User talk:NoSeptember/archives/Admin project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Return to the NoSeptember:  
 Topical archives index   Talk page   


 The NoSeptember Admin Project
Links to my admin pages and those of other users.

List of failed RfAs (Chronological)[edit]

I was about to do this page myself, until I realized you just did it! Any reason why this is a user subpage instead of a subpage of Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies? — TheKMantalk 01:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

low (R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine))[edit]

Well, I wish I'd left my comment here. We like to flatter ourselves by calling ourselves a "community", but given the way we've been acting over the last few days I think it's one that I increasingly want no part in. Leithp 13:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I probably should have said less. NoSeptember talk 13:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize to me either, your comments were perfectly civil and well considered. As a skeptical, if not at times cynical, student of politics and human nature, I often find it difficult to separate policy decisions from motivations. Thank you for your kind words and encouragemnt--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NoSeptember, I'm just taking a quick break from my wiki-break (if that works) because I think I owe you an apology for getting you involved in all this and for using your talk page to sound off about my thoughts on other users behaviour. Sorry. Leithp 09:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. I stick my nose into RfA policy because I think it is a very important process, but to the person who is up for Adminship, their friends, and also their enemies, it is a very emotional process, as the candidate is being "judged" by the community (I remember since my RfA was only last month). That is the hazard of my involvement. Here is another case of my getting too involved in an RfA :P NoSeptember talk 09:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here, here here, here and here

Userbox wheel war/Proposed decision[edit]

Related talk: here and here

Okay (Unsuccessful RfAs)[edit]

Ah, I see. NSLE (T+C) at 10:16 UTC (2006-02-18) 10:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Thanks (Swatjester's votes)[edit]

Thanks for the heads up re: [1]. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise, and I was quite offended at the accusations against me. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

Award (Barnstar)[edit]

Hi, I see you keep logs on the administrative patterns and trends on Wikipedia. I bet you'd make a good Wikipedia:Bureaucrat. For now, take this award, as a token of my appreciation for your hard work in providing us with some reliable figures - it must be hard to write all that and keep it all up to date. --Latinus 00:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Ashibaka re-admined[edit]

Related talk: here, here and here

Earlier related talk: here and here

Rogerthat briefly an admin[edit]

I was an admin for a brief time, you say? A shame I wasn't home that day :D Am I correct in saying that if I had one extra vote I would have been admin? No big deal, but I know what I need to do know if I wish to become an admin in the future. Cheers, Rogerthat Talk 01:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Recently created admins[edit]

Thanks for the archiving on this page. Your timing was perfect; I was just at the point of saying "oh, well, nobody has archived on this recently, so I guess I have to" and then you did! :) -- Cecropia 19:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome. NoSeptember talk 19:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA vote count (Karmafist - RfA records)[edit]

Actually Karmafist would have topped the list had not Durin gone back and disqualified three support votes that came in after the deadline. hydnjo talk 20:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here, here and here

Aucaman`s Rfc (RfA standards)[edit]

I`m not suer if user User:Aucaman is qualified for such judgements since he has been reported as an abusive editors in Wikipedia[2].Zmmz 00:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of RfA standards, everyone gets to have an opinion regardless of the other controversies they may be involved in. NoSeptember talk 00:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Since you asked... (NoSeptember/RfA thank yous)[edit]

Ask and yee shall receive :). You start building a skyscraper by turning a shovel of dirt. It's a beginning. --Durin 17:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

RfA Alarm[edit]

I loved the little RfA Alarm on RfA Talk. I literally laughed out loud when I scrolled into it. I could actually hear it in my mind, and wow, it was obnoxious. Well played. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 11:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Alarm & C:o[edit]

Made one for alerts also You can use :) →AzaToth 15:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Just saw this (Francs2000, NoSeptember/Leaving)[edit]

This is very well thought out. Well done you. (Leaping out of Wikibreak temporarily) -- Francs2000 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Francs, I appreciate that. I only wish I could have people read it just as they are making those critical "leaving Wikipedia" decisions. NoSeptember talk 14:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Just to clarify though I haven't left, I'm just taking a break. I have left being a b'crat though and I sit by that principle you have so eloquently laid out on that page in my resignation: I stepped down before I told anyone because I actually did mean it. -- Francs2000 14:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't talking about you, I know you are still around whenever you get the chance. I meant users in general, like those who "leave" after a stressful failed RfA. NoSeptember talk 14:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (Durin)[edit]

