requests For Adminship/Archive 36

I've always heard it's 3 months to become an admin, why are we capping people for time, and 6 months time at that! Ya know, even if they only were an admin for a month and ran off, we'd still get all that much help. Adminship should be given out liberally, Jimbo himself agrees with this, and I can't say I understand this new 6 month requirement used by some people. If we were to desysop everyone who made it at 3 months, we'd be minus about 250 admins (educated guess!), including myself. I'm not particularly annoyed at the bureaucrat opposition, but opposing people we all know will make great admins just because they haven't been here for such a long time, well, enrages me. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you can vent your rage in placing your vote. Time is important because it lets the community know that a person is not going to burn out or freak out; six months happens to be about the average maximum time that someone with, say, borderline personality disorder, can manage a positive relationship or interaction before breaking down. It's not an unreasonable concern that someone will appear helpful, normal, and in general a good candidate for adminship (even being brand new to wikipedia) and then become horridly destructive soon after. Clearly adminship is not a big deal, but it's a much bigger deal for such a meltdown (or desertion) to happen to an admin than just an editor, and I've seen far, far too many perfectly normal and helpful individuals experience just such a meltdown, particularly online. siafu 23:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Both of the comments are correct. Time is important of course, however, there's no single policy covering the issue neither Rfa's have been consistent dealing with that. Plenty of admins became admins after only a few weeks since their first edit. Cheers -- Svest 23:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Admins after a few weeks? Really? Do you know of any offhand? Carbonite | Talk 14:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I recall a few passing mentions of it happening in the eary days of the project.Geni 14:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I was just confused because the user who said that above has only been here since April 2005. He must be a much better Wiki-historian than I am. ;) Carbonite | Talk 14:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You can, come to think of it, make a good case that a large proportion of people who eventually become admins are as capable after the first month as they are after the first year - the steepest part of the learning curve has been climbed, and the next few months are mostly incremental improvements to their knowledge and "familiarity" with the project (learning names and remembering links, as much as anything). I mean, Redwolf got adminship after not much more than a month of actual activity. Shimgray | talk | 14:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a policy about this instead of everyone making up their own standards? This page says "This should be no big deal," according to Jimmy Wales.' and "Current (de facto) Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. In practice, standards have generally risen." Is there any evidence that people made administrators after 3 months end up turning bad more often than those made later? Tedernst 23:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes but only becuase most admins take a while to "turn bad" and as a result were elected when standards were lower.Geni 14:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

CAN I BE AN ADMINISTRATOR LOOK AT MY EDIT HISTORY I'VE BEEN HERE FOREVER AND A DAY, HELL, ACCORDING TO MY EDIT HISTORY, I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE THE VERY FOUNDING OF AOL AND WIKIPEDIA ITSELF--205.188.116.132 23:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, because your caps lock key is stuck on. the wub "?!" 00:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

(After edit conflict with Svest and Tedernist and the above IP) Are we so paranoid about this? For every one user who does this, there's 100 who don't. We have 6 admins forcibly desysopped (Stevertigo is the 7th), and something like 640 admins total. Plus why even stop at 6 months? Why not make it two years. I'm sure all the best admins have been here at least two years... But sysop abuse is rare, and most of the people respected enough to be nominated for RfA (in a non-trolling way...) will ask when they're not sure about something, otherwise they would have left a long time before three months ;-) I'm gonna cut myself off there before I rant... Redwolf24 (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
IS THAT A NO? IT'S NOT MY FAULT I CAN'T TURN OFF MY CAPS LOCK KEY IT WAS JUST ALWAYS LIKE THAT, IS THAT A PROBLEM?--205.188.116.132 00:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible for anonymous IPs to become admins. The MediaWiki software does not support it. So why are you even asking? — JIP | Talk 07:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Red and Wub. It should not be a big deal and of course why not 7 months or 87? -- Svest 00:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

