposal - Let's back up Kate's Tool - but send
  (?)
  00:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Now see
    (?)
    02:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Death of Editcountitus, usher in account age-itus (Archive 40)

Well there's good news: Editcountitus votes seem to have died. But there's bad news, or at least bad in my mind, but obviously many people will disagree: people opposing based on account age. There seems to be two plausible reasons to oppose on these grounds: not enough experience, and 'better safe than sorry'. As for not enough experience: I believe if you can trust someone to ask before acting when they're not sure, they'll be fine. Plus adminship isn't a big deal, there's nothing to worry about. As for 'better safe than sorry' - yeah, it's also better safe than sorry if we ban every user who hasn't been here since 02. Every adminly activity can be undone instantly and none can cause enough damage to really worry about, excepting image deletions. But I figure if you're gonna spend 3 months just to delete some images, you wouldn't have too much trouble waiting yet another three months, but can you really picture someone putting in 3000 edits just to vandalize like that? Adminship is no big deal, and even if a user only has rights for a month, and uses em well, and then runs off... Wikipedia still had that much help (referring back to the lazy admin thread). Really, why not set two year standards? RFA's can be stressful enough, this just contributes and I never find it a valid reason to expect someone to wait 8 or 10 months. sorry for the rant Redwolf24 (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Raw edit count is not a good or accurate way to guage how trustworthy someone is; how long they have been around definitely is -- particularly when taken in conjunction with the answer to the question - "has this done anything to suggestion (s)he is not trustworthy". →Raul654 23:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

My problem is drawing the line way too far ahead, like 6, 8, or even 12 months. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, like the people whining about editcountitus likely wouldn't want someone with 40 edits to be an admin. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, we can all keep citing the mantra "adminship is not a big deal" but the obvious fact is that it's not a small deal either. We're just not sure of the exact size of the deal. And since admin candidates are held to higher standards than admins themselves, it doesn't hurt to be careful. Radiant_>|< 00:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It hurts if someone gets so annoyed they run off... and I had to laugh at the candidates are held to higher standards than the actual admins. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's bad if people leave (or indeed, get angry) over a failed RFA. However, it is fact that candidates are held to higher standards. A nomination can fail over a recent incivility, or lack of edit summaries - and reactions are scant if admins are uncivil or lack edit sums. For instance. So it seems that a nom is a bigger deal than the actual adminship. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing though, but the dichotomy is funny. Radiant_>|< 00:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe I explained my main point, or even mentioned it (heh <_<): The problem I have with this is the same as the problem I had with editcountitus. I get annoyed when people judge someone based on ONE criteria. How about you pay attention to some other merits, it's truly infuriating. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, I entirely agree with that. I was surprised to read (above here) that someone thought we once had a requirement for admin candidates to have made a featured article, when this in fact was a sole person's criterion (who stopped using it after some people pointed out what was wrong with it). Wise words from some book I read, the penalty you pay for wanting simple answers is being wrong - consistently. Radiant_>|< 01:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Agecountitis has become the same as editcountitis in that people use it as an automatically disqualifying factor and as soon as they see that this user hasn't been around for a full year or this user has less than 1000 edits then they stop even looking to see how good of an administrator (or bureaucrat) the user might be just because they don't fit this one criteria. That's a very flawed way of looking at things and making a decision.
  Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C}
  ----- 06:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

We're sorry we already have enough administrators and if we voted one more up then the entire wiki would collapse seriously though, good luck on the nom. and if you don't get it this time it's probably not you it's everyone else.

Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C}

----- 21:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It is necessary to participate in Wikipedia for a considerable duration in order to understand the community. "The way things work around here" is not well captured by the policies, and though there are a number of resources to help with this, there is no substitute for participating. Because many Wikipedia processes inherently take days or weeks -- AfD, RFA, featured articles, and the very process of consensus editing itself -- high levels of activity alone are insufficient. Unlike using edit counts, using duration of participation doesn't reward any unwanted behaviors (such as serial edits) and is difficult to game. It also takes to to judge someone's editing style and style of engagement with the community. I have long used six months as a guide, though in some cases I'll support a little sooner. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I would also add editsummaritis - I saw one candidate fail mainly because of using only 60% of edit summaries, and another is deep trouble for that. Renata3 13:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

While no "-itus" (so no editcountitis, no agecountis, no editsummaritis and certainly no vote-recorditis) should play a significant role in RfA's, I think editsummaries ARE important, for both other editors and RC patrollers. Since admins are often viewed by the newbies as 'role models', they should try to set a good example. I would never vote against someone for just a lack of editsummaries, but I can imagine it could play a role in determining a vote. --JoanneB 13:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Joanne. They are one part of my vote not a clincher in themselves. Summaries show the conscientiousness I expect of admins and help others watching a page. Marskell 13:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

They are important, I suppose, but I think those who vote oppose becuase of a lack of edit summaries are either being lazy (and not looking beyond the surface) or are just looking for a reason to vote no. Being an admin is no big deal, so why would someone vote oppose for that reason? Just bring it up as a piece of advice in your support or neutral vote (if you feel THAT strong about it), but don't vote oppose because of it. Looks petty.Gator (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Or, you know, people who don't bother with them are being lazy. As a watchlist starts to bloat edit summaries become more and more helpful. Marskell 14:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JoanneB, but it's more than that. The use of edit summaries is often indicative of an editor's attitude towards WP guidelines and policies. There is a strong correlation between someone's ability and willingness to follow

civility

also have poor edit summaries.

At my job, I often reject candidates based on the fact that their resume is riddled with typos or poorly formatted. This is not because the prospective engineer's job would include a lot of prose writing or copyediting, but because an engineer who can't be bothered to proofread their resume will often exhibit the same attitude on the job as well. Use of edit summaries is a "marker" associated with the ability and willingness to follow our policies, guidelines, and common practices—all crucial for a successful admin. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but on a scale of 1 -10 of importance in my decision to vote to support or oppose, that's a 3. Much more important things.Gator (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Kate's Tool (Archive 41)

Kate's tool appears to be down and I say good riddance, I am appreciative toward Kate for making it and it has had it's good uses however since the beginning it has been misused and fostered a community wide outbreak of editcountitis (now replaced by it's evil cousin timecountitis) which resulted in RFA's that failed solely due to the time a user was here. Unfortunately there is no way to know whether Kate's tool will ever be up again since Kate has apparently left the project indefinitely but I'm glad that people will now have to put some work into it (manual edit counting) if they want to continue their editcountitis sprees.

I believe it is just one of Wikimedia Deutschland's discs (where KT etc is hosted) that is broken, rather than anything more drastic such as it being taken down purposefully. The tool itself is useful; what is not good is what people do with it. The editors who use it well should not be punished for others' using it badly. [[Sam Korn]] 22:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Sam Korn's views. Just because it may be misused by a certian portion of the population does not mean we should limit the tool. For the record, I'm considering writing a Java program for those with Java and an IDE to count the number of edits, count the edit summary percentage, percent minor edits, and other stats, serving mainly as a backup to Kate's Tool. Of course, such a method would be extremely crude (copying and pasting all the contributions into a txt file and parsing each one) and would also require the downloading of the Java compiler and other freeware, making it very limited. Would people be interested in me programming this and making the code available? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes! In fact, I had been working on a complete edit analyzer in

did you read this?

) 22:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll start some work on it when I have some free time. (Which may be a while, though...) Some complexities: making it user friendly, and the many different ways Wikipedia uses to log a user's contributions (i.e. minor edit, the "default" edit summary when you edit a section, many parenthesis, etc.) All of that will make for a much longer algorithm to do stats. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page (for those who want to follow and help :) )

did you read this?

