Looks cool. Is the "date of adminship" the first +sysop or the most recent +sysop? A lot of people resigned and then asked for the bit back in 2019; if the table uses "most recent +sysop" then this would explain why so many of the 2019 crowd have lots of edits before 2006. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma, I'm pretty sure the latter is the case. I'd upload the .csv results of the data collection for the community's inspection, but I'm unsure where/how would be best to do so. It's also possible that some of the ways we filtered out those kinds of false positives did not account for all cases, which checking the data would help spot. — ♠ Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 10:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like, on average, that admins gain the tools at or near their editing peak. I know the year I became an admin was my editing peak, with quite a fall off over the next four years. - Donald Albury13:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I would describe my pattern (I'm part of the 2023 cohort, getting sysop rights in December of that year). I know that there were only 12 of us that year (Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies/2023) so you're dealing with much smaller sample sizes in later cohorts. It seems like my activity actually increased after adminship, even if my namespace percentages have been remarkably consistent since I started editing in 2018. I wonder how typical that is compared to others. Clovermoss🍀(talk)22:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something I think I see is a change around approximately 2015, where earlier admins tend to have a significant falloff in activity after getting the tools, but the falloff is less pronounced for later admins. Perhaps this reflects changes in community expectations for RfA, but it could also be an artifact of fewer post-RfA years of data for the newer admins. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Split RFB?
WP:BRD: I just reverted a bold split of RFB to its own pages. I don't think this is needed, and will have downsides (such as that no one will be watching that page). If we want to split this, lets discuss first. — xaosfluxTalk18:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason for such a split; RFBs are incredibly uncommon and having them on a seperate page doesn't add anything other than more layers of pages to watch. CoconutOctopustalk18:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like it would just overcomplicate the title for no real benefit. If a given editor even knows what a bureaucrat is, I think they know where to find RfB. ULPS(talk • contribs)22:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CoconutOctopus (awesome name) says it best. RfBs are rare and a split means more to have to follow. It hasn't been a hassle, ever, for RfB to be lumped in with RfA, so splitting them fixes a problem that doesn't exist and could create others. Acalamari02:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even RfAs are also rare. We haven't had one since April (likely due to the new ALECT) Back in the day, sometime before 2010, we had one nomination per day on average, and in recent times, its once a month. I think for every RfA, there's 50 RfBs. Before Barkeep became a crat, the last such nomination was in 2022. JuniperChill (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AELECT is working at boosting the # of admin candidates per year. The 2024 data is really clear, with the yellow bar in that bar chart jumping up a lot, coinciding with WP:AELECT1. AELECT seems to be a successful process so far. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, all the best admins have come from AELECT. On a more serious note, AELECT isn't increasing the number of RFAs but it is increasing the number of admins, and those have the same impact in the end. CoconutOctopustalk16:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's true. I didn't go through AELECT, and I'm an absolutely sucky admin. Here's another 'truth'; the number of people elected in the second AELECT dropped 30% from the first time. The mean number of elections hasn't really budged. What AELECT set out to do hasn't happened. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason why the first ALECT got so many participants was because of the fact that some people think that will be the only ALECT (as it was initally authorised on a trial basis), plus we'll get one of these every five months (next one in December 2025). We also had a discussion-only period for 5 RFAs, but most people wanted to discontinue that. Of course, 2024 had the most candidates since 2015. JuniperChill (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another 'truth'; the number of people elected in the second AELECT dropped 30% from the first time. It was 11 elected in #1 and 9 elected in #2, so isn't that 18% (1-9/11)? It's only truth if you do the math right. ;-) –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Two elections doth not a trend make, lets wait and see a couple more before we start predicting how many new admins we'll get from elections per year. What we can see though is that elections are currently more popular for candidates than RFAs, and that the first year with an election gave us more new admins than any year since 2013. I'm pretty sure that the highest support percentage in elections is far lower than the highest support percentages in normal RFAs, I don't know for certain that this is reflected around the pass mark, but it would be nice to see some unsuccessful election candidates come back with RFAs. ϢereSpielChequers19:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine those unsuccessful in elections might be more successful in a traditional RfA. For example, I had a 40% support in the first AELECT, then came back about 6 months later to a traditional RfA and ended with a no consensus at 66%, which, while not passing, is still a pretty good percentage to end out RfA with. EggRoll97(talk) 05:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally would be in favour of a split since they are distinct processes. I think it's pretty funny to see objections about having to watchlist a second page... notices for RfAs and RfBs is posted on the watchlist anyway, everyone sees them regardless of if you follow the page(s). 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I want to make formal request to become administrator at the English Wikipedia. I am good at writing and I have passion for making Wikipedia a better website. Bjornkarateboy (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