87 months is out as a criterion becuase Wikipedia only started 57 months ago. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
It was meant to say that x or y months are not relevant when it comes to adminship! Svest 10:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

• The criteria that people wish to establish for themselves to vote on RfAs are of their own making and apply only to their own voting. I see no reason to bludgeon people for their respective stances on voting standards. You're certainly welcome to voice your opposition to their standards, but their standards are not 'wrong' or 'right' by any definition, as neither are yours. --Durin 13:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In general, I do want to see six months of participation before a user becomes an admin, but of course there are always exceptions. I know many users have lower (or no) duration standards, so I highly doubt a candidate would be ever be rejected solely for having been here less than six months. Carbonite | Talk 14:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to nip this in the bud, rapid inflation is bad ;-) And I motion that we deop everyone with under 70,000 edits and 4 years contributing. I guess that leaves Maveric149 as the sole admin, but on the other hand we won't have corrupt sysops to worry about ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

And Carbonite I'm glad you added in there are exceptions. I am alright with you having time problems, but if someone just goes around opposing on such grounds without looking at true merits or allowing exceptions, I will not get along with them. Redwolf24 (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki gets funnier and funnier. I know of a new sysop who doesn't know the difference between an attention and a cleanup tag. Just 5 months down in Wikipedia, he's been nominated and became a new admin, apparently because he hasn't offended anyone yet. Mandel 20:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I imagine that one thing we expect of admins is that, presented with a situation with which they are unfamiliar, they will ask a more experienced editor for guidance (or find it themselves on the appropriate project page).  BD2412 ^talk 06:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Wiki will continue to become more and more complex. It is not reasonable to expect that any administrator candidate understand all aspects of Wikipedia prior to becoming an administrator. Analogy; the United States holds the record as the country with the most laws. It is literally impossible for any one human to know all the laws in the United States, much less practice as a lawyer with respect to all of those laws. The human brain can hold 10¹³ bits of information; that's less than the sum body of law in the U.S. Yet, we don't regard lawyers as incompetent because they don't know all of the law. As Bo noted, what is more important is an administrator's ability to find guidance on issues they are not fully versed. --Durin 15:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the list of current admins for the second or third time today and had a thought: given a sufficient period of total inactivity, should admin powers be removed? Not as a punitive thing, of course. Simply because after, say, a year or 18 months, policy and procedures may have changed and if a person did come back they'd actually be unfamiliar with a number of things. Think, for instance, of image copyright tags. Marskell 13:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• That's a perennial question. Meta simply requires all admins to be confirmed once a year (by fiat if nobody objects, by re-vote if necessary), that would be a simple solution to your problem - if they were inactive for too long, they would simply not be confirmed. Radiant_>|< 13:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Can you point to an instance when an admin's lengthy absence followed by his/her return has led to any major issues (such as an RfC / RfA)? I think it's a solution in search of a problem. It's been proposed many times in the past but it never led to anything. I think the users who have been promoted to exercise judgement and read up on new and updated policies before using admin powers. — David Remahl 13:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No sir, I can point to no such thing—it just seems a perfectly logical bit of housekeeping a project of this sort should undertake. From meta: "Any sysop inactive on meta for a full year will be desysoped. "Inactive" means no edits in the past 6 months and less than 50 edits in the last year. They may re-apply through the regular way." Seems sensible. Marskell 13:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Yet another rule that every admin is expected to be aware of...Lets spare the rule-making for the cases where it has actually been demonstrated necessary. — David Remahl 13:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
No, every bureaucrat. It'd be a simple enough chore really. Marskell 15:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, this turned out as badly as I feared it might. Cognitions's RFA was pulled, apparently due to personal attacks. He was told that it could run its course only if it didn't have personal attacks. He removed the personal attacks, re-listed his RFA, and it was de-listed again. I think he considers himself kind of a "reform candidate" in the RFA, so suppressing his ability to even participate is not a wise move, in my opinion. "There is no cabal", but we've just given this guy good reason to believe there is. Friday (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• If there's going to be a removal (which I think is bad form for all but bad faith nominations), I think it should be done by a bureaucrat. This was not done; it was removed by an admin. The double removal created more problems than it solved, in my opinion. --Durin 17:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't really get the chance to thoroughly go through the entire RfA, but how was it not violating WP:POINT? Even if it was in good faith, since it clearly wasn't going anywhere, yet trying to disrupt WP, how does it not violate said rule? Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, in the above case, several other editors also considered the RFA to be a WP:POINT. It may come down to different standards of "disruption". For an analogy, I've listed a couple things on Afd that ended up as a resounding "keep". This may mean my judgement was wrong in those cases, but was I "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point"? IMO, no, I was using an accepted process to argue what I believed was best. Most other people didn't agree, but this doesn't make it a disruption, it just means my POV was an unpopular one. Friday (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Regardless of any personal attacks, the nomination had one support and twenty-one opposes, thus obviously qualifying for the snowball clause. A new nomination within a short period of time would suffer the same fate. In other words, I fully concur with the removal. Radiant_>|< 18:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have made Steverigo's RFA into a link rather than a transcluded sub page. Steve's nom makes the page size extremely large. Those interested in following up on RFA nom, may the follow the link. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Should we have a policy that a person with less than 100 edits may not vote on RFA? This is to discourage sockpuppetry. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

