Epipelagic (talk | contribs) →A different approach: how is the present system less crazy? |
AutomaticStrikeout (talk | contribs) →A different approach: sure |
||
Line 376: | Line 376: | ||
{{od}} I agree with so much of what is being said above. And I've see other good ideas fail. I've tried WMF pressure, and will again I'm sure, but I was hoping some discussion would relate to the question I raised in good faith. I believe if all we were changing through an RFC was the success threshold, and that change was reasonable, we could see an RFC gain consensus. My belief is that doing it correctly and getting it done could correct the imbalance that has trended RFA for the past 3 years or more. There are some great editors like Kumioko and good ones like me who will never be able to generate +80% support; which is fine with me. If some of these became admins because consensus, or a WMF directive, caused a reduced threshold that made RFA success more viable, we would see much of the RFA fix that so many says that we need. I promise you I could list 10 of my opposes prior to transcluding it, and probably be right; to include that Ironholds would probably append his opposition within the first 5 minutes after transcluding it. But of course that is a battleground mentality so you better not say such a thing. And you better not address an oppose vote, even if it's untrue, because that draws more pile on opposition. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Inappropriate_RFA_question The discussion about an inappropriate RFA question at the Bureaucrats noticeboard] is pathetic bullshit because every single person who has commented there knows that the most inappropriate RFA questions are always raised by someone in the opposing section; nothing asked as an additional question has ever come close; and you are allowed to answer them. But the real bad ones; that tank a candidates chances are veiled as an oppose comment; and these you better not address. So I've rambled once again, said my piece—expecting nothing to change; and most of my angst is because I can't even ask a question about RFA, and see it considered. But I do expect to garner a fair share of criticism for things I said in this post. Especially the bad faith I displayed in mentioning Ironholds. Hey, I got to do something to get attention around here. Oh yeah, if you get a chance perhaps answer my original question in this thread. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC) |
{{od}} I agree with so much of what is being said above. And I've see other good ideas fail. I've tried WMF pressure, and will again I'm sure, but I was hoping some discussion would relate to the question I raised in good faith. I believe if all we were changing through an RFC was the success threshold, and that change was reasonable, we could see an RFC gain consensus. My belief is that doing it correctly and getting it done could correct the imbalance that has trended RFA for the past 3 years or more. There are some great editors like Kumioko and good ones like me who will never be able to generate +80% support; which is fine with me. If some of these became admins because consensus, or a WMF directive, caused a reduced threshold that made RFA success more viable, we would see much of the RFA fix that so many says that we need. I promise you I could list 10 of my opposes prior to transcluding it, and probably be right; to include that Ironholds would probably append his opposition within the first 5 minutes after transcluding it. But of course that is a battleground mentality so you better not say such a thing. And you better not address an oppose vote, even if it's untrue, because that draws more pile on opposition. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Inappropriate_RFA_question The discussion about an inappropriate RFA question at the Bureaucrats noticeboard] is pathetic bullshit because every single person who has commented there knows that the most inappropriate RFA questions are always raised by someone in the opposing section; nothing asked as an additional question has ever come close; and you are allowed to answer them. But the real bad ones; that tank a candidates chances are veiled as an oppose comment; and these you better not address. So I've rambled once again, said my piece—expecting nothing to change; and most of my angst is because I can't even ask a question about RFA, and see it considered. But I do expect to garner a fair share of criticism for things I said in this post. Especially the bad faith I displayed in mentioning Ironholds. Hey, I got to do something to get attention around here. Oh yeah, if you get a chance perhaps answer my original question in this thread. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
:I support the 50%+1 support idea mentioned above. <big>[[User talk:TCN7JM|<font color="blue" face="Garamond">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TCN7JM|<font color="red" face="Garamond">C</font>]][[User:TCN7JM|<font color="gray" face="Garamond">N7</font><font color="black" face="Garamond">JM</font>]]</big> 22:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC) |
:I support the 50%+1 support idea mentioned above. <big>[[User talk:TCN7JM|<font color="blue" face="Garamond">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TCN7JM|<font color="red" face="Garamond">C</font>]][[User:TCN7JM|<font color="gray" face="Garamond">N7</font><font color="black" face="Garamond">JM</font>]]</big> 22:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
:I'd also support lowering the threshold. <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;">'''[[User:AutomaticStrikeout|AutomaticStrikeout]]''' [[User_talk:AutomaticStrikeout|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </span>]]</span></small> 22:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:27, 20 May 2013
No RfXs since 05:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013
|
|||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Current time: 04:10:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
RFA Minimum
So I was scrapping together some info for an op-ed on RFA reform I'm thinking of writing, and I was wondering: What was the editor with the lowest edit count to have a successful RFA? Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- In which year? Because I remember someone with just a few hundred edits or even less passed, in eldritch times...Lectonar (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Salvidrim passed in January of this year with not quite 6,500 edits. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 21:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth passed with 42 edits back in 2008. No, that's not a typo; as you would imagine, it was a highly exceptional case. But that RFA stands as evidence that formal minimum edit count requirements are a bad idea. Robofish (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would add that the Lustiger seth RFA is an insult to those of us that have devoted large amounts of time to EnWiki to only be told to Fuck off and we can't be trusted but to then allow someone with less than 5 months experience and less than 50 edits to be an admin is just plain insulting and ridiculous. So does this mean that if I submit an RFA and state that any Admin can indefinitely block me if I misuse the tools and promise I will never ever block a vandal or protect a page that's being vandalized I can be an admin too? I doubt that very much. Kumioko (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Try it. I would support you. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. But I don't there are many others who feel the same way. Besides its not how the process should work. If an 18 year old college kid who's still living with mom and dad and still feels awkward around girls can be trusted because they never levied an oppose vote on a topic, then a 40 year old world traveller with an advanced degree, a good job and a family should be just or more trustworthy because they had the morale courage to vote their conscience. Kumioko (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Try it. I would support you. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would add that the Lustiger seth RFA is an insult to those of us that have devoted large amounts of time to EnWiki to only be told to Fuck off and we can't be trusted but to then allow someone with less than 5 months experience and less than 50 edits to be an admin is just plain insulting and ridiculous. So does this mean that if I submit an RFA and state that any Admin can indefinitely block me if I misuse the tools and promise I will never ever block a vandal or protect a page that's being vandalized I can be an admin too? I doubt that very much. Kumioko (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Worth mentioning that there are sortable tables of candidates by number of edits and tenure from 2009-2012 at Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued)/Candidates WormTT(talk) 07:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Taelus had 3076 edits when he passed in early 2010, but otherwise I think that 3,500 is the defacto minimum for the current era. There have been a few at that level and some were clear successes. Of course as lustiger seth proved the community can sometimes be persuaded to include edits in other projects when evaluating candidates. ϢereSpielChequers 10:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- We should be pushing for quality, not quantity. 2,500 brilliant edits is much more preferable than 10,000 mediocre ones. GiantSnowman 11:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's true to a point but RFA or being an admin isn't really about number of edits anyway. Its about having the trust of the community and that more often than not requires one to have less edits rather than more. The More edits one has the more likely they will have done something to irritate one of the editors out there. In fact the most "trusted" admins and the ones who generally get the tools are the ones who rarely edit outside discussions and admin forums. I don't have any respect for the RFA process at this point and I doubt more than a couple do. It has absolutely nothing to do with trust, ability, maturity or ability. What it shows is that if you kiss enough ass and keep your head down you can get the tools, once you get the tools you can do virtually whatever you want, without fear of losing the tools because it takes an act of Wikicongress to remove them and they are granted for life. Kumioko (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- There needs to be some focus on what process would genuinely establish a minimum standard for the "trust of the community". At the moment this is a term admins apply to other admins and merely means that they passed an RfA. Passing an RfA means getting about 70% of the vote from the users who typically vote at RfAs. I don't know whether objective counts have been made here, but it seems clear that most voters at RfAs are repeat voters drawn from a tiny group of say 300 users, mainly politicised admins and users who inhabit the various drama boards. This is not in the slightest degree a representative sample of users on Wikipedia. It is absurd to say that such outcomes establish the "trust of the community". Using the term in that way is just a form of admin speak or disinformation. Some beginning steps in the right direction would be to exclude admins and admin hopefuls from voting, and to weight the votes of the remaining voters by allowing each voter one vote for every 10,0000 edits they have made, or one vote for every 10 articles over 20K they have written. Then we would start getting results more representative of the users who are actually building Wikipedia, and with less bias towards users who are here to shape the admin system into an ever more comfortable form of ecclesiastical sinecure. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure. Users with past RfAs. Users who state on their user page they want to be an admin. Users who self disclose... I guess that's not really workable. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- (warning: possible NPA violation per WP:BITE)Yet another whirl around the "what will it take for me to become an Admin roller coaster", this time from an editor who in their present guise has been here for 2 months, informs us that they are a journalist, historian, and chemist all the time while being a school student. Give us a break, please. If you have been here only 2 months you can have no sensible input or contribution to make into the alleged issues pertaining to RfAs. A 4 month RFC on RfA reform just ended. Go read it [1], [2], [3], [4]. Leaky Caldron 12:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have absolutely NO intentions of becoming an administrator anytime soon, despite my status as a student, I do take classes and am trained in all three of those areas, and this is a clean start account of a user that has been here since 2008. Frankly, I am offended by your haughty assumptions. Go soak your head.