) 22:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that even though Kate's tool indeed has it's good uses it's good uses have long since been overwhelmed by it's use as a tool to foster editcountitis and more recently (when the first edit feature was added) as a tool to foster agecountitis. I doubt this is a technological issue, it's more of a severe attitude issue that needs to be dealt with.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who gets anally retentive about edit count or age of the account needs their head banged against a brick wall. I actually don't think it's really that common, and I expect bureaucrats don't value votes based solely on either of these two factors very highly. If people get told when they make such comments that they are not appreciated, things might work a little better. On the other hand, edit counts and account ages are useful for assessing the suitability of a user for adminship, and KT is a good way of acheiving this. [[Sam Korn]] 12:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We had all this last time the tool went down too. -Splash^talk 22:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it will be quite a happy day when we no longer have to have these debates as to whether Kate's tool is a good thing is a bad thing but until either a workaround is created to prevent it's usage in the pursuit of editcountitis and/or the attitude of people in general changes to the point where they don't judge people solely on their edit count then these discussions should must continue.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 22:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Editcountitis and Agecountitis (Archive 41)

• Editcountitis:(n.) an uncurable mental disorder which results in uncontrollable bouts of judging individual editors based solely on the the number of individual edits that they have made to Wikipedia. editcountitis may vary in severity and severity may flucuate. editcountitis may also be overpowered or replaced with agecountitis

• Agecountitis:(n.) an uncurable mental disorder which results in uncontrollable bouts of judging individual editors based solely on the amount of time (usually using a measure of months) that they have been an editor on Wikipedia. agecountitis may vary in severity and severity may flucuate. agecountitis may also be overpowered or replaced with editcountitis.

Just what I think the definition of Edictountitis and Agecountitis is, I'd be interested in seeing what other editors think the definitions of them are and what they think of these definitions and/or the two subjects or terms.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm... when have begun to slam using edit counts and account age as a factor? Sure, they shouldn't be the sole factor, but they help to offer a complete picture of a candidate. In addition, there are some things that experience can bring; as such, account age and edit counts are completely valid criteria. While I certainly agree that just looking at those factors or deciding based on those factors is wrong, we shouldn't slam the people (as your "definitions" do) who do. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've always defined editcountitis as an uncurable mental disorder centered on an obsession with one's own edit count - at least that's what I suffer from. ;-) BD2412 T 22:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that too.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 22:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; -itis indicates an inflammation, a personal condition. Perhaps Editcountism when applied to others? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue I take with them is that they are all too often used as the sole factor and even when they aren't the sole reason they are the main part of the reason, whenever edit counts are mentioned there are never second to the other reason.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 03:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How about letting people vote in good faith and leaving them be? Maybe save some unneeded edits on this talk. Marskell 23:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

At what point does it stop being editcountitis and agecountitis? What I mean is, if there is a user who has made 100 edits, all good, and submits an RfA, would you Support? How about at 200 edits? Conversely, what if there were a user who made an account just a week ago and made 1000 edits in that week, all good? Would you support? How two weeks? A month? If these extreme cases count as editcountitis and agecountitis, then I suppose I suffer from them, because I would certainly oppose the nomination of a user who has made just 100 edits solely based on edit count, and I would also oppose the nomination of a user with a week-old account based solely on the age of the account. --Deathphoenix 00:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the main reason there's more claims of "editcountitis" and "agecountitis" is that many current and recent candidates have less experience than past candidates. I don't think voters are more fixated on these counts than in the past, but I do believe that more candidates have low edit counts and/or a short tenure on Wikipedia. Even if the percentage of inexperienced candidates is the same as a year ago, the huge number of RfAs (26 active right now) means that the absolute number of inexperienced candidates will be greater. Carbonite | Talk 01:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hey! ;-) BD2412 T 01:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, back in the good ol' days every user had 50,000 edits and 3 years before they'd even think about accepting a nomination. ;) Seriously though, while BD2412 is an extreme example, when candidates have ample time and edits, there's usually landslide support. There's nothing wrong with expecting admins to have a bit of experience under their belt. I mean, we're ranked #35 in the entire world right now [5]! Whether Jimbo thinks so or not, adminship is a bigger deal now than it was years ago. Carbonite | Talk 01:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say it's a bigger deal - in the sense that we need a few hundred more admins! And few dozen more bureaucrats too - it's better if we have more hands to do the work than work to fill the hands. On the other hand, we have plenty of experienced editors for whom neither age nor edit count would be a concern, so we should work on prompting them towards adminship first. BD2412 T 01:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Well... granted, we do need one or two more admins, well, maybe 1000-2000 or so. The current admin/user ratio is silly. Kim Bruning 01:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I think the more pertinent ratio would be active admins/active users. I don't have these figures, but I bet it's fairly respectable since admins tend to be active users. Carbonite | Talk 03:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm not so sure, what with the huge numbers of people demanding that they get more say than admins, or some such. Kim Bruning 03:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I took a look at Wikistats [6] and found out some interesting info. The most recent data was for October 2005. There were 1854 users who made at least 100 edits in October.[7] I think this is a pretty good definition of "active", since that's slightly more than 3 edits/day. There are currently 576 "active" admins (see here), so let's estimate that there were 500 back in October. Thus we get a ratio of 1854/500 or 3.7 active users for every active admin. Of course, this doesn't take into account anonymous users or those users who made less than 100 edits in October. Still, I think this shows that while we'll always need new admins, we're not really in an emergency situation at the moment. We can afford to examine each candidate thoroughly and possibly request that they get a bit more experience before being promoted. Carbonite | Talk 03:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Backup to