We have this rule on AFD and various other "votes", we should do here too. Make it 50 rather than 100 and you've got yourself a deal. Martin 18:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think adding a strict policy to that effect really does much more to discourage sock-voting. I mean, realistically such clear sockpuppets already don't get counted even on RFA, but people still attempt them. --Aquillion 18:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Its easy to rake up 50 edits in two days. PS I meant minimum "edits" =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Which rule do we have on AfD? The only thing I could find is "suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin" on Wiki: Guide to deletion#Deletion process. Since I close AfDs myself, I'd like to hear about customs that I'm unaware of. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer a mixture of duration and edits. Both low, but enough to discourage sockpuppets. Perhaps two weeks (from the date of the first edit) and 50 edits? At the very least, it would prevent sockpuppets from being created with the intention of disrupting a specific RfA (since they only run for 7 days). Carbonite | Talk 19:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good idea. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Alas! I suspect that a few sockpuppets feed at least 2 kids (accounts) for a relatively long time. The suggestion would help fight newly created SP's (just hours/days before voting) but will never help stop other live SP's from voting. Same applies to AFD's. -- Svest 19:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}
Very true, but there really isn't a way of stopping determined sockpuppets without alienating newbies. I think's it's best to work on eliminating the more obvious ones. You know, the user created yesterday whose second edit was vote on an RfA. Carbonite | Talk 19:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely, I agree. A day of harvest is better than 10 of droughts ;) -- Svest 19:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Are you sure there isn't already such a rule (100 edits)? I always assumed there was, so I must have read it somewhere. I'd personally say it should be one month plus 100 edits. Before that, there's no proof of commitment, nor any guarantee that the voter is familiar with Wikipedia policy. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 19:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I kinda like Ann's idea, both limits are low enough to allow most users but high enough to discourage some sockpuppets. Also, it is important to point out that if somebody creates 2 or 3 socks and keeps them live for a long time, there is really nothing we can do. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Several points:

1. We elect Bureaucrats to make decisions on RfAs and I expect them to weed out socks as part of that. If they can't adequately determine raw sockpuppets, they should probably surrender their bureaucrat flag.
2. There is not and has not been a minimum requirement to participate in AfD. Those suggesting otherwise above are simply wrong (no offence, but they are). Admins routinely discount very new users or those with few edits when closing deletion debates. What constitutes "new" and "few" is left to their discretion. This appears to be working out fine, for the most part.
3. You can't stop sockpuppets. If I want to vote with a sleeper-sock, you can be sure I will, and you'll probably never know because I'll make sure my IP changes before I do so.
4. Will people please stop trying to policy-police RfA? It works. I repeat: it works. It works. It's a vipers nest at times (which probably contributes to its success in weeding out poor candidates), but it works. One of the reasons it works is because it is probably the free-est process page we have, and the less free the less successful it will become.
5. Very few socks actually participate here anyway. This is a solution that has no problem.