- Signed, Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 20:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
AfD "accuracy"
What's up with the idea that the percentage of time that your AfD vote agreed with the outcome is some kind of indicator of "accuracy"? Are we that deep into some kind of self-reinforcing groupthink spiral that this ridiculous idea goes unchallenged? Gigs (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's challenged every time it's brought up in an RfA. — Bility (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think it has been been challenged quite often, from both sides. While I don't personally go wild over it, it is not an inherently bad metric, just not a particularly good one imho. Cluefulness is not something a number can easily be attached to but just because the model is wrong doesn't mean it isn't useful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- In a way it is challenged, but in another way it isn't. It seems to me that it's challenged as a rationale to justify opposition, but the core question of whether often being in agreement with eventual AfD outcomes is even a good thing doesn't seem to be challenged. There's an implicit assumption built into it that the outcome at AfD is never "wrong". Gigs (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so (see Nick's comment below) but rather that in AfD aggregated as a whole is usually pretty good. A 100% record is meaningless if you've been in two of 'em, but after a few hundred the statistical noise dies off a bit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- If the closing admin has correctly determined consensus, then it never is wrong, even when it's wrong. That's how consensus works. — Bility (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- A consensus of 3 or 4 people, one or two of which might have been involved with writing the article or a friend of that person, aren't much of a consensus. That's par for the course at AfD. Such a consensus goes against our wiki-wide consensus on a somewhat regular basis. Gigs (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- In a way it is challenged, but in another way it isn't. It seems to me that it's challenged as a rationale to justify opposition, but the core question of whether often being in agreement with eventual AfD outcomes is even a good thing doesn't seem to be challenged. There's an implicit assumption built into it that the outcome at AfD is never "wrong". Gigs (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Administrators delete content, editors don't, the only way to gain some idea of how accurate any given editor is going to be at deleting inappropriate and retaining appropriate content is to see how they comment at AfD and to review their tagging of speedily deleted material. That's not to say it's a perfect system but it's better than no system. The problem stems not from reviewing the comments and deciding for yourself whether the editor has the level of understanding YOU want in an administrator, but setting great store by percentages. Articles can be deleted for stupid reasons, not deleted for stupid reasons, administrators can and do make mistakes, discussions can be stacked. If you're reviewing just the percentage and not the actual comments or level of clue shown by the editor, then you're a bit daft, really, but looking at the percentage gives a sensible starting point for looking through comments and assessing ability in any given editor. Nick (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Similar, some might say, to edit count. The number doesn't mean anything really, but when an editor waltzes into RfA with 40 or 400,000 edits, eyebrows are raised. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- We expect our admins to obey and enforce policy. There is no requirement that an admin actually agree with written policy, let alone every AFD consensus. From reading such opposes, I think that some editors are concerned that an admin-hopeful who consistently falls on the "wrong side" of an AFD may have a misunderstanding of policies/guidelines related to article retention. But that is of course a dangerous thing to assume simply from a number. I agree with Nick that it is a starting point only - you still have to go through those AFDs and assess the !votes on a case-by-case basis. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is close to what I am getting at. This is why I mentioned groupthink. Someone with a strong understanding of policy is probably more likely to vote against the prevailing discussion at AfD. It doesn't take any understanding of policy to make a bunch of uncontroversial tack-on keep and delete votes. It takes a strong understanding of policy to back up an opinion that is going against the numbers. Gigs (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity Gigs, when were you planning to run for adminship again? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is close to what I am getting at. This is why I mentioned groupthink. Someone with a strong understanding of policy is probably more likely to vote against the prevailing discussion at AfD. It doesn't take any understanding of policy to make a bunch of uncontroversial tack-on keep and delete votes. It takes a strong understanding of policy to back up an opinion that is going against the numbers. Gigs (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- We expect our admins to obey and enforce policy. There is no requirement that an admin actually agree with written policy, let alone every AFD consensus. From reading such opposes, I think that some editors are concerned that an admin-hopeful who consistently falls on the "wrong side" of an AFD may have a misunderstanding of policies/guidelines related to article retention. But that is of course a dangerous thing to assume simply from a number. I agree with Nick that it is a starting point only - you still have to go through those AFDs and assess the !votes on a case-by-case basis. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Similar, some might say, to edit count. The number doesn't mean anything really, but when an editor waltzes into RfA with 40 or 400,000 edits, eyebrows are raised. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I do find this trend particularly unhelpful as it risks encouraging bandwagon voting. I know personally if I browse AfD I will often not bother participating if a debate is obviously going the way I feel it should go - but if people are genuinely judging on this metric, it's in my interest to go and throw an extra opinion that doesn't actually help consensus. Conversely, if I feel the consensus is going the wrong way I risk looking like an idiot in this metric by going against the hive mind! Very dangerous - but i've been happy to see this generally being challenged when it does get used at RfA. ~ mazca talk 17:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- As others have said, a particularly low 'accuracy' number may signal an individual who either has a poor grasp of policy or who is inclined to tilt at windmills, while a one-hundred-percent 'accuracy' should prompt concerns about me-too vote padding—but the interpretation of the number should rely on an investigation of actual edits, never on the number itself.
- In any case, I have long felt that a useful standard question would be along the lines of,
- Please provide a few examples of project-space edits (AfD, AN/I, etc.) where you believe you have offered a concise summary of a situation, along with a sensible recommendation/suggestion/request for action, accompanied by a clearly-stated rationale.
- In other words, we want admin candidates to show us that they are capable of
- figuring out what's going on in a situation,
- describing cogently to other editors (admins or not) what's happening,
- coming up with reasonable solutions, and
- explaining why their proposed solution is worthwhile and in line with the goals of the project.
- These are skills that nearly every admin will be called upon to use, and they are skills that every non-admin should be in a position to demonstrate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Some basic metrics are required as starting criteria for the suitability of a candidate, and their performance at AfD is one of them. Of more concern, are especially the bandwaggon voters (on both RfA and AfD), who do little or none of their own conscientious research before chiming in. AfD always has been a leaky bucket.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- AFD Accuracy is a worthless measure. All this does is promote that a user vote in the popular direction on as many AFD's as possible if they are going to be running for RFA. I am much more concerned that the candidate participates in venues than whether they voted to keep or delete something. As an admin they aren't there to vote stack, their there to perform the action required by consensus whether that is to close the discussion or delete the Article as required in the AFD. Wether they voted to keep it or delete it really doesn't matter much. Kumioko (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- It matters because the comments with which they accompany their vote can demonstarte whether or not they have a clear understanding of policy. That's why RfA voters who rely on a candidate's AfD stats should should review the actual AfDs and not simply take the stats themselves for granted. The same is frelevant for any voter's decision based on CSD tagging performance. If we didn't have any metrics at all, RfA would simply be a 'I like/don't like' the candidate exercise which I am sure nobody here really wants either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you noticed but RFA is already a popularity contest and has been for quite a long time. I also strongly disagree that someone who votes on an AFD for whatever the popular vote is going is in any way beneficial. All this tells the user is that if they just go along and vote in the direction things are going with the AFD, and add a few up before they run, then they increase their chances of it passing. I would much rather they vote their feelings, right or wrong, then going with the flow to build up AFD credit. OF course this is coming from someone who will never be allowed to be an admin so take that for whatever its worth. Kumioko (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- It matters because the comments with which they accompany their vote can demonstarte whether or not they have a clear understanding of policy. That's why RfA voters who rely on a candidate's AfD stats should should review the actual AfDs and not simply take the stats themselves for granted. The same is frelevant for any voter's decision based on CSD tagging performance. If we didn't have any metrics at all, RfA would simply be a 'I like/don't like' the candidate exercise which I am sure nobody here really wants either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
How many active admins do we have?