Kate's Tool (Archive 41

)

I've created a crude and rudimentary backup to Kate's Tool. Please see User:Flcelloguy/Tool. Comments appreciated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits per day: why does it matter? (Archive 43)

I'm confused at the emerging trend of using number of edits per day (or month etc.) as a way of judging the candidate. I notice this for Simetrical and especially EvanProdromou. What does it matter if the edits are good ones? These candidates have both been around for at least a year (3 years in the case of Evan) so I don't feel their commitment to the project can be questioned (Evan is a Developer!). These two candidates want to help the project, so why should we deny them that? Not everyone has the time to contribute for hours a day, but that should not reflect on them as users, nor should it deny them the opportunity to contribute in the way they choose. It's not as if we have a limited number of adminships to hand out or anything. Any reversion of vandalism or clearing of VFD backlog is valuable, however small.

The main thing that worries me about this arguement is that the quality of the candidate's edits is not under question, nor has anyone suggested they are likely to abuse admin tools. We seem to be losing sight of the real issue in RFA's: is this candiate likely to abuse admin tools, or will they put them to good use? Could someone please tell me how frequency of contribution is relevent to this question? Raven4x4x 04:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually it bothers me too. There's nothing wrong with being a "part-time" vs. a "full-time" admin. People have lives outside of this web site. Antandrus (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's also very hard to check 2000+ edits to find out if someone has done something really nasty. Kim Bruning 04:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Editcountitis is something that I honestly dislike and do not take into account when voting. Some feel that it is a measure of how well-seasoned an editor is, though; the more they edit the more they are likely to understand and follow official policy. --Vortex 04:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