-Splash^talk 21:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wiki: Suffrage#Formal_suffrage. Martin 21:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
...which makes very clear that there is no 'usual' threshold for participation in AfDs. -Splash^talk 22:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
...and that there is a precedent for this type of thing. Martin 23:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Tempest in a tea-cup. In my looking at it, I can't think of a single RfA which has been borderline to the point that putative sockpuppets make the difference. The fundamental difference between a bureaucrat and an admin is closing RfAs. I assume they do their homework and surely if they do there is no issue; we don't need to say didactically "don't count votes from usernames started after the nomination." I'm premusing they don't do that anyway. Marskell 22:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In response to Splash's comment #1 above: Weeding out known sockpuppets is fine, but how do we determine who is a sockpuppet if the account is unknown? We just gone through Anon Editor's RFA which saw sock voting. I've asked for a guideline so that those with few edits can be marked as possible sockpuppets. I want to know the threshold for few. Unlike AFDs, RFA is a lot more sensitive and attracts a lot more votes. We're dealing with people here, not inanimate articles. We can't stop determined sockpuppets, I know, and if you look closely at my post, it was to discourage casual sockpuppetry. Very few socks actually participate here anyway. That's not a helpful statement nor a panacea for bogus voting. =Nichalp «Talk»=

• To answer your question, there is no set threshold for "few", because any such threshold would be arbitrary and gamable (e.g. if we were to set the threshold at X edits, any sockpuppet with X+1 edits could start rules lawyering about it). See Wiki: Suffrage for details. Radiant_>|< 10:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Should I ignore a vote if the account has <50 edits and/or was created <1 week. (I must add that I have a personal stake here. A newbie opposed my RFB just because I removed copyvio images from an article!) As for the n+1 vote: "gaming the system" is always possible. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say 100 edits, at least a week combined is more than enough to stop 90% of sockpuppets  ALKIVAR™  12:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, 100 edits and a week are reasonable guidelines, however we do not strictly write them down like that, because that would imply that a user with 101 edits and 8 days can never be a sockpuppet. There is an obvious gray area here, but for instance an account that has made two edit a week to certain kinds of votes for the past year, and no other edits, is a probable role account and may in some cases be discounted on that grounds. Radiant_>|< 14:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Socks should not ever be able to influence an RfA because the Bureaucrats should be able to recognise an established editor's well-argued oppose vote and distinguish that from a 1 week old account, or a newly pseudonymous troll unable to construct a coherent argument. If someone is using a well-established sock and writes a cogent argument, you can't stop them anyway. There is no reason to start dressing RfA up in hard guidelines. I reiterate: RfA works, and has worked well in the past due to the experience and care of the Bureaucrats. I do not see a problem that needs fixing. If a 'crat finds it hard to weed out socks, then they can leave such RfAs to 'crats that are happy undertaking that task. -Splash^talk 22:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There has been a proposal for a while to allow editors to request rollback privileges, as a step 'in between' admins and regular users. The discussion has died down but it seems that most people consider it a good idea. The main issue is that no interface exists for enabling rollback privs, so we must either ask a database user to enable the prevs, or ask a dev to create such an interface. So what would be the best course of action,

1. Open up requests for rollback (either here or at WP:RFR) and ask a database user to grant them;
2. Post a feature request and not do anything until it's implemented
3. Consider the proposal impractical and forget about it