A homeless person approaches you as you pick up an aluminum can that has a 5 cent return value on it and says, "Get off my property! This is my corner to collect cans and that can is mine!" and takes the can from you. How dare you correct the end time on someone's RfA! That's my territory you bumbling fool! Seriously, thanks for doing that. With as much controversy that is generated by early closings, it needs to be done. I just wish it were automatic. I'm glad someone besides me has taken up the task as well. --Durin 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I only do it if I notice it (I usually spot funny formats on the Dragonflight RfA summary). NoSeptember talk 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update tally please (NickCatal, Richardcavell)[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NickCatal2 - as the closing bureaucrat, could you update the tally? - Richardcavell 07:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I am not a bureaucrat. The candidate indicated his withdrawal in a statement posted at 15:52, and I removed it from WP:RFA and closed it out properly after his withdrawal. For the record, the last vote came after his withdrawal. We should not be so concerned about the exact count, rather we should just use the RfA as feedback to the candidate and information for the rest of us when his next RfA comes. There is no need to adjust the count. Cheers, NoSeptember talk 11:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of records (Tawker)[edit]

AFIAK I now hold the follwoing

  1. Most questions on an RfA
  2. Newest user to reach WP:100 on an RfA
  3. Newest user in a long time to get promoted

Well, at least under my username anyways, though it would have been fun to see how I would have met up to Clown (though even my supports + opposes + neuterals didn't meet his totals) :) -- Tawker 05:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your first edit was in July 2005, you certainly aren't the newest. You may have the most questions, although there have been RfAs in the past with an explosion of questions (also about users with an unusual case such as yours). NoSeptember talk 13:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here, here and here

Thanks (Jwrosenzweig)[edit]

Both for honest feedback, and for cleaning up after my template goof on the Master Jay nomination -- clearly my cut-and-paste skills failed me there, and I'm glad you were willing to clean up the mess. Best regards, Jwrosenzweig 06:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. NoSeptember talk 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you won't mind my continuing the discussion of the 70-80 / 75-80 question here. I can't find any discussion of Freestyle's promotion (I clicked through a bunch of archives...perhaps I didn't hit the right onw), but I read the discussion of Luigi. Frankly I'm a little disappointed at how little communication there seemed to be from the crat in that case, although I suppose everyone has their own style. Anyhow, in that discussion, a number of users indicated that they thought anything inside 70-80 was in bureaucrat discretion...another of others favor 75, as you noted. Do you know if this discussion was continued to a conclusion anywhere? Personally I would be very loath to promote below 75 unless the objections seemed largely without merit (and even then I'd be hesitant), but certainly if the community feels that's inappropriate I wouldn't want to do so. Anyway, any pointer you could give me to a more conclusive discussion (and any pointer to a discussion of why freestyle was promoted) would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you have specific arguments in favor of not promoting below 75, I'd love to hear them so that I can take that perspective into account. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 07:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75% appears to become a more firm line as time goes on. When reading old discussions, keep this is mind. Essjay's RfB was the most recent big discussion of the topic. I accept 75% because I see widespread support for it, and the rarity of anyone passing below 75% reinforces that. I could live with a lower standard than 75% (and the 90% for bureaucrat promotions), but I don't see much support for it from any experienced users. The fact that someone who fails their current RfA can reapply shortly seems a fair reason for keeping the 75% barrier, since it means they are only delayed in getting adminship typically. There is a lot of fear of promoting rogue admins (which I don't share so much) that motivates many to keep very high standards. NoSeptember talk 07:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Nichalp/Archive20 has a little on Freestylefrappe. NoSeptember talk 07:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

adminship history (UninvitedCompany)[edit]

Bear in mind that the edit histories prior to February 2002 are full of gaps and therefore misleading, see Wikipedia:Usemod_article_histories. At first, the KeptPages feature of UseMod only kept revisions less than two weeks old, so early edits were lost unless they had remained the most recent edit for the article at the time the timeout was adjusted. There were various bugs in KeptPages itself and in early conversion attempts, that together caused much of the history to be irretrievably lost. Further, the history importation was partly manual and confused by the then-new distinction between article space, Wikipedia space, and user space.

It's probably worth pointing out that adminship in the UseMod era was truly no big deal at all. It was prior to my involvement here, but I understand that we have not always had protected pages or the ability to block users, and that deletion was handled considerably differently in UseMod. Initially, a good deal of the administration was done by technical people using shell access to the server.