With respect, there's an underlying philosophical issue at the core of this debate. A number of users hold to the ideal that adminship is "no big deal". A number of other users hold that adminship is no longer "no big deal". I could put forth arguments why edits per day may have a basis in the worthiness of a candidate. In fact, I have in the past. What I have found is the arguments tend to fall on deaf ears, and regardless miss the mark of addressing the core philosophical difference. Before we can come to terms with whether or not edits per day is any reasonable basis on which to judge a potential admin, we would need to come to some agreement on what adminship is today, and what it means on average to the community. But, I doubt such agreement is possible. --Durin 04:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I feel that admins should be exactly what the RFA page says: "trusted users who are familiar with Wikipedia policies", who will use the admin tools to make the encyclopedia better, and who are able to work well in discussions with other users. That's what matters in my mind. By the way Durin, I'm interested in those arguements as to why you feel edits per day does matter, just for interests sake. Also, is there anything in my arguement above that you disagree with? Again, I'm just interested. Raven4x4x 04:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits per day might matter, I'm thinking, because policy (however you want to define policy) changes relatively quickly on Wikipedia, and a part-time admin might soon find themselves believing in and enforcing an outdated set of rules. Yes, they'll be pointed to the new rules, and it's not a big deal, but the desire to not need caretakers for the caretakers makes some sense. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I just fail to agree with many that the yardstick must be the number of edits. It'd be like finding a psychologist. Do you pick someone for the job who has counselled hundreds of people? Or someone who appears to be proficient at it? If you're hiring for a legal firm, do you find someone who's got millions of cases under their belt or who has the skills necessary to win? Both? Neither? You see my point. I rely on edit counts if and only if I can't determine that the user is goig to benefit Wiki by being an admin. As for what adminship is today -- it depends. I think that adminship is taking care of custodial duties but also being a more public face than a regular editor. You decide. --Vortex 05:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] But adminship is primarily about extra editing tools. Most admins do not choose an administrative role. This isn't what adminship is about. In addition, I don't think that policy does change all that quickly. AfD might replace VfD, formatting might change, but there are clear instructions on the page. Someone who was heavily involved in X (say, VFD) who left for a few months might have some initial shock of re-adjustment, but someone who is only a part-time editor doesn't assume that X is done this way because s/he didn't have such deeply ingrained habits. In addition, of course, someone who reads is not likely to be someone who edits all that much - it takes a long time to work your way through WP:AN or to figure out what's going on in some dispute. Try reading an Arbcomm case - your edit rate falls pretty quickly if you really want to figure out what's going on. Guettarda 05:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree; I was just trying to answer Raven4x4x's curiousity as best I could. I do wonder what you mean when you say "but adminship is primarily about extra editing tools", though. Except for the rollback button and perhaps the ability to edit permanently protected pages, every other admin ability — blocking, deleting, protection — is tied up in a vast web of policy. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

We have extra editing tools that we don't want untested users to have. For convenience, the collections of tools were given names: Administrator (or Sysop), Bureaucrat, Developer. Unfortunately (at least in my view), the title Administrator has taken on a life distinct from the tools. Now if a valuable editor only wants to roll back vandalism on the pages on his watchlist that he has so diligently worked on, we are telling him that because he doesn't visit AfD, contribute to policy discussions or meet some other criteria du jour that he can't have the tools. Counting recent edits is just one more of those hurdles that only make sense if you buy into the notion that being annointed administrator has some special meaning apart from the tools. Personally, I don't buy in. -- DS1953 05:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[after edit conflict] That's a good point Guettarda raises. I've spent three-hour evenings reading and not making a single edit, but those were the times I really learned policy. Edit counts, strictly speaking, remain misleading. For me there is a minimum involvement threshold where I perceive dedication to the project -- I'm not sure if I can quantify it, I just intuit it from the candidate's history and behavior. Antandrus (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that your position that there is a minimum involvement threshold and then edit counting doesn't matter is strongly consistent with the past probability of pass/fail RFA. --Gmaxwell 15:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Rx StrangeLove

05:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with DS1953. It's about the tools. The hurdles do not make a better encyclopedia.

Tedernst | talk

06:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

So we have two components, cost and benefit. The cost, I say, is negligible for anyone who has contributed extensively and productively, no matter what their edit rate: they're unlikely to do anything wrong, and on the off chance they do, they can be quickly dealt with. The benefit may not be great for someone who doesn't edit much, but it will still exist, and so any Wikipedian who has contributed productively and is even semi-active should be given adminship. This is why Jimbo Wales said it's "no big deal": because the software doesn't allow admins to do much harm. —Simetrical (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said.

