User talk:Rick Block/WP600 not admins

User:Evil Monkey is now an admin and he can be removed from the list. Howabout1 Talk to me! 01:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Wik is banned, as is his sockpuppet Gzornenplatz. Lir is banned, and Pizza Puzzle was his sockpuppet. Jumbuck is a bot. Mike Garcia was nominated but had his RfA closed down by Jimbo. Uncle G was nominated a while back but his RfA failed. I think there are a few more like this that could probably be removed, but these are the ones that jumped out of me. Good work on compiling this list! Hopefully a few overlooked candidates will be promoted as a result. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. I've removed all the above. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:51, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Tim Starling is a developer and has far more than admin powers. Pcb21| Pete 07:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Pumpie nominated himself, but failed. Project2501a 23:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inactive?

Have you checked all the editors listed to see if they are still currently active, or only the ones that you've marked? BlankVerse ∅ 15:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm working down the list (and it will take some time). Feel free to mark anyone you know is inactive. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:19, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I took a very quick look, but didn't see anyone. I assume that you've already compared the list against Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Maybe you could get User:Mike Garcia to help you (so he can add names to WP:MW that have really been gone for awhile, rather than adding names of people who haven't edited in a week or two). BlankVerse ∅ 20:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not a good idea

Rick, I hope you don't mind this observation, but I think this list of yours is not a good idea. People chosen for adminship should be responsible editors who are able to collaborate with others, who have a fairly wide range of interests, and who make good contributions to the encyclopedia, post on talk pages, do a little janitorial work, etc. You seem to be judging by numbers of edits alone, which is often very misleading — single-issue editors who make lots of minor edits (e.g. adding categories) will often have enormous numbers of edits to their names, and yet will have no knowledge of the community, and no experience of adding substantive content. I've noticed on your list some names of people who would definitely not be good candidates (not by any standard). Can I ask you to reconsider the use of this list? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Rick, I meant the query to be in both places, but if you want to delete one, I'd prefer you kept this one. Thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

The point is not that everyone on this list should be an admin, or that I think edits should be the only criteria. On the other hand, I think most users who have large numbers of edits have demonstrated at least a large time commitment to Wikipedia (which I'd hope you would agree is a reasonable criteria). It's also one of the only truly objective measures of participation that's available. I'd like people to use a list like this as a resource to help avoid the appearance of admins as a clique. Wikipedia is big enough with enough nooks and crannies, that I think it's quite possible for highly responsible editors to essentially go unnoticed. Is there some harm you think it does? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, a large number of edits can be a sign of someone concentrating on minor edits, and not making substantive contributions. Your list also has no way of telling who is a sockpuppet. The best way for admins to be nominated is by people who've come to know them, and who've watched them make decent contributions to the main namespace and to talk pages, policy pages, doing janitorial tasks etc. You can't judge any of that from looking at numbers of contribs. Sometimes there's a good reason that a person with a large number of contribs hasn't been nominated, or hasn't won a vote. Why would people need to use a list, when they can nominate people they've come to know? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not getting what the harm is. There's a reasonably extensive discussion of this idea at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#automatic_nominations. If you don't want to use this list, please feel free to ignore it. Someone else might find a name on this list of someone they thought must have already been an admin, and might nominate this person as a result. Why would this be bad? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

As I see it this list is useful because there comes a point when someone is so well established in the community that people begin to assume they're an admin, and the chance of a nomination decreases. A list of users who've made a lot of edits but who aren't admins allows people to scan the list and think "I was sure they were an admin." Nominating people just because they've made a lot of edits, without taking anything else into account, would definitely be a bad idea. Compiling a list like this to prevent those who deserve to be admins from being overlooked seems like a good one. Of course there are going to be unsuitable candidates in this list, but these can just be disregarded. I would not be happy with someone going down the list nominating everyone on it, but I don't think anyone is doing that. — Trilobite (Talk) 05:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what about people that are below the 600, but still would make good editors? Project2501a 10:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. WP:RFA is open to nominations and self-nominations at any time for any reason. I don't think anyone is suggesting that nominations be limited to users on this (or any other) list. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:37, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to object to a user who has starred his name becoming admin. What is the correct mean of notifying the wikipolice that I wish to make such a complaint? Leonig Mig 00:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no guarantee anyone on this list, starred or not, will ever be nominated on WP:RFA. If you have problems with a particular user who has indicated an interest in becoming an admin I'd strongly suggest you talk it over with that user. If you'd like, you can add WP:RFA to your watchlist for as long as you'd like and indicate your opinion about that user if or when they are ever nominated (or nominate themself). If you have some particular dispute you would like resolved, please see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution which describes a variety of ways to help resolve disputes (as well as the process for notifying the "wikipolice" if you have a serious problem with any user, on this list or not). If you're simply stuck and would like to talk about something in confidence, feel free to send me or perhaps an admin an email. Please do not add opinions here, for or against any user on this list. And, BTW, thank you for not identifying the user you're talking about. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer

Your disclaimer is a good idea. You should also mention checking the archives for WP:RFAR, and checking WP:RFC. BlankVerse ∅ 21:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was actually in response to concerns raised by user:SlimVirgin. I sort of assume anyone in an active or recent dispute who ends up on WP:RFA would get noticed in the normal course of events. Perhaps these should really go on the RFA page as instructions to the folks voting there. I'd rather not add a bunch watch out for this or that kind of bad user stuff here. But maybe I'm not nearly cynical enough (which anyone who knows me well would find quite a funny idea). -- Rick Block (talk) 22:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Previously nominated

You've marked everybody who was previously nominated with an asterisk, but I think that there are some of those editors who will not want to be nominated again. It is probably better to unmark them and wait for each editor to express a renewed interest in becoming an admin. BlankVerse ∅ 15:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was my first approximation guess. I'm actually explicitly polling everyone on this list (which is taking some time). The message I'm leaving for the previous noms says they're marked as interested and to delete the mark if they're not. There are few enough that I can do them first. Do you think this is good enough? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

That's up to you. Especially for those few editors whose first RFA bombed, however, they may be sensitive about the issue. BlankVerse ∅ 18:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've had a few RFA's, and have done progressively better each time. last time it was dead even. I wouldn't want someone nominating me w/o asking tho, and I already have a couple of admins who have offered to nominate me when the time is right. really, I'm mainly waiting for my trolls to die off ;) Sam Spade 22:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah rigghhht. As they are you, no doubt. Could it possibly be that if you didn't repeatedly insult and attack other editors you wouldn't have half of wikipedia opposed to trusting you as an admin? Typical SS, blame others for your problems. 63.164.145.198 23:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point, you are exactly the sort of user I was talking about. Sam Spade 23:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:RK

He doesn't appear to be banned - he is editing. Guettarda 14:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He has been blocked/restricted at least once by the arbcom, but is currently allowed to edit. He once called this the "Nazipedia" on the mailing list, to give you an idea ;) Sam Spade 15:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Sam. Guettarda 15:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Formatting problem

Thanks for the suggestion. Your comment on my talk page is badly mangled, when viewed in FireFox. Andy Mabbett 16:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was an extra space (leading space on the line). Sorry about that. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Updates

Planning on updating the list every so often? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You should totally update it! This is a very useful info, and I'm inspired. I hope to be on here after some time (doesn't mean I have admin aspirations tho). -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't updated it since Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts was created (which, as I recollect, is based on database queries rather than laborious manual methods). Is there some need the automatically generated list is not meeting? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That other list actually is updated manually as well. It's too bad there isn't currently a way to automate it. Enigma ^message Review 02:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)