I just noticed that at the bottom of the admin toolbox thing, it says we have 1,444 admins. I was wondering how many of those are actually active admins? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Far too many, 687.[5] Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- It depends on your definition of "active". A few months ago I counted the number of admins who logged 20 or more admin actions in the previous month, and only came up with 226. Many people who are "active" by the definition that produced the 687 figure rarely use their admin tools. Hut 8.5 21:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- 226 active users performing administrative actions is far too few for a wiki this large. That's almost ridiculous. TCN7JM 21:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Based on what evidence? What would be a more appropriate number for a wiki this large? Leaky Caldron 22:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Given the long wait times at RfPs and RPP and the not-as-long wait times at places like UAA, probably like 300. TCN7JM 22:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would make one point in response to that: I don't think there needs to be a limit on the admin total. If someone can be trusted with the tools, give him the tools. If he can't be trusted, don't give him the tools. It should be decided that way regardless of how many admins there are. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Given the long wait times at RfPs and RPP and the not-as-long wait times at places like UAA, probably like 300. TCN7JM 22:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- 226 is enough to get the job done, since most RFCs and many other discussions can (and should) be closed by non-admin, and most areas aren't backlogged except copyright, which has been perpetually backlogged for ages. Backlogs come and go, the normal ebb and flow. It isn't optimal in that too few people are doing too many things, however. Diversity is a good thing in admin'ing, particularly in consensus building. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can you explain what you mean by diversity? TCN7JM 22:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Grr...excuse that misinterpretation of your statement. Sorry. TCN7JM 22:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- A statistic I would like to see even moreso is actually, "how many admins performed X% of admin actions". I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of administrative actions were only performed by a handful of admins. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure they would. A few admins perform very large numbers of admin actions, either because they are a bot or they are using an automatic or semi-automatic tool. Hut 8.5 23:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, how active an admin is in "admin'ing" isn't always in the logs. You can work ANI all day, trying to solve problems, and never use the bit. That isn't strictly "admin" only work, but mediation and dispute resolution often falls on us. No logs of that stuff. Same with SPI. I can work 4 hours hard and only block a few people (or none) because most of that time is spent reading diffs, comparing times, etc. Or I can hope over to CSD or RFPP and make 15-20 log entries in an hour. It depends on how the admin spends their time, so logs don't tell the whole story. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- It would be marginally trivial to build up our own version of the academic h-statistic. What is the number k such that k sysops perform k sysop actions per unit time? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure they would. A few admins perform very large numbers of admin actions, either because they are a bot or they are using an automatic or semi-automatic tool. Hut 8.5 23:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- A statistic I would like to see even moreso is actually, "how many admins performed X% of admin actions". I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of administrative actions were only performed by a handful of admins. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Based on what evidence? What would be a more appropriate number for a wiki this large? Leaky Caldron 22:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- 226 active users performing administrative actions is far too few for a wiki this large. That's almost ridiculous. TCN7JM 21:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- It depends on your definition of "active". A few months ago I counted the number of admins who logged 20 or more admin actions in the previous month, and only came up with 226. Many people who are "active" by the definition that produced the 687 figure rarely use their admin tools. Hut 8.5 21:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There's huge backlogs in image deletions. There's sure as heck not "far too many" admins in that area. WP:FFD: 289 posts awaiting closure. WP:PUF: 212 files await review, some dating back to February. Wikipedia:Non-free content review: 64 discussions, some dating back to February. Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files: 384 files need to be examined. Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source: a nine-day backlog. There's plenty more, and only two or three admins trying to keep up with the workload. I was looking after the stuff on the dashboard and WP:PUF, but had to quit for burnout. -- Dianna (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've looked and I've dabbled a bit with image deletions, and I deal with copyright some at my job, but that place is confusing and it is easy to screw up. I've even been honing my skills at Commons, where if I screw up too badly, bi-admin INeverCry will just block me from Commons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Backlogs have substantially grown over the time that I've been an admin; I don't remember seeing this much backlog at RFPP, for example. Which is remarkable as the number of active editors is slowly declining. --Rschen7754 02:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)See, I felt bad, so I went and deleted a bunch of photos, then I ran across this one [6] which I'm thinking could be licensed under CC if the author wanted to, or maybe not, as I'm not sure the country of orgin and if it would have to be considered copyrighted. I went and did a load at RFPP the other day, like 20, and when I got done, another 20 had been added. Treading water. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it's more an issue of area of expertise/interest. The low-hanging fruit is quickly taken care of and areas like FFD an other unsexy arenas are left out in the sun. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- With image deletions, it's a totally thankless job. You never get any feedback at all until you screw something up. At RFPP at least you get to meet people :/ -- Dianna (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could resurrect this or this. Hint, hint. INeverCry 03:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- We thank our image-deleting admins by either banning them (SchuminWeb) or driving them to quit (basically everyone else). We desperately need more admins who understand copyright issues. Maybe we need training classes? --B (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- With image deletions, it's a totally thankless job. You never get any feedback at all until you screw something up. At RFPP at least you get to meet people :/ -- Dianna (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it's more an issue of area of expertise/interest. The low-hanging fruit is quickly taken care of and areas like FFD an other unsexy arenas are left out in the sun. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
B - re "training classes", that might be a good idea. I just spent 30 mins at FFD and only managed to delete one file. I quickly realized there were deeper issues at play, and although I regard myself as an "experienced admin" in the general sense, I'm clearly not properly equipped to deal with the numerous gray areas I quickly ran into. Manning (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, for the most part, the easy ones get cherry picked pretty quickly so the ones remaining are the ones nobody wants. And to make it worse, FFD is a mixture of "crap to delete", "fair use debates", and "licensing debates". And if you close one of the high profile fair use ones, you're basically guaranteeing that half of FFD will be ticked off and it's going to deletion review. ;) --B (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are four tests that I'm aware of to whether we have enough volunteer admins. One is the one that people have discussed above, do we have enough admins to keep the backlogs under control and get most stuff done within hours or days of it needing to be done? A second, and one where geographic/timezone diversity comes in, is do we have enough to give us 24/7 coverage at AIV and for deleting attack pages? The third is do we have enough admins that we can say that we are a self governing society where all sensible clueful regulars are admins. The fourth is do we have enough admins that we can spread the admin work so thinly that any admin who only focusses on admin work is seen as unusual. Those four, or rather two related pairs, would give you radically different numbers of admins, and whilst I'd expect that we can all agree that we want to pass the first two, and at present probably are passing or close to passing both those tests; The latter two, which would require far more admins, are more contentious as there are some who don't want the community to work that way. I'd be interested in hearing from those who don't want us to pass the last two tests as I'm still not clear what their vision of a healthy community looks like. As for the first two, I would prefer that we fixed RFA before we got to the point where we suddenly appoint a whole bunch of poorly considered candidates, and I'll support pretty much any reform that delays or averts that scenario. But pragmatically I can live with the consequences of failing to reform RFA if that is what happens. ϢereSpielChequers 10:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Another irrelevant analysis which bypasses the real issues. As discussed above, a central starting point would be to know what admins are here for. But we don't. Admins don't know. There is no mission statement for admins. Schoolboys and other users utterly unqualified in content matters are appointed for life as "admins", and then unleashed to block and jerk around the principal content builders. There is no constitution on Wikipedia which defines dignities, rights and freedoms contributors can expect, and places boundaries and limitations on the manner in which power over others is exercised. In practice each admin is largely allowed to decide for themselves what they think admins are here for and how they should behave. As a result we have over a thousand loose cannons acting out their own individual fantasies. Formal sanctions are never in practice applied when admins mistreat non admins, though they are applied with great vigour when admins mistreat other admins. Often, no distinction is made between vandals and the principal content builders – all non admins are shoved into the same pit and treated pretty much the same way.
- Your third test, WereSpielChequers, "do we have enough admins that we can say that we are a self governing society where all sensible clueful regulars are admins", is, given the current climate, insulting to non admins. I doubt many current regulars with real clue and capability to build the encyclopaedia would seek to become admins. Perhaps it comes down to what is meant by "clueful". I suspect this term on Wikipedia now has a special meaning, yet another example of admin speak, and someone "with clue" now means someone attuned to admin self interest. The current admin system is going to lurch and stumble in ever increasing monstrous ways until the admin powers are properly defined and reissued on a needs basis, and in a rational way to those who are best equipped to use them. In particular, the discipline and sanctioning of the principal content builders on Wikipedia could possibly be controlled by a specially constituted board, but definitely not as it is now, by a thousand loose cannons including schoolboys and vandal hunters.
- This idea, that things will come right if only the RfA can be fixed is nonsense. It is a mere distraction, a displaced activity that admins try and draw people into to hide the real issue, which is that the system itself must be restructured. Anyone who stands back and looks in a dispassionate way at the current system can see how absurd and dysfunctional it is. No amount tinkering with the mechanics of the RfA, as WereSpielChequers seems to suggest, is going to make the slightest difference. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- As one of the admins who you describe as "over a thousand loose cannons acting out their own individual fantasies" I doubt that we are going to agree on much over this. But I would like you to reconsider a few points.