The main point being that any distinctions in the editing or adminship history of anyone who was here prior to the conversion to Phase II should not be made.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I know there was a time when deleted articles were not recoverable too. Much has changed. NoSeptember talk 07:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WT:RFA (Essjay)[edit]

Note to bureaucrats: The above user has been a bureaucrat for less than a month (^_~). NoSeptember talk 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting here, but if you think I have no business commenting on bureaucrat matters, I'll be more than happy to let you take over. Essjay Talk • Contact 02:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize that that was a joke which was based on the specific topic that was being discussed. Hence, I was suggesting nothing. It wouldn't be the first time my drollery did not translate over the internet. I see no reason why you can't comment on topics that everyone else can comment on. Btw, I already have the Historique des changements de statut linked on this page, but thanks for linking it again :-). NoSeptember talk 03:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, I see...It was in the style of the "discount this vote" messages; I took it to be more sniping on me because I'm the new guy on the block (the new guy doing 60% of the work)...

At any rate, sorry for assuming you were being snippy, and for being snippy myself. Essjay Talk • Contact 05:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this means you now know how a voter feels when their vote is challenged. Good information for a bureaucrat to have. Glad I could help ;-) and keep up the good work. NoSeptember talk 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Recently created admins (Essjay)[edit]

Thanks for catching that for me; seems that whenever I get in a hurry (I was heading to lunch) I forget something! :-D Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. NoSeptember talk 21:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the whole de-bureaucrating thing (Francs2000)[edit]

Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. -- Francs2000 09:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfB (Taxman)[edit]

Thank you for your supporting comments; it seems I beat the curve on your when to vote criteria :). Incidentally I answered your query on the Beatles Wikiproject talk page. - Taxman Talk 17:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Well I guess I'm not "one of those people I can't recall ever even seeing their name anywhere" anymore :-). Have fun as an umpire, and don't forget to chat on WT:RFA with us. NoSeptember talk 17:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no you didn't make that list either :). - Taxman Talk 04:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

Stalker! (Essjay)[edit]

Not for being an oddball, but for peeping out of every crevice at me! ;-)

You stalk me, don't you? ;-D Well, here, have a stalker barnstar (okay, sure, it's supposed to be for being an oddball, but I swear, that could be you, following me around peeping through innocent looking barnstars to see if I make any mistakes!)

Oh, and by the way, you're doing a good job, keep it up! Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I stalk all the active bureaucrats, that is definitely my MO :-). Just look at the history of User:Linuxbeak for another example. NoSeptember talk 13:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

restore del material (WT:RFA - Dlohcierekim)[edit]

Thanks.

I hope I didn't do that. I just pasted from my word processor. Maybe that did it somehow? Thanks again! :) Dlohcierekim 13:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

Re:WP:LA (DGX)[edit]

Sorry if I was bothersome. Basically what I did was, if there last 50 edits dated back at least a full month or so, I moved them to semi-active. Which I think makes some sense because if you only make 50 edits in a month and your an admin, then your not really very active, no? Feel free to change anybody you want to. I added, I think, 3 people to the inactive because I fear they may be gone from Wikipedia, or for now thats what it seems. I would be glad to continue using that method if you wanted me to go through and finish updating whos active now. DGX 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for agreement. ;-) Yeah, that would stink if all my edits got reverted after I put that much time into it. Especially since my computer freezes up everytime I have WP:LA up for too long. Maybe later I'll make that request on the talk page and get others opinions on it. Thanks for the tip. DGX 14:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank god I don't have to rewrite that script, If I did I think the server would fry from how wrong I would be. ;-) Yeah, I think the semi-active date needs a minor change and in a little while I'll be making the request. :) DGX 14:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for alerting me. I'll get on it. ;-) Happy 6/6/06. ;-)The King of Kings 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

Gradient Colors (Tangobot)[edit]

Hi NoSeptember, I've posted a (late) reply to User talk:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report, so please take a look. Cheers, Tangotango 14:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three colors because Dragons flight's report only had three, and that idea didn't pop into my head :) Also, (I know RfA isn't a vote, but) it's supposed to represent three modes: Supported, Opposed, and Neutral. Another reason is because I didn't make the gradient code, but had to stitch it together from an example I found on a website. The code is available here - if you, or someone else is skilled in PHP, and can come up with a viable alternative to the three-color approach, I will implement that. Also, can you post a message to WT:RFA inviting other users to discuss this? Thanks, Tangotango 16:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Unanimity (CanadianCaesar)[edit]