Radiant_>|< 23:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Two looks like the best course of action to me, although I do think there is a rollback user status coded, I remember it was enabled at one time, but it is currently disabled. Once we know we can technically make users rollback only, then we should start with RFRs (which I fully support). -Greg Asche (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Since we are fairly liberally creating admins - is there a great need for this? Is it not just annother set of polls to distract us from article work into process? Are there many people we'd trust with rollback but not with other tools? And would rollback be awarded significanly earlier than adminship? Would the few extra roll-backers make much difference? It seems to me most obvious vandalism is reverted pretty quickly. In any case some non-admins have rollback already (I think monobook alterations can give it). I suspect folk want rollback - as without it admins beat them to revert - well, so what, as long as it is reverted? --Doc (?) 23:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

A quick glance at the talk page makes clear that this proposal lacks consensus. Even if the technical ability exists, the process needs either a poll or more time in discussion before it can be put into practice. Incidentally, it would be nice if further discussion could be directed to Wiki talk:Requests for rollback privileges rather than here. — Dan | Talk 00:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is a way to do allow rollback to non-admins via javascript. Because of it's potential use for vandalism, I won't describe it or say much more than that it exists here, but there is a way. All it requires is for a proven vandalfighter to ask someone who knows about it (i.e., me) and after a quick check to prove they are legit, it can be applied. Plenty of non-admins have it, and quite a few admins know about it; I would suggest activating RfRoll as a place for users to note themselves, and a trusted admin (as it takes an admin to edit someone else's monobook.js) could check the user and grant the code. -- Essjay · Talk 14:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I find Essjay's idea interesting as it would lead to an informal process. However, my only concern about creating a class of rollbackers whose hierarchy would be between the editors and admins is that it would complicate things on RFA for people who may not be interested in rolling back but interested in other admin tasks. Personally, I may just need the rollback tool but I'd still go for an RFA as additional abilities in the hands of a trusted wikipedian definitely wouldn't hurt. --Gurubrahma 14:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I just want to make sure I was clear; the rollback function currently available to non-admins is a javascript application, so it doesn't actually extend any extra priveledges, it simply automates the revert process. Rollback is not a permission, like deletion or page protection, but an automation of an existing function; for example, anyone can have a rollback button that works, because anyone may edit a page, however, a non-admin could not program a working blocktab via java, as they do not have the permissions necessary to access the block function. Therefore, it isn't actually creating a new level of users, it is simply allowing users who have demonstrated that they are not vandals to automate the existing revert process. -- Essjay · Talk 14:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't want to seem mean here, but do we really need this? I mean we are here to make an encyclopedia, and some of the benefits of becoming a janitor is the rollback button. I'm sure if someone wanted it, they could just add in the javascript in their monobook.js. It's notable and nice that users fight vandals, but I did it for quite awhile w/o the rollback button. Also, admins as it is get into disputes over rollback, because it doesn't give a reason for the rollback. For normal users, I think it's better if they have a macro, or type in the reasons why. IHMO. «»Who?¿?^meta 15:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Not to be rude, but please direct this discussion to Wiki talk:Requests for rollback privileges, where it belongs. — Dan | Talk 02:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the talk to Wiki talk:Requests for rollback privileges where it belongs as per Dan's uggestion. Let us continue there. Thanks, Dan. --Gurubrahma 09:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In Steve's RfA I see many people voting that the case should go back to ArbCom. That's cool. ArbCom consists of trusted users and they make the right decisions most of the time. And "Wikipedia is not a democracy" as well - it's not the right of normal editors to choose who should be de-sysopped. Well, why don't we relegate the process of admin selection to ArbCom as well? Surely they'll be able to select the right people for a job? Now the deletion process - the tainted AfD - it is better off coming to ArbCom hands as well - let them choose which articles to delete and which to keep. Also there is a vandalism problem. But it has an easy solution! Let the ArbCom monitor each edit and select only those edits that are good for Wiki English. See where I'm going? Nupedia wasn't a democracy - that's why it's DEAD. ArbCom shouldn't do everything, surely YOU can decide whether Steve fits YOUR admin criteria or not. Let the ArbCom do its own work.  Grue  06:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The one issue that there is with this is that even though everyone who says it should go back to arbcom is absolutely right, putting it back on arbcom is not a valid RFA vote and doesn't fall under any Wikipedia guideline and as such I assume that the beaurucrat will probably disregard those votes even though that's unfortunate. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