- Most importantly whilst my aspiration is that all sensible clueful regulars become admins, I don't believe that we are there yet or even that we are heading in the right direction. Of course it would be insulting to non-admins if I thought that was already true, but it isn't insulting to have that as an objective, even if some of the people who I'd hope would become admins are unwilling to run.
- "Formal sanctions are never in practice applied when admins mistreat non admins, though they are applied with great vigour when admins mistreat other admins." Would you accept that to disprove that I only need quote one Arbcom case where an admin was desysopped over mistreating a non-admin?
- "a thousand loose cannons including schoolboys and vandal hunters." Aside from the question as to how many if any of our current admins are actually loose cannons, I'm not sure if we have many schoolboys in the admin corps these days. We certainly had in the past, but if you take schoolboy as being a male aged 16 or less then I doubt we have many in the current admin cadre. Maybe my antennae aren't as well tuned for this as some people, but most of our admins were appointed more than five years ago and anyone appointed in early 2008 would have had to be ten then to be under 16 now. Maybe a couple of people are now going to surprise me, and we may well have some teenagers of 17, but my impression of the greying of the pedia is that we really don't have so many adolescents around nowadays, and in recent years the schoolboys who we do have are not getting through RFA.
- Clueful is quite probably Wikipedia jargon, I can't remember hearing it elsewhere, but that doesn't make it admin jargon, nor define it as admin self interest.
- "Often, no distinction is made between vandals and the principal content builders" you rather lost me there. In practice vandalism only accounts typically get four warnings and are then blocked indefinitely. That's just routine, when a principal content builder gets blocked indefinitely it is never routine and rarely uncontentious. I'd accept that some of the blocks of our principal content builders have been unwise and even in some cases unjustified. But any admin blocking a principal content contributor knows that it is liable to be controversial and require debate at the drama boards, especially if it is the sort of indefinite block that a serial vandal would get. ϢereSpielChequers 00:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- As one of the admins who you describe as "over a thousand loose cannons acting out their own individual fantasies" I doubt that we are going to agree on much over this. But I would like you to reconsider a few points.
- If you accept (a) there is no equivalent of a mission statement governing what admins are here for and how they should behave (see above), (b) there is no centralised body ensuring that admins conform to their mission – there can't be because there is no mission (that is, there is no centralised control directing the admin guns), and (c) that individual admins must therefore decide largely for themselves what they are here for and how they are going to behave (that is, individual admins are loose guns, firing independently and not under directed fire control), then since you are an individual admin it follows you are a loose cannon acting out your own individual fantasy of what you think an admin should be. You could call it a vision if you prefer. There is nothing pejorative about this. It is just an objective description of how it is. You could change the situation by pushing for a mission statement which defines the function of admins and sets out their code of conduct. You could push also for a disciplinary body to ensure admins conform to their mission. Then you wouldn't be a loose cannon acting out your personal admin fantasy. Replying point by point:
- You clearly seem to think that admins are beings of light, and that the goal of being an user on Wikipedia is to be an admin. I must tell you that working quietly and unseen in the many recesses of Wikipedia are many highly competent content builders. I have come across quite a few. Collectively, these content builders are the real powerhouse building Wikipedia. Most of them have not the slightest interest in being an "admin". For what its worth, neither have I. The only reason I participate on these boards is to try and get a better deal for content builders. Why is it not good enough to be competent at content building? It is a crazed notion that content builders are of less value than admins. Currently there is no dignity in being a content builder on Wikipedia, and I suspect that this climate is a core reason why we have lost so many of the best content builders. There are even admins who smirk with satisfaction how "no one is indispensable". The whole notion of "admin" needs to be fundamentally reworked, and this absurd process of progressively elevating admins over the rest of the community needs to brought abruptly down to earth.
- You say "Would you accept that to disprove that I only need quote one Arbcom case where an admin was desysopped over mistreating a non-admin". Yes, of course I would accept that. I'm trying to find just one example. If you can find an example, then I will modify the statement (the thrust will still be the same).
- On the issue of schoolboys, how does it follow that a schoolboy appointed ten years ago is going to mysteriously acquire the necessary gravitas and worldly knowledge to adjudicate fairly in the discipline of mature long contributing content builders? Hint: It doesn't follow.
- Admins are using the term "clueful" or "has clue" a lot these days. Usually in the context of being something that admins have and the rest of us don't have.
- "Often, no distinction is made between vandals and the principal content builders". Yes, often a distinction is made, but often it isn't. The drama boards ring with demands from both the peanut gallery and admins that competent content builder who have contributed for years receive no more leeway than anyone else. Admins even write essays on it. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have any hard evidence to prove this, but I seem to recall that back around 2005 it was considered rather weird for a long-standing editor (with more than 3 months and a thousand edits) to *not* want to be an admin, whether they primarily focused on content or not. I can only think of a couple of regular editors from that time period who chose not to be admins. Hence the creation of Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts in August 2005. The phenomenon of "admins vs content editors" seems to have started with the actions that led to this arbitration case and another related case. Graham87 05:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- "We don't have a lot of time on this earth! We weren't meant to spend it this way! Human beings were not meant to sit in little cubicles staring at computer screens all day, filling out useless forms and listening to eight different bosses drone on about mission statements!" Seriously, what is all this talk about mission statements? As if a mission statement would be the cure-all for Wikipedia. Please remember that we're all volunteers here. None of us are obligated to do anything. Admins and non-admins alike are here to do whatever it is they're interested in doing, no one's activities or behavior is governed by anything other than the full set of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Everyone on Wikipedia is a "loose cannon", independently deciding what they want to do at all times. If you like creating content, then create content. If you like fighting vandalism, fight vandalism. If you like deleting articles that don't belong here, then do so. All such activities are equally useful (and this is obviously a non-exhaustive list), because Wikipedia would be worse off if no one was doing one of those activities. To put content builders up on a platform and demand special treatment for them versus other editors is, in my opinion, equally wrong and arrogant as putting admins on a platform and giving them special treatment. To be fair, admins are occasionally given a small degree of extra leeway, if only because they routinely have to put up with a lot more shit on average, often from people like Epipelagic. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 14:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I receive a lot of shit and personal attacks from admins, and I rarely respond in kind. Most individual admins are fine. However the admin system is not fine and needs restructuring. I understand you prefer to leave things alone, but maintaining things as they are is not in the long term interest of Wikipedia. I did not suggest "a mission statement would be the cure-all for Wikipedia". That's something you made up. Some sort of mission statement is one of a number of steps that needs to be taken. It's not even the most important step, but nonetheless admins should know what admins are meant to achieve on Wikipedia and there should be general agreement on that. We both agree we don't have a lot of time on this earth. So let's cut through the unproductive squabbling that goes on and on all round Wikipedia because the admin system is broken. We can defuse most problems very quickly if admins are prepared to put their personal fears to one side, since most of the solutions are obvious. Then we can have a decent system everyone, admins and non admins alike, can have some pride in. I'm not against a decent admin system. That's precisely what I'm for. Yes I do put content building up on a platform. Absolutely. For an elaboration of that, see my reply below to Ed.--Epipelagic (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Since when have 'content builders' and 'administrators' been homogenous and mutually exclusive groups? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure who your comment is addressed to, Ed. Certainly 'content builders' and 'administrators' are neither homogenous nor mutually exclusive groups. Many administrators are also content builders and some administrators are fine content builders. When I use the term 'content builder' it is in the extended sense of any activities resulting in better content or better access to content on Wikipedia, including copyediting, removing vandalism, building navigation templates, deleting inappropriate material, uploading images, removing copy violations, formatting fixes made with a bot, and admin activities blocking vandals. Activities like these, as well as others, are all part of 'content building'. I use the term 'content building' because that's where the focus should be. But there is currently a sharp divide between admins and content builders who are not admins. When I refer to content builders in the context of the admin system, I am referring to content builders who are not admins. If I have an underlying agenda in this thread it would be to get acceptance that the core purpose of admins on Wikipedia is to facilitate content building. And for that, there needs to be some sort of mission statement for admins. If that is accepted, then all admins will be content builders, and we will all be on the same page. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think that strikes at the root of the issue. The entire concept of someone "being an admin" because they have the bit, instead of being "an editor with admin tool access", cultivates and reinforces an attitude of distinct groups. Administrator permissions should not be used to define the identity of an editor. WSC's solution, and the way Wikipedia used to be, was to combat this attitude by handing out the permission freely to any rational editor who isn't here to screw things up. This strategy is implicit in our UI as well, admin account signatures don't look any different by default, and it's difficult for an uninitiated user to figure out who does or doesn't have admin access.