Tedernst | talk

22:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits per day is a nearly meaningless metric. We measure it because it is easy to measure and it's fun to bandish about numbers. If you assume it means anything important, you're making a huge mistake. Statistically, edit rate beyond a certian minimum threshold (which most people have) has no correlation with pass/fail of RFA, nor does it appear to tell us anything about how likely someone is to be deadmined. It doesn't do much to tell us about how often will use admin abilities. ... Frankly I think the only hunk of data about adminship and edit rates which is actually interesting is that people who pass adminship on average have a greater decline of edit rate than people who fail... even though some who fail have their edit rate go straight to zero. Some users are high volume editors and demonstrate poor judgement as admins, some users are low volume but always seem to have teriffic judgement. It's the quality of a users actions that count, not their volume. --Gmaxwell 07:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to point out is, given two candidates with approximately equal edit counts, I'd prefer the editor who'd been here longer, that is, the editor who got their 2000 edits over six months rather than three. That is, if I used numerical standards, which I don't. Demi ^T/_C 08:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. But your volume isn't important concensus is far from correct. In theory, that's what should be the deciding factor in a rfa, but it isn't. Like Mr.Sidaway said on his talkpage, "Its a Aunt Sally bar. Its a coconut shy. Its a duck shoot." The amount of edits is perhaps the best factor we have to go when considering somone for adminship, because it shows how active they are, it shows constructiveness, and most of all, it shows where (and how) they're upholding wikipedia. Just look at the current nominations for instance- WhoKnowsEmperorNorton is failing miserably because of his lack of edits, and that says to the voters he's not qite suited to the position yet. Its because we cannot go by a person's views and thought processes (this is the internet). So "by the numbers" is one of the best deciding factors. Also I quote from Mr.Sidaway: "That's the way it is until we think up a better way to decide who will be an administrator." -MegamanZero 08:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • It isn't at all a good metric. Are you saying that we would prefer to admin someone who stub sorts 50 articles a day over someone who writes one complete featured article a week? --Gmaxwell 14:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • You're right. That's exactly what I'm trying to say, and its not fair. But..that's what a large number of voters look at, and there's little we can do to change that mindset. Then there's the second most terrifying problem withh rfa- bandwagoons. It's an undisputed fact that a lot of voters simply aren't thinking for themselves, and merely vote the same position thier friend or aqantince did. Again, I quote, That's the way it is until we think up a better way to decide who will be an administrator.-MegamanZero 15:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • But how does that make edits per day a good or useful number? ... I don't think people are being quite as stupid as you suggest, but even if they were it would just be all the more reason to NOT provide a count of edits/day. --Gmaxwell 16:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • It doesn't. But, that's how it is...-MegamanZero 17:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  "That's the way it is until we think up a better way to decide who will be an administrator." Is that so? Then how about this: any Wikipedian in good standing of at least six months with at least 750 edits who expresses a commitment to remain on Wikipedia for the near future and who has read the various relevant policy pages should be made an admin. Now can we toss posts per day out the window?

Yes, posts per day expresses commitment and time spent on Wikipedia per day. It does not indicate any kind of familiarity with Wikipedia policies, necessarily; it does not indicate responsibility. But above all, as noted above, the cost of making someone an admin is negligible if they're any member in good standing. Who cares how much they'll use their abilities? Most will use their abilities at least occasionally, the rest are no harm. If they meet the criteria I mentioned, 99% won't abuse their powers, and the remainder will cause no lasting damage and can be easily dealt with. —Simetrical (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're being serious about your conjecture, then there are quite a few people who fit that thesis of yours, Simetrical. If only it were so simple...Unfortuntely, that's not concensus,a policy, or an requiste for adminship, and I quote again, "that's the way it is....", you know the rest. :) -MegamanZero 22:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that some people do vote based largely on edit rate. What people are discussing is whether they should. And no, my counterproposal is not consensus or policy, but neither is judging based on edit rate. If this discussion is any indication (which it may not be), it seems consensus is substantially against judging based largely on edit rate. "That" is not "the way it is". —Simetrical (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Familiarity with policy

In my opinion, one of the reasons activity level is important for an admin to be successful is, as others have noted, ongoing familiarity with policy. A part time admin who applies policy could cause considerable problems among users who feel they are following policy, only to find they are violating policy as the part time admin sees it. Policy changes, and rapidly. Anybody...anybody...can change policy. Personally, I think this is a shortcoming of Wikipedia. Policy pages should be protected. Let's have a look at how often policies were edited over the last month:

• Wikipedia:Account deletion: 0 edits
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy: 3 edits
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith: 2 edits
• Wikipedia:Banning policy: 5 edits
• Wikipedia:Blocking policy: 34 edits
• Wikipedia:Civility: 5 edits
• Wikipedia:Copyrights: 8 edits
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: 141 edits
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy: 51 edits
• Wikipedia:Edit war: 11 edits
• Wikipedia:Image use policy: 4 edits
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions: 31 edits
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories): 23 edits
• Wikipedia:No binding decisions: 1 edit
• Wikipedia:No legal threats: 3 edits
• Wikipedia:No original research: 11 edits
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks: 10 edits
• Wikimedia:Privacy policy: 3 edits
• Wikipedia:Profanity: 4 edits
• Wikipedia:Protection policy: 9 edits
• Wikipedia:Resolving disputes: 2 edits
• Wikipedia:Sock puppet: 22 edits
• Wikipedia:Three-revert rule: 4 edits
• Wikipedia:Undeletion policy: 7 edits
• Wikipedia:Verifiability: 40 edits
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: 37 edits
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary: 0 edits

Of the 27 policies shown above, more than half averaged at least one edit per week. Even if we assume half of all edits on policy were vandalism and reverts, we'd still have more than one third of policy changing on average on a weekly basis. Note that this is just policy as taken from Category:Wikipedia official policy. This does not show Category:Wikipedia guidelines. There is a great deal of material that an admin not only needs to be familiar with, but needs to maintain a familiarity with. As many have, it can most certainly be argued that a conscientious and trustworthy admin will not attempt to enforce policy until they read and understand current policy. However, it can also be argued that due to the frequently changing nature of policy and guidelines, an inactive admin is hamstrung and nearly incapable of applying policy in a conscientious manner because of the frequently changing environment. An inactive admin is thus either going to make mistakes in the application of policy or self-prevented from using admin tools..so why have them? This is just one aspect of why an inactive admin candidate is of concern to some people. There are others. --Durin 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with the point, there are a good few existing admins who don't know up-to-date procedures, and who are probably implementing policy as it was rather than as it is. I'm not sure what conclusion, if any, one should draw from that! The Land 14:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this point. There is no reason to believe that someone's edit rate is strongly related to their *reading* of policy discussion. I do agree that people engaged in some admin activities need to say current with our policies and practices, but edit rate isn't a good metric there. Why don't we ask people what admin process related subjects they stay current on and how they keep up with the flood of changes rather than try to guess at their behavior by looking at electronic chicken bones? We also must keep in mind that little of what we do can not be reverted, so if someone does fall behind it is easy enough to correct their mistake and clue them in... We'll have to do that in any case, because people are simple not going to read every single change. --Gmaxwell 15:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• In response to The Land, the main point is that policy is not dictated by what is written on the policy page. Policy is what exists in the mindset (yes, consensus) of most editors. Of course that's hard to gauge unless you're a telepath, but that's why we write it down. If I were to add to policy that people whose username starts with T may be permablocked, then it wouldn't be policy even if nobody bothered to revert it (and yes, that happens a lot, albeit in less extreme examples than I just stated). So being level-headed is far more important for an admin than knowing policy pages by heart. Radiant_>|< 22:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Very funny. All users that have a username that concludes with an
    did you read this?
    ) 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Most admins stick to one or two areas so they don't need to know every bit of policy. On top of that not all policy is about admin actions.Geni 11:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

edit history tool (Archive 45)

I've written a tool that gives an alternative view of a user's edit history, see here. As far as I'm aware, it gives more insight into a user's edits, and allows easier viewing of conversations on AN/I and such than existing tools that I'm aware of. Here is an example of AN/I tracking, click on the "context" link, and the user's edit will appear at the bottom of the history, allowing you to see anyone that may have replied to the user.

The sort-by-name feature [8] allows one to quickly look at just AfDs, or WP:AN comments, or just WikiProject contributions, etc.

The tool is somewhat targeted to the RFA process, and if anyone has any suggestions to improve its applicability to RFA, please let me know. --21:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• —The preceding
  Interiot (talk • contribs
  ) .