"Putting it back on arbcom is not a valid RFA vote and doesn't fall under any Wikipedia guideline." Under what guideline is ArbCom using RfA for a referendum on user behaviour? That's what this is. Archived now, but to repeat: "The Arbitration Committee is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort to be turned to when all else has failed." Here they are treating RfA as a last resort and essentially abrogating a basic task of theirs. The people voting remit are absolutely right regardless of whether the bureaucrat closing feels s/he must ignore the votes. Marskell 07:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you entirely, it's not in any arbcom procedure or precedent either, however arbcom does at least seem to have the ability to create precedent to a certain extent, much of which while not directly creating new rules and guidelines does not entirely fall under any existing rule or guideline. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Everyone has the right to create precident. The point of the vote was to see if the community still supported him as an admin. It is perfectly valid to say "we'd rather not do this" even though it is unusual in an rfa. This is not a normal rfa so the voting options don't have to be normal either. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
"Let the ArbCom do its own work"? Isn't it part of the ArbCom's "own work" to handle disputes like Stevertigo's case? Or does it exist merely to determine the consensus of normal Wikipedia users? As per User:Marskell, the ArbCom is the last step in the dispute resolution process. Them asking us for opinions doesn't sound like a "last step". — JIP | Talk 07:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, Grue, but please see slippery slope and appeal to ridicule. Radiant_>|< 10:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert in logical fallacies but "if P is used to prove Q and using similar argumentation to P can be used to prove a wrong statement then Q is wrong" must have some fancy name as well.  Grue  11:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Correct. That would be Reductio ad absurdum, but note that RAA is both a rhetorical technique and a logical fallacy, and I'm afraid you're using the wrong one. "P implies Q, but Q is false" proves that P is false. However "P implies Q, and P taken to extremes would imply R, and R is false" does not imply that P or Q is false. Hence, slippery slope. Radiant_>|< 12:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• I believe the core of the issue isn't that the RfA has been brought to gain community concensus on whether Stevertigo should be an admin. As has been noted multiple times elsewhere, he's been brought here at first against his will as, unintended or no, a virtual lynching. ArbCom, assuming it had any cognizance at all of RfA patterns, knew there was no chance of Stevertigo passing such an RfA. If ArbCom were not ArbCom, and this were somehow just a dispute say on AfD, there would be a number of people saying this whole thing was brought in bad faith. There was no rational way in which ArbCom could conclude that bringing the RfA was not an abrogation of process. In essence, a case was brought before the Wiki-equivalent of the Supreme Court, Stevertigo was found guilty of heinous crimes, and then asked to stand before people (initially against his will) and ask those people if they liked him or not. Now that it is with his will, he is using it as a process to gather material evidence of what he sees as ArbCom's misbehavior. I can well understand the motivation. How else do you defeat an ArbCom decision except by foisting them upon their own petard? I expect Jimbo will have to step into this mess. This is NOT what RfA is for. This process is being used for purposes well separated from what RfA is supposed to be used for. This fight between Stevertigo and ArbCom has spilled over outside of the ring and out onto the streets for all the world to see. ArbCom and Stevertigo both clearly know that this RfA has zero chance of passing. That's not what it is being used for. Not only is Stevertigo suffering public humiliation over this, but ArbCom is suffering as well. The RfA as it now stands is 15 in favor, 29 against. Stevertigo would need another 51 more support votes just to clear the bare minimum 70% to get into the grey area for affirmation. This RfA will nevertheless continue for another 6 days, the mudslinging will continue, the debates will continue and the embarrassment all the way around will continue. This situation was