- I've always thought that one potential solution would be to stop giving editors admin access on their main account. If they pass RfA, they should create a new account to get the flag (with a systematic name to avoid confusion, like "The ed17-admin"), which should only be used for admin type stuff. This solution is not likely to make either camp completely happy, since it is an admission that the "no big deal" dilution strategy that WSC advocates is a lost cause, and at the same time, increases the visibility when an editor is acting as "an administrator". But it would help destroy the perception that the "big deal" camp has that "admins" are some kind of feted elite, since the editor's actions under their normal account would be explicitly done as a regular editor, not as "an admin", and therefore carry no extra weight. Gigs (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's an interesting suggestion, and it might work for those who make clear distinctions between hours spent doing admin stuff and hours spent doing other things. But I, and I suspect many others, simply don't operate that way. When I go through Cat:SPEEDY and check an article tagged for speedy deletion I may delete it, or I may decline the speedy and perhaps categorise it. Declining a speedy deletion tag probably doesn't count as an admin action because anyone can decline a speedy other than the person who wrote the article. Categorising it and copy editing it certainly isn't an admin action. Othertimes I just use the tools when I come across something that needs them. So for me it would mean that for most of my admin actions I would be logging out and logging back into my admin account doing the action then logging out and logging back into my non admin account. That's a lot of faff, and I could see myself not bothering to fix the odd typo or add some categories, or even go for a password that was several digits shorter. I suspect that having such extra accounts would add to our faff and complexity without much benefit - it might even encourage some admins to focus more on their admin actions, and it would take us further from my ideal of adminship being widely spread out in the community. ϢereSpielChequers 20:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- "We don't have a lot of time on this earth! We weren't meant to spend it this way! Human beings were not meant to sit in little cubicles staring at computer screens all day, filling out useless forms and listening to eight different bosses drone on about mission statements!" Seriously, what is all this talk about mission statements? As if a mission statement would be the cure-all for Wikipedia. Please remember that we're all volunteers here. None of us are obligated to do anything. Admins and non-admins alike are here to do whatever it is they're interested in doing, no one's activities or behavior is governed by anything other than the full set of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Everyone on Wikipedia is a "loose cannon", independently deciding what they want to do at all times. If you like creating content, then create content. If you like fighting vandalism, fight vandalism. If you like deleting articles that don't belong here, then do so. All such activities are equally useful (and this is obviously a non-exhaustive list), because Wikipedia would be worse off if no one was doing one of those activities. To put content builders up on a platform and demand special treatment for them versus other editors is, in my opinion, equally wrong and arrogant as putting admins on a platform and giving them special treatment. To be fair, admins are occasionally given a small degree of extra leeway, if only because they routinely have to put up with a lot more shit on average, often from people like Epipelagic. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 14:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you accept (a) there is no equivalent of a mission statement governing what admins are here for and how they should behave (see above), (b) there is no centralised body ensuring that admins conform to their mission – there can't be because there is no mission (that is, there is no centralised control directing the admin guns), and (c) that individual admins must therefore decide largely for themselves what they are here for and how they are going to behave (that is, individual admins are loose guns, firing independently and not under directed fire control), then since you are an individual admin it follows you are a loose cannon acting out your own individual fantasy of what you think an admin should be. You could call it a vision if you prefer. There is nothing pejorative about this. It is just an objective description of how it is. You could change the situation by pushing for a mission statement which defines the function of admins and sets out their code of conduct. You could push also for a disciplinary body to ensure admins conform to their mission. Then you wouldn't be a loose cannon acting out your personal admin fantasy. Replying point by point:
Unfortunately a lot of admins have an us and them mentality on here. Not all of course but many feel like they are above the content editors and feel as though the community has entitled them to do whatever they want. It shouldn't be like that of course but since we have built a culture of admins being above the rules and above reproach we have done it to ourselves. Most people with the admin tools don't even use them but its the same 20-30 of the 650 admins who wield their tools like a club and feel like its their personal responsibility to block every content editor until the site is free of these radicals. We need to go back to the mentality that adminship is no big deal or even better break up the toolset completely into modules so that people can just apply for the ones they need rather than being given a whole toolbox when all they need is a screwdriver. Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Simply solution would be to have some administrative tools given to trusted editors - perhaps a new user access level with tools for simply maintains tasks given. I personally have no interest in dealing with behavior issues (thus n0t interested in admin-ship) - but would be more then willing to help with normal day to day maintenance issues. Need to spread-out the behind the scenes work like locked page moves, consensus deletions ect.. with admins abilities like blocking people, edit history suppression etc... Moxy (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are a raft of good solutions. But nothing can happen currently because the admin system is under the control of the admins themselves. They have a stranglehold on their own governance, and there is no way they will voluntarily release that grip. The best thing that could possibly happen would be for the system to fall apart from its own rottenness. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Epipelagic, so why not fix this rotten system? Your posts suggest that you believe you speak for a majority of content creators on this project who object to what they see as the project's governance by admins. Non-admins far outnumber admins. So change the system. We do things by consensus. Create a mission statement for admins and get a clear majority to approve it. Create a mechanism to remove admins you believe are abusive and get a clear majority to approve it. Your posts on this page show a lot of anger directed towards admins, but if you are correct and your views are indeed in the majority (any so called "consensus" to the contrary being admin-created and not truly representative of what other editors want) you have the power to change it. WJBscribe (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Alas that's not how it works... surely you must know that. Very few content builders participate on these boards now. Why should they. Most content builders who stumble upon these boards quickly learn they are not a safe place for a content builder, and they don't come back. And it has been clear for years that their views don't count unless they praise the current admin system. Any views expressed by a content builder on these boards which are challenging to the admin system are usually drowned by the first line of defence, the admin retinues. These are inhabitants of the drama boards that hope to become admins, or if they have lost hope of that, persist anyway because they love the drama. The last thing they want to see is something that might put restraint on admins or reduce drama. If their input fails, a couple of admins will appear, often somewhat threatening. The content builder is told that constructive criticism of the admin system is a personal attack on administrators. Even if the builder has worked for years on Wikipedia, some admin will helpfully point out WP:NPA. If intimidation fails, other different tactics are used, such as two or three admins responding in tandem, mechanically saying no, no, no... to every suggestion until the content builder gives up. In extreme cases, relays of admins emerge from the wings, and encircle the apostate until he gives up. I know the pattern well, since I have been subjected to it many times.
- When policy issues arise and votes are taken, most participants who turn up are admins and drama board regulars. A handful of dissenting votes from passing content builders are easily swamped. Admins need vote only to the point where they have ensured change that doesn't further entrench admin powers won't happen. Even if a general referendum were to be held for all content builders, it wouldn't mean much as things stand. Most content builders these days are not informed on what the issues are. All they know is that it's a good idea to stay well away from the admin boards. So they do. And the more they stay away the less they know of what goes down here. It's a viscous circle, and I don't know how to break it.