Hey NoS, if anyone knows this you would: Is there a list somewhere of all RfAs that were unanimous? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 20:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of since the subpages were established. Thanks anyway. BTW, I have looked at the old ones that are archived only as external links, and boy, it was different then. RickK's was surprisingly informal, given the later drama that followed his exit. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

RFA stats (Srikeit)[edit]

Hi NoSeptember, I just found a link to your stats from Tangotango's talk page & was pleasantly surprised such detailed stats for RFA's. Although I found a tiny glitch in your stats. Here it says my failed RFA's tally was (60/39/9) whereas it actually it was (60/31/9). Anyway if you need any help in updating/adding the stats, please do inform me. Cheers --Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 11:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Seeing only your name in the history, I too felt that only you only wanted to edit it. I'll be very glad to help in anyway. Do you need any help in some particular place? Cheers --Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 12:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA stuff is pretty much up to date. This ArbCom page is four months out of date if you're interested, thats my next project (until July 1st when I can do all the month-end updates). NoSeptember 12:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

RfA Thanks (Tangotango)[edit]

NoSeptember, thank you for your support and speedy congratulations!! I'm not going to spam people with "RfA Thanks" messages, so please take a piece from my RfA thanks message. Also, thank you for your fascinating Admin Project - I hope it evolves even more. :D Cheers, Tangotango 11:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what you want it to evolve into, I'm always looking for useful new page ideas. Or start one yourself and I'll link to it from my pages to help publicize it. NoSeptember 11:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll tell you as soon as I think of a new page! :) - Tangotango 12:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Admin project (GeorgeMoney)[edit]

I made a change to User:NoSeptember/Admin stats by making the little things that say other pages look like the real subpage thingy, and I was wondering if it would be ok with you if i did that to all the admin project pages. Also i was wondering if you approved, that i should wrap <div id="contentSub"> around the links. The good thing about that is if people style the little subpage navigation thing in their css, it would do the same to that. The bad thing is if they make a #contentSub { display: none }, then the fake one wouldn't show either. We could copy the css from the http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css , but the problem then would be if they change skins, or they want to style it, it wouldn't work change with their styling needs. What do you think? GeorgeMoney (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we could do a <div id="contentSub" style="display: block !important;">, so the !important would override all css (because ususally css overrides html) unless they have a !important in their css too. GeorgeMoney (talk)
I like the look of it. Go ahead as you think best on the other pages. I'm not concerned if a few people can't see it because of their personal settings. The links are just there to encourage people to look around at my various subpages, and to help me navigate. NoSeptember 14:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

RfAs with low numbers of votes (Kimchi.sg)[edit]

Just wondering: Would successful RfAs with low numbers of support/total votes be notable nowadays? Maybe we can start taking note of these? Kimchi.sg 16:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of those RfAs that succeed with less than (say) 50 support votes. Those must be pretty rare this quarter and probably this year as well. The inspiration came from looking at RyanGerbil10 RfA's current vote count. Kimchi.sg 16:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just converted the new message link in your sig page to use fullurl. Kimchi.sg 16:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a informal minimum number of votes? Hmm... I must have entered the RfA scene too late. :) Kimchi.sg 16:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cecropia alluded to 15 total votes as "low"... nowadays our RfA community is so active, I suspect we might never again see any successful RfA with less than 30 support votes. Kimchi.sg 16:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops... missed the bit about 20 supports. Saw it a second time. Kimchi.sg 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Thanks from Mr. Oversight (Redux)[edit]

Hey NoSeptember. Thank you for the good vibe message! And I like the moniker too (next thing you know, I'll be calling myself "Lord Redux" -- while they haul me in for shock therapy ;)).
I had never considered requesting CheckUser, although I am a little concerned with the fact that only two users seem to be handling the workload at RCU. If people want me to help out on that front, I would be glad to help. Essjay and Mackensen are doing a good job, but it can be problematic to rely on just two users. Is there a general feeling that more active people with CheckUser would be necessary?
I suspect the ArbCom would not be too happy about considering yet another request from me. I can see their reply to my request: "You again!!?". Cheers, Redux 16:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll ask the ArbCom to consider it. Feel free to jump on the wagon :) Redux 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Here's the link to the post. Redux 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