forseeable and avoidable. ArbCom certainly has the power to set precedent, and what a precedent they have set! Personally, I feel that an RfC should be brought with ArbCom as a whole one of the parties to it. Is that any abuse of process? I don't think so, but that's open for debate. It's most certainly a more appropriate venue for this debate than RfA. Of course, that begs the question; if it eventually goes to RfAr, what then? ArbCom ruling when it is party to the dispute? Obvious grounds for Jimbo stepping in. Better yet, ArbCom can prevent continued embarrassment for all, and summarily revoke Stevertigo's admin status and close the matter. But at this point, I have some empathy for Stevertigo's desire to use this RfA as a means of gathering evidence against ArbCom. Maybe an RfC should be brought. --Durin 12:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation - this is about consensus to de-sysop - so it must require 70% oppose votes. Guettarda 15:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I think someone already has asked the ArbCom about this, and they clarified that it should be run like a normal RfA - 80% support is required in order to retain admin rights; any less results in de-sysopping. See Wiki: Requests for arbitration#Stevertigo's RfA, where Raul states, "His RFA it to be treated like any other - less than 70% and he loses his sysophood, between 70 and 80% is the bureacrat's call, and greater than 80% is approval." Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 15:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course, this further underscores that it was a bad idea. Not only was it a new precedent to foist on RfA but no clear instructions were provided here.
As for an RfC, I don't know under which. User conduct RfC doesn't seem right as no one is being accused of a specific policy violation, attack etc.—just the majority don't like this business. I can sue Clarence Thomas but I can't haul the Supreme Court into civil court. It would, in a sense, be piling one dubious precedent on another. After ArbComm it's Jimbo I suppose. Marskell 15:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition, it wouldn't make much sense for a user to remain an admin with only 31% support (69% oppose). Why would a new candidate need 75-80% support, but an admin who was found by the ArbCom to have abused his powers need only 30% support? In any case, Flcelloguy is correct; the ArbCom has already clarified that this is like a standard RfA. Carbonite | Talk 15:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that the question is "should we de-sysop", and there is no consensus to de-sysop. In all fairness, it should take 70% to desysop. Right now, 69% of the people who have voted oppose the idea of de-sysopping by these means. A clear majority actually reject the process altogether. So I don't think there is any consensus upon which to act. Guettarda 07:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
As I see it, the question is "Now that the ArbCom has shown that Stevertigo abused his admin powers, should he remain an admin?" There's very little support for Steve retaining his adminship. In fact, if you look at some of the support votes, they're actually opposing the ArbCom sending the matter to RfA, not supporting Steve's adminship. Requiring 70% to desysop just doesn't make sense. If adminship is no big deal, why should it be so difficult to remove a admin who's been proven to have abused his position? Carbonite | Talk 13:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a flaw on what RfA stands for. Or I am confused. Comments on RfA pages should have the intention to make a candidate a better editor is it not? After all adminship is no big deal. Any oppose should have a good reason such as "candidate not ready", "candidate needs to develop skill B" etc. Unprofessional comments such as "candidate sucks in general", "I will leave wikipedia if this person becomes an admin" etc. should be evaded in my view. --Cool Cat ^Talk 22:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. How is a candidate supposed to know what to do before they run again otherwise? --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree as well. The comments I received for my self-nom were really fantastic, even though the votes were unanimous "no". I don't necessarily agree, but then, that's the point, isn't it? The community has spoken and I get to take the comments to heart and keep working on making the place better, and then come back in the future for another try. Excellent. Tedernst 23:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

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. --Maru (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 Wiki English...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:AN/I, Special:Log, and 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™}

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™}

• 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 Wiki: List of non-admins with high edit counts to WP:MD now.--Doc (?) 00:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Now see Wiki: Miscellany for deletion/Wiki:List of non-admins with high edit counts --Doc (?) 02:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)