- However, I persist anyway, even though nothing ever changes (I'm well aware that's a definition of insanity). I persist because the issue really matters, and does huge unnecessary damage to Wikipedia. I may write an essay which sets out some alternative ways the admin system could be structured, and some possible ways of easing the transition from the current system to the new one. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think there are systemic problems, but it's not the simplistic us-and-them that you make it out to be. Meta-project types like myself follow a certain unwritten protocol for interactions that may not be understood by a content creator who has tried to avoid dipping into administrative drama as much as possible. This can lead to warnings that might seem like suppression of "content creator input". To the extent that a subculture with unwritten norms has formed around the meta-administration of the encyclopedia, I agree with you. The last half of your comment is much closer to the truth than your earlier simplistic characterization. Gigs (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it seems over "simplistic" to you then please counter with more down to earth specifics, rather than vague generalities and other worldly abstractions. I have no idea what you are trying to say. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think there are systemic problems, but it's not the simplistic us-and-them that you make it out to be. Meta-project types like myself follow a certain unwritten protocol for interactions that may not be understood by a content creator who has tried to avoid dipping into administrative drama as much as possible. This can lead to warnings that might seem like suppression of "content creator input". To the extent that a subculture with unwritten norms has formed around the meta-administration of the encyclopedia, I agree with you. The last half of your comment is much closer to the truth than your earlier simplistic characterization. Gigs (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Epipelagic, so why not fix this rotten system? Your posts suggest that you believe you speak for a majority of content creators on this project who object to what they see as the project's governance by admins. Non-admins far outnumber admins. So change the system. We do things by consensus. Create a mission statement for admins and get a clear majority to approve it. Create a mechanism to remove admins you believe are abusive and get a clear majority to approve it. Your posts on this page show a lot of anger directed towards admins, but if you are correct and your views are indeed in the majority (any so called "consensus" to the contrary being admin-created and not truly representative of what other editors want) you have the power to change it. WJBscribe (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are a raft of good solutions. But nothing can happen currently because the admin system is under the control of the admins themselves. They have a stranglehold on their own governance, and there is no way they will voluntarily release that grip. The best thing that could possibly happen would be for the system to fall apart from its own rottenness. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I initially looked at this discussion because of the topic header. Somehow, though, it was hijacked into what has become the ubiquitous discussion du jour (okay many jours), admins vs. non-admins, content editors vs. admins, the rotten system, etc. I will now ignore the discussion as I do with all of these discussions and go back to being a disgusting active admin. Oh, as an aside, the image deletion business. I don't get involved because it exhausts me just to think about figuring it all out, assuming that's even possible considering how byzantine Wikipedia's image deletion process is. I have never understood why Commons makes it so simple and Wikipedia makes it so hard. It's probably the fault of the admins. :-) You may now return to your regular channels.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's sad to hear. Most other admins are not disgusting, but manage to be decent admins regardless of system shortcomings. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Most admins don't do much adminning because most admins are not sociopaths, and thus properly equipped to deal with, well, the above invective directed at them on a daily basis. Anyway, I'd suggest that the number of active admins in any given part of Wikipedia process is in the single digits. CAT:EP has about a half-dozen (of which I'm one on the occasions that I actually remember to visit it), whereas TfD as a whole has only very slightly more than one on average (if we ever lose Plastikspork then TfD will grind to a halt). Most admins do more content work than adminning; conversely, most of the sort that insist on a dichotomy between admins and content contributors seem to do very little of anything other than agitate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is a problem with the often undeserved invective addressed at admins, but that's a separate issue, and given the way human minds work not altogether fixable. Still, a lot of that invective would go away if we had an admin system that behaved in a more decent and just way towards content builders. What is fixable is the unnecessarily demoralisation of content builders on Wikipedia. Why do you personalise constructive criticism of the admin system and classify it as "invective addressed at admins"? And why do you pretend content builders are not being unnecessarily demoralised? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of the invective would go away if you, personally, would cease it. The only pretence here is on behalf of the "content builders" cult, of which you are a prime agitator. The demoralisation in question is of your own making to your own ends. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes of course... I just made it all up. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it's pointless responding to comments as irrelevant as yours Cunningham, since they so completely miss the mark. But as a point on reality checking, critics of the admin system have often contributed far more solid content than most of the sort of admins who try to deny users the right to critique the admin system. And from the rest of what you say, you either have not read what has been said above, or you did not comprehend what was said above. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- [citation needed]. And as to your "point on reality checking", the only proven fact is that editors in the "content creation" cult are responsible for far more discussion of how much more productive they are. When it comes to hard figures, or naming names, these people have a remarkable ability to change the subject. (As to addressing me, you'll use "Chris" or "thumperward" in future.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it's pointless responding to comments as irrelevant as yours Cunningham, since they so completely miss the mark. But as a point on reality checking, critics of the admin system have often contributed far more solid content than most of the sort of admins who try to deny users the right to critique the admin system. And from the rest of what you say, you either have not read what has been said above, or you did not comprehend what was said above. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes of course... I just made it all up. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of the invective would go away if you, personally, would cease it. The only pretence here is on behalf of the "content builders" cult, of which you are a prime agitator. The demoralisation in question is of your own making to your own ends. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is a problem with the often undeserved invective addressed at admins, but that's a separate issue, and given the way human minds work not altogether fixable. Still, a lot of that invective would go away if we had an admin system that behaved in a more decent and just way towards content builders. What is fixable is the unnecessarily demoralisation of content builders on Wikipedia. Why do you personalise constructive criticism of the admin system and classify it as "invective addressed at admins"? And why do you pretend content builders are not being unnecessarily demoralised? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Most content builders who stumble upon these boards quickly learn they are not a safe place for a content builder, and they don't come back.
I'm pretty sure that what actually happens is non-admins (I refuse to use this false distinction of "content builders") flee because the admin noticeboards are full of the most godawful headache-inducing crap that has everything to do with petty squabbling and screechy personal vendettas being carried out, but very little to do with actually improving the encyclopedia. — Scott • talk 14:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- There does seem to be a "complain about admins corp" to go along with the "admin corp." The world is zen that way. But a number of complainers have such an obvious chip on their shoulder, it is little wonder that they also complain about being ineffective. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- AfD has more than a dozen active admins at any instance of time, this is why it is never backlogged.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's also worth noting that sometimes admins start and stop heavy admin work at random. Normally I do a lot of the really nasty admin work around here—a lot of AE and dealing with major content disputes and the contentious RfCs they tend to produce—but I've done barely admin work for the last 4+ months, and most of what I have done is directly related to my content work. Yet my activity level on Wikipedia isn't any different; it's just extremely hyperfocused for the time being. Measurements of the number of active admins in the immediate last month should be taken with a grain of salt because people sometimes take a break from admin work, or even editing, for extended periods of time. It doesn't mean they won't come back—if I ever do finish my undertaking I'll throw myself back into the thick of things, for instance—it just means you're not getting them right now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- If anyone's interested I've posted the list of admins with over 20 actions in the last month here. Hut 8.5 15:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Very interesting - thanks. It appears to clearly demonstrate who does the work around here, at least for loggable admin actions. Echoing Blade's sentiments, ironically, I don't even feature on that list due to one of the reasons that some are reluctant to accept as valid: for a couple of months RL has really got in the way, or more aptly put, WP was getting in the way of RL. Reading between the lines of that list I see some poignant extrapolations: Recent, and fairly recently appointed admins who are demonstrating their initial enthusiasm (didn't we all?); Admins on that short list whom I have never heard of - probably those who go for low hanging fruit at the various deletion categories/areas and who avoid the drama boards and decision-making places but whose work is indispensable, and the absentees from the list, who like me, are well known throughout the community (for better or for worse) who currently just don't have the time, but who nevertheless peruse their watchlists, keep an eye on their talk pages, and still chime in on issues that are within their specific areas of interest. I do seem to detect some undertones in recent comments that once elected, admins are expected to remain busy for life - how absurd - there are a hundred reasons why the activities of some diminish. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting to me, too. I see my level of actions is well up there, and that's at the expense of my other contributions. It's because I've started doing article deletions again recently, after a long gap when I was so daunted by the amount of flak I was getting. Much of this comes from would-be contributors who don't have English as their first language, haven't read or don't understand the guidelines, and can't see why they shouldn't upload their own CVs, advertise their own shops, or write articles about members of their families. Worse than this, however, is the flak I get from other contributors who think I should have written the said people a book explaining in detail why I deleted their articles. Have you seen the backlog of new articles awaiting patrolling? No wonder I don't have time to write any myself. So come on, pile in and tell me what a lousy job I'm doing! Deb (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Question