RfA standards (EWS23)[edit]

Hi NoSeptember! I saw your recent posts on WT:RFA, and while I felt that conversation was too far along to really jump in, I respect your opinions on RfA issues, and I was hoping to get your thoughts on my new RfA criteria. It's very similar to what you suggested on the talk page, with a couple extra criteria. Any thoughts, for or against it? EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. :o) Some I've talked to consider them too simplistic or perhaps too utopian or hard to quantify. However, I hope if I can stick strictly to it, I can support those that deserve to be supported, and try to comment with logic and good reason. Thanks again, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 10:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Re-Sysop (KnowledgeOfSelf, Doc glasgow)[edit]

Feedback (Redux)[edit]

Hi NoSeptember. It seems that the CheckUser request is going to the drawer. I've e-mailed you more details. Cheers, Redux 23:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

WP:WPOA (UninvitedCompany)[edit]

Thought you might be interested. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up :). NoSeptember 16:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Missing one in WP:SIGN F&A (IanManka)[edit]

You are of course correct in regards to the "Features and Admins" column in this week's Wikipedia Signpost. I'll add a retraction next issue. I missed his entry in WP:100. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

Also, thanks for leading me to your extensive pages about RfAs and related voting issues. I found the resource quite helpful, and spent a good deal of time flipping through the respective pages.

Sorry again, and keep up the good work on your project. Would you mind if I said thanks to you in the column in making the correction, as well as link to your user subpage? Please respond so I can add this to the article. I think it would be interesting for our readers. Thanks! Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

admin username change (ZimZalaBim)[edit]

It came up on the discussion on WP:AN that my (now previous) username MichaelZimmer didn't appear on WP:LA because I had a user name change. Well, I just did it again (long story), and now I'm ZimZalaBim. Just letting you know in case other updates need to be made. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To his credit, the bureaucrat who renamed you (Warofdreams) also updated WP:LA. Cheers, NoSeptember 10:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Kudos for Admin Project (MrDolomite)[edit]

  • I followed the link from the latest WP:SIGN into the vast land that is U:NoS/TNoSAP. Wow. Lots of info there and an excellent job on presentation. Clearly, you are a wiki-syntax wizard. Keep up the good work! :)  — MrDolomite | Talk 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

Re : NSAP/Arbcom punishments (Mailer diablo)[edit]

Having read your above-mentioned essay, you may be interested in this as well. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 09:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

1000th Admin? (Firsfron)[edit]

Hey NoSeptember,

Since you are kinda like the Admin-stat-guru around here, I figured I'd go ahead and ask you... aren't we quite close to promoting the 1000th administrator? Near as I could figure, my promotion a few weeks ago brought Wikipedia to 971 Admins. The way I calculated it, if the current batch of RFAs go as they are right now, user:NawlinWiki would be #1,000. Although maybe it's silly, it's kind of a cool milestone, I think. Or am I paying too much attention to Admin-cruft? (No need to respond to this bit of frippery if I am...) Happy editing! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 03:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I added the cool admin-counting template to my userspace. Very cool, N.S. :) I thought about posting something about this to WT:RFA, but I figured I'd talk with you first... Anyway, cheers! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 03:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

No problem (IanManka)[edit]

...for reverting and the plug in the Signpost... if you need anything else, drop a note at my talk page... :) Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

Chart Data Help (Tariqabjotu)[edit]