I am curious, of the active admins on English Wikipedia, I noticed that some (not all) openly list their political alignment. Therefore, of those that do, what political alignment has the largest plurality? Has a census of such a thing ever been taken for Admins, editors in general?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't noticed that myself. Honestly, with very few exceptions, I have no knowledge of the political affiliation of most people here. Then again, I've never gone out of my way to look and see, or ask. Wikipedia is a terrible forum for political discussion, and that is beyond the scope of the mission anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm aware of one administrator whose political views are probably more to the right than the average American. There's no proper data on this, but I would be fairly sure that the average administrator and the average editor both have political views slightly to the left of the average American. However, I find it very unlikely that this affects administrator behaviour or editor behaviour to a significant degree. I get annoyed with people violating BLP regarding politicians I loathe, just as easily as I get annoyed with people violating BLP regarding politicians for whom I might vote. I'm sure others - with a few exceptions whom I won't name - likewise take Wikipedia policy and the encyclopedia itself, more seriously than their political loyalties. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- More worrying are the users whose only activity appears to be to vote at RfAs and who oppose the candidates for their religious belief or lack of it. I don't think political alignment or creed is any business of ours unless some systemic bias can be proven. That said, I would guard against any witch hunts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are a number of people whose only significant contributions here are to vote at RfA. I'm not sure how that is building an encyclopedia if that is virtually all someone does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- And that is precisely the reason why some of the major Wikipedias operate a qualification system for their RfA voters. This was one of the suggestions that has been repeatedly made for the en.Wiki, but where we have hardly any clearly defined official minimum criteria for RfA candidates, it would be odd to impose one for the !voters. Aye, there's the rub - because obviously inappropriate candidacies won't pass anyway.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be unreasonable even if there are none for candidates, but I don't know how we could tailor a criteria for voters that would cover all the bases, be fair, be simple, and be accepted. I'm much less optimistic about change happening at RfA than I was a year ago when I was a new admin. Maybe some of the naivete has worn off, or a maybe a little cynicism has crept in (in spite of my best efforts). People love to bitch about RfA almost as much as they love instantly opposing any change to the system. As a community, we are neurotic when it comes to anything "admin" at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The neurosis, as far as I can make out, comes mainly from wannabe admins or other users who have already queered their pitch. Those who are not admins (yet) really don't appreciate what a big deal being one isn't. It's only natural that there is an occasional bad apple in the barrel - enough have been defrocked to prove the point - but the general paranoia about adminship is frankly ludicrous; unless of course we take into account the paranoia candidates have about the flak they will receive once they get the bit and use it ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be unreasonable even if there are none for candidates, but I don't know how we could tailor a criteria for voters that would cover all the bases, be fair, be simple, and be accepted. I'm much less optimistic about change happening at RfA than I was a year ago when I was a new admin. Maybe some of the naivete has worn off, or a maybe a little cynicism has crept in (in spite of my best efforts). People love to bitch about RfA almost as much as they love instantly opposing any change to the system. As a community, we are neurotic when it comes to anything "admin" at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- And that is precisely the reason why some of the major Wikipedias operate a qualification system for their RfA voters. This was one of the suggestions that has been repeatedly made for the en.Wiki, but where we have hardly any clearly defined official minimum criteria for RfA candidates, it would be odd to impose one for the !voters. Aye, there's the rub - because obviously inappropriate candidacies won't pass anyway.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are a number of people whose only significant contributions here are to vote at RfA. I'm not sure how that is building an encyclopedia if that is virtually all someone does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- More worrying are the users whose only activity appears to be to vote at RfAs and who oppose the candidates for their religious belief or lack of it. I don't think political alignment or creed is any business of ours unless some systemic bias can be proven. That said, I would guard against any witch hunts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
As someone who twice had the pleasure of the entire Article Rescue Squad serendipitously happening to all independently visit RfA on a week when I was running, I certainly know that the bloc vote is frustrating, but IMO there are very few cliques on Wikipedia these days that have sufficient power to singlehandedly torpedo an RfA that would otherwise be successful. As to the original question regarding political affiliation, I don't imagine that it differs considerably between the average admin and the average regular contributor, and it's pretty well known what our usual editing demographic consists of. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- When I asked the question, and looking at the responses I have come to agree with the conclusion that there has not yet been an effort to see what the political alignment of admins are. So I went through the active admin list (it took a while) and went through and noted all the self-stated political affiliations of the active admins. Here are the results (most to lease):
Self-stated political label | Admins | Total |
---|---|---|
Political compass Left/Libertarian | Amire80, AniMate, Antandrus, Ericorbit, Kingturtle, Malik Shabazz, Necrothesp, Orderinchaos, Salix alba | 9 |
Obama supporter | Acalamari, Buckshot06, Dravecky, Esanchez7587, JaGa | 5 |
Democrat | AntonioMartin, Bearian, Daniel Case, Gamaliel | 4 |
Libertarian | Arthur Rubin, EncMstr, Huntster, Timwi | 4 |
Conservative | B, Mike Cline, Nyttend | 3 |
Republican | Acdixon, Bob the Wikipedian, Willking1979 | 3 |
Green politics | Nightstallion, Rannpháirtí anaithnid | 2 |
Liberal | Ericorbit, Mike Cline | 2 |
Political Compass Right/Libertarian | Arthur Rubin, Horologium | 2 |
British Columbia New Democratic Party | OlEnglish | 1 |
Flying Spaghetti Marxist | Shirt58 | 1 |
George W. Bush opposer | Orangemike | 1 |
Labour Party | Arwel Parry | 1 |
Liberal democrat | Penwhale | 1 |
Liberal Party of Australia | Ianblair23 | 1 |
Liberal Party | Sjakkalle | 1 |
Meretz-Yachad | Number 57 | 1 |
Minarchist Libertarian | Satori Son | 1 |
Modern Whig Party | The Bushranger | 1 |
New Democratic Party | Orderinchaos | 1 |
Political compass Neutral/Libertarian | The Bushranger | 1 |
Progressive | JaGa | 1 |
Puerto Rican Independence Party | Marine 69-71 | 1 |
Socialist | GiantSnowman | 1 |
Social Democratic Party of Germany | SoWhy | 1 |
Social Liberalism | Nightstallion | 1 |
Working Families Party | Daniel Case | 1 |
Yisrael Beiteinu | Ynhockey | 1 |
- Now this is only the political alignment of those admins who declare them on their userpages, and anyone is free to hold any political alignment that they wish to.
- That being said based on this data there appears to be a left supermajority among active admins.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not seeing the basis for the conclusion because of 1) selection bias 2) sampling bias 3) confirmation bias and 4) cognitive bias. The ones who declare says nothing about the ones who do not, and the ones who do not declare, could be apolitical. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm with Alan here. There are 1446 admins. You're listing 40 who have previously self-identified, as opposed to being asked. That's not close to being a representative sample - this would be akin to measuring the ethnic diversity of a town by counting the number of "country" stickers (TT, PL) that people have stuck on their cars (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Of the few names on that list, there are many I've never heard of. Personally, I don't think it matters a hoot. Nobody knows my political leaning - and I'm not sure I know it myself, even after being a politically aware cosmopolitan for five decades. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not seeing the basis for the conclusion because of 1) selection bias 2) sampling bias 3) confirmation bias and 4) cognitive bias. The ones who declare says nothing about the ones who do not, and the ones who do not declare, could be apolitical. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not an oldtimer. But somebody should point out that there was a nasty spat over userboxes in 2005–2006; the issues raised then about classifying editors by convictions are relevant here, although the focus back then was apparently more on religious than political. The links at the top of this page lead to the debate, and this page describes the solution the community implemented so that we could continue to have userboxes; however, this is the background to the preference for userboxes of the form "is interested in foo" or "is a bar or is interested in barism" and—I presume—for the avoidance of political and religious userboxes by many editors, in particular admins. It's a bit of a dangerous question to ask, and there are good reasons for the lack of data. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, is the implication here that administrators' political views could impede their ability to stick to NPOV? And if not, then what is the point of the original question? — Scott • talk 16:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- What raises the more than occasional eyebrow are those who are only on Wikipedia to vote at RfA and who oppose for lack of religious conviction - the very kind of trollish voting that keeps candidates away from the process. I can't recall any oppose votes for political leaning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's happened on rare occasions. See oppose #11 here. Skinwalker (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- A more full census would create a more accurate determination of the political alignment of active admins. I never said that the political self-identification of an individual will influence an the ability of an individual to act neutrally when acting in the admin roll.
- That being said, as I said, the article space needs to be neutral, but as I have seen in many discussions before, the discussions that lead to whether content is included or excluded, what sources are considered reliable or not reliable have (not necessarily by admins) been effected.
- In the end Admins who engage in dispute resolution, and other such areas, need to be neutral arbiters. IMHO having a balance of all POVs in a discussion lead to better (if sometimes more difficult to reach) consensuses.
- In the end it's a question of curiosity, everyone can take from it what they want.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I feel it's a curiosity we should not indulge. If admin candidates are going to push political/religious/whatever POVs, this is going to be revealed more reliably by their contributions than by their carefully crafted RfA answers. How a person votes in elections, or who he prays to on what day of the week, doesn't indicate a risk of POV pushing. Delving into people's political leanings at RfA is less likely to reveal anything interesting about the candidate than it is to attract real POV-pushers to come along and support/oppose people on the basis of the !voters' leanings. --Stfg (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also, it's entirely possible that people of minority (on Wikipedia) political persuasions will be less likely to self-declare, making a small imbalance appear larger. I think all this survey would produce is a set of talking points that don't represent how Wikipedia actually works. - Dank (push to talk) 11:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I feel it's a curiosity we should not indulge. If admin candidates are going to push political/religious/whatever POVs, this is going to be revealed more reliably by their contributions than by their carefully crafted RfA answers. How a person votes in elections, or who he prays to on what day of the week, doesn't indicate a risk of POV pushing. Delving into people's political leanings at RfA is less likely to reveal anything interesting about the candidate than it is to attract real POV-pushers to come along and support/oppose people on the basis of the !voters' leanings. --Stfg (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's happened on rare occasions. See oppose #11 here. Skinwalker (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Should " Rouge Admin" be on the list of political alignments? Their page defines what they do in a nonpolitical way. But I don't think a conservative or Republican would use this box. Kauffner (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
As the sole "Socialist" Admin, I have to say that the table above is flawed as it does not differentiate between political mo)vements, parties, ideologies etc. As a consequence, and in the spirit of openness, I would actually place myself in 5 of the above categories (Obama supporter, Green politics, George W. Bush opposer, Labour Party, Socialist). I would also say that displaying political/social beliefs of Admins and potential Admins should be encouraged, in the same way that we encourage editors with a COI on articles about themselves / their employers etc. to be open about it, as it gives the wider community vital knowledge. Of course I/we have a POV on certain areas of Wikipeia, but that does not mean I/we will edit in violation of NPOV. GiantSnowman 12:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Seems to have worked so far, because, if asked what I know about your interests and beliefs, the only thing that springs to mind without checking, would be "seems to have a strong interest in football". (And I'm relatively observant of the problematic editing that political biases sometimes cause.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can I add myself to despotic fascism or is that kind of frowned upon? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 06:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, could you provide a few examples in which candidates have been opposed based on lack of religious beliefs? Thanks in advance, Keepscases (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I would like to know about that as well, or when candidates have been opposed based on their political views?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- To start, [7][8]. I'm sure I could find more but those are just ones i remember off the top of my head. Wizardman 23:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- It couldn't be more clear that those opposes are based not on the candidate's apparent atheism, but on thir choice to display intentionally nasty and confrontational userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- To start, [7][8]. I'm sure I could find more but those are just ones i remember off the top of my head. Wizardman 23:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
RfX report on individual RfX?