Regarding the chart request you added to WT:RFA, do you know where I could find out how many articles existed on Wikipedia at a given moment in time? Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I answered at WT:RFA. NoSeptember 15:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
See Image:En-admin-growth.png; I could not figure out how to superimpose the line in Microsoft Excel. Are you familiar with how that's done (I only saw a simpler bar graph-line combination). -- tariqabjotu 17:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. The reason I asked for someone to create this graph is because I don't do that sort of thing at all, although I use WP based charts like this one. I'll have to compare your data to mine at User:NoSeptember/Admin stats. NoSeptember 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I see; there are major differences. Perhaps your data would be more accurate since (I presume) you looked at the sysop permissions list yourself. It is quite possible that the data at Wikipedia:List of administrators is not updated as often as it should be. -- tariqabjotu 17:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I got mine from WP:LA also, and I see that our data is just about the same. I was able to identify inactive admins in the early months (2002/2003) by closely studying the history of certain early admins and discussions and edit summarries from WP:LA, which is why my number is lower (the difference between our numbers would represent the "inactive" number). The other area of difference is just the most recent 3 or so months, this is due to a user who transferred a bunch of active admins to the semiactive category using a different definition of semiactive than has been used historically, this artificially inflates the semiactive category (and maybe the inactives too) so I adjusted for it in my admin stats to remain consistent with the historical trends. If you adjusted your chart to my figures you would simply be adding inactives to the early years, and keeping the semiactive definition consistent for the recent months, which I think would improve the chart. The sysop permissions data would miss all distinctions between active, semiactive and inactive... it only properly catches former admins. NoSeptember 17:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll be making the requested changes to the chart. However, I'm curious whether you accidentally included Rambot in your February 2003 and March 2003 statistics. By my count, there were 44 admins at the end of January 2006, but then after February 2006 there were 45 admins only because Rambot was added. In my graph, there was no change in total admins between the two months, but I noticed a change in active admins in your table. See the end of February 2003 and the end of January 2003. -- tariqabjotu 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right about that, errors do creep in :). NoSeptember 20:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here, here, here and here

Barnstar (Samir (The Scope))[edit]

For the NoSeptember admin project, an exceptional user-initiated research endeavour. Well done. -- Samir धर्म 10:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must say, your admin project is stellar. I view it as the only viable user-initiated research done here. We need more compilations like this in order to improve systemically. The data is all there for assessment, just need people with intiative to assess it! Kudos -- Samir धर्म 10:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Arbitration Clerks (Tony Sidaway)[edit]

Related talk: here

Questions? (FloNight)[edit]

Hello NoSeptember, I saw the questions on Tony's talk page and wonder if you have worries about arb clerking that I need to address.

Background about my clerking: Knowing that Tony is clerking most cases alone, while he was on his break I started helping a little by reminding arbitrators of skipped votes on cases ready to close. I was reluctant to do more without the official okay of the Arb comm. That was my personal preference and I have no problem with other people doing helpful tasks on the arbitration pages. The arb comm can best speak to exactly what is helpful and what is not.

If you have questions about my clerking please ask me. I'm very open to community feedback, especially from thoughtful users like you. ;-) Take care, FloNight 13:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "I'm glad that you have volunteered. Good luck :)."
Thanks ;-) Going to be interesting! Take care, FloNight 16:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Admin Project (GeorgeMoney)[edit]

I just saw you editing all the pages of the admin project adding the stuff I was supposed to do and I want to say I am sorry I forgot. I was going to do it and I guess I got caught up with something else. If there are any more pages needing me to add the <div id="contentSub"> then i'll be glad to do it. GeorgeMoney (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to do that. Just showing me how to do it was enough. It was on my list of things to do, and I finally got around to it. I learn all the formating tricks here at WP by copying what others have done :). NoSeptember 10:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

1000 admins (IanManka, Signpost)[edit]

Yes, I have. I've notified the newsroom, and they'll decide if they want to run a full story on it, but I'm definitely going to have a mention in the F&A section of the Signpost. Thanks for the tip! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put a link up momentarily... thanks again for all of your help. I think your help could merit a mention as a co-writer! What do you think? Just a thought. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I just wanted some more content, so I thought I'd just add some other junk... do you feel that the article has enough material? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 02:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking something along the lines of other projects' admin count, but I had trouble finding an easy way to do so. Do you have any ideas on how to do so? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 02:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all of your help. How does the article look now? 03:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Related talk: here

Quick favor (IanManka, Signpost)[edit]

I'm writing for the Wikipedia Signpost about the 1000th admin, and I was wondering if I could somehow get the date of when English Wikipedia passed 1,000 administrators total (including the desysopped). If this is too much trouble, don't worry and don't feel obligated to do so. Also, is there anything that you'd like to see in the article? I'm fully open to ideas. You can follow the work in progress at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-09-05/1000 Administrators. Thanks for your help! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your suggestions, and I'll see what I can conjure up tonight. Thanks again for all of your help! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

Chip in? (Redux)[edit]

Hi. Since you were the first to bring up this situation, I thought that you might want to say something in this thread I started due to Essjay's recent inactivity (regarding WP:RCU). Cheers, Redux 19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I waited a few days to let others reply, but few have anything to say :). NoSeptember 10:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoSeptember/archives/Admin_project&oldid=1145848341"