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I would suggest that we consider transcluding User:TParis/RfX Report on individual RfX. I guess the main reason for doing this would be ease of navigation from one RfX to the next. It's certainly not a major issue, but I figured I might as well mention it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 18:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- The correct link is User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report.—cyberpower ChatOffline 12:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I really don't have anything against the idea. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, but I suppose I could be convinced otherwise if discussion took place here. I don't have any really strong feelings on the matter. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Eh, personally, I would prefer that we didn't. Each RfX is, for the most part, completely unrelated to all the others, so there's not much reason to include it. On the main RfA page, sure, since it's effectively a status update of all the active subpages, but on the individual RfXs themselves, it's just a distraction. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I really could go either way, especially since I've no real trouble navigating between RFA's—it's not much trouble at all to punch "WT:RFA" into the search bar to see the report. I don't see any inherent harm, though, but I could see how it might make the page format a bit more convoluted. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that RfC has been closed, sorry for the delay. Are there any RfA-related RfCs coming in the near future? I'm about ready to dive into some work at Milhist that might keep me from closing such RfCs in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 12:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Request to Unprotect Page for Follow-Through of Instructions
I would like to request this page made unprotected for the purposes of following through with the Instructions ("To Nominate Yourself") for nominating RfA. The part of the instructions I am referring to appear as:
9. Copy the following code: 'Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME'
10. Go to the following page: Edit this page (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&action=edit), and paste the above code you copied at the top of the RfA list.
This request is for the sole purpose of completing the given instructions for nominating RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nominate)
HowardCM (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm unsure if I completely understand you, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nominate has never been protected. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- He's self-nominating but can't complete the nomination because WP:RFA itself is semi-protected. I've added the nomination to the RFA page, though I don't expect it to be there for very long... --ElHef (Meep?) 14:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume SPP of that page is intentional? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Going of the top of my head, I don't think we have any formal requirements, hence we could theoretically be posting it there, silly as it obviously is. Given the user's only contributions are to this page, I am inclined however to suggest that we not do so. Snowolf How can I help? 14:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume SPP of that page is intentional? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- He's self-nominating but can't complete the nomination because WP:RFA itself is semi-protected. I've added the nomination to the RFA page, though I don't expect it to be there for very long... --ElHef (Meep?) 14:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I was bold and reverted the addition of the RfA. See also User_talk:ElHef#Why_on_earth...3F. Theopolisme (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh my, what's happened here?
I've been around for the last 5-ish years... Admittedly I've come and gone more than a couple times over the last several years, and I've probably been away for a long while. I've been around for a few days recently - and I haven't seen a single RFA up! This used to be an extremely uncommon occurrence... Just curious what's happened to this place? SQLQuery me! 07:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing. It's exactly as you left it; we froze the entire project. :-) More seriously, if you'd been around, you'd be grateful for the lack of RfAs. One less drama in the ever-growing list.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly the RFA process has been floundering for a long time. fewer and fewer admins are elected every year and more and more work is done by fewer and fewer of them. These days we generally desysop more admins due to inactivity than we promote. But then when we have an experienced editor run for it they are shot down. Its generally only the candidates that don't get involved in the day to day activities of the project and keep their heads down that get promoted. Kumioko (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- SQL, why not stand yourself? GiantSnowman 13:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SQL happened in 2007, about three months after SQL's initial registration. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- D'oh! GiantSnowman 13:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- That would never happen today which perhaps is another sign our system doesn't work. As far as I can tell relatively few editors who were elected with our gentler RFA process back then have been kicked out for abusing the tools. Further proof that the fear of experienced editors abusing the tools is more of a myth than an actual problem. The actual problem lies in the admin for life mentality, the extremely difficult process for removing the tools after abuse and the tendency for the power to go to editor turned admins heads. Kumioko (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- If there was a disscussion about why oranges grow on tress and why carrots do not, you would turn it into a discussion about administrator abuse. Why don't you create a subpage in your user space (if you don't already have one) setting forth your views on the subject? Then you could just provide a link to that page in all of your responses. Think of all the keystrokes it would save.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Silence doesn't help solve the problem. You may not agree and you may be tired of hearing it but it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist nor does it make the problem just go away. That's what got us here in the first place, too many editors including me keeping their big nose out of admins business and now they are driving people off the site with alarming efficiency. The only reason I'm still here is because I can't take a hint. Kumioko (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- If there was a disscussion about why oranges grow on tress and why carrots do not, you would turn it into a discussion about administrator abuse. Why don't you create a subpage in your user space (if you don't already have one) setting forth your views on the subject? Then you could just provide a link to that page in all of your responses. Think of all the keystrokes it would save.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- That would never happen today which perhaps is another sign our system doesn't work. As far as I can tell relatively few editors who were elected with our gentler RFA process back then have been kicked out for abusing the tools. Further proof that the fear of experienced editors abusing the tools is more of a myth than an actual problem. The actual problem lies in the admin for life mentality, the extremely difficult process for removing the tools after abuse and the tendency for the power to go to editor turned admins heads. Kumioko (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- D'oh! GiantSnowman 13:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SQL happened in 2007, about three months after SQL's initial registration. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- SQL, why not stand yourself? GiantSnowman 13:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly the RFA process has been floundering for a long time. fewer and fewer admins are elected every year and more and more work is done by fewer and fewer of them. These days we generally desysop more admins due to inactivity than we promote. But then when we have an experienced editor run for it they are shot down. Its generally only the candidates that don't get involved in the day to day activities of the project and keep their heads down that get promoted. Kumioko (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes SQL, RfA is definitely not what it used to be. Once upon a time there'd be eight or so listed all at once, and a good chunk of them would be passing with flying colours. Today, there might as well be tumbleweed rolling across the screen. Kurtis (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's hardly surprising self respecting editors mostly avoid being associated with that disarray we call our admin system. It is not so much a functioning admin system as a bizairre entertainment system, presenting puzzling and wondrous performers called admins, some behaving as though they have escaped from the pages of Alice in Wonderland. Wikipedia has been deeply injured by the contempt some admins show to content builders. I thought once there might be hope, but it seems the Wikimedia Foundation is reinforcing this view that content builders are disposable. The crazed system cannot change from within, so why would any editor with the real interests of Wikipedia at heart put themselves forward in an RfA? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, all the way down to the comments about the WMF reinforcing this backwards and broken system. Kumioko (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Should we all quit, then?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good heavens no! As an act it superbly rivals Monty Python. It fails only as an administrative structure. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Besides that pretty much everyone knows that RFA is broken. The problem is the community is incapable of passing any changes that would fix it so were stuck with it. I for one hope the WMF steps in and does something. We may still not like it but something needs to be done and we have shown we can't do it. I wish we could, but that's not the case. Kumioko (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It also means that the majority of current admins could not be admins by today's criteria/process. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think that is absolutely true as well. Kumioko (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have been saying that for years. The community de-adminship Rfc in 2010 (WP:CDA) clearly showed that these very "legacy admins" who could not face an Rfa today will band together to fight any changes that are perceived as a threat to their lifetime adminship. Until Jimbo and the WMF acknowledge there is a serious problem and take corrective action to fix adminship issues, including de-adminship and Rfa, nothing is likely to change. Jusdafax 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt they'll do anything meaningful unfortunately. They'll probably just do what they've always done and blame it on the interface and insist it needs to be more like Facebook, twitter or some other stupid thing. Pretty buttons and Graphical User Interfaces aren't the problem. Its the attitude and the environment. If we can fix that, people will come back and want to edit again. But as long as the ship is steared by Beavis and Butthead they'll go play on Facebook or build up their characters on World of Warcraft instead. Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have to disagree with your characterization of WMF and Jimbo. These are people with a lot of work to do and for the most part they are doing a pretty good job, as shown by the continued popularity of the website. But there is considerable inertia at the WMF when it comes to the editing community and the way the pecking order is set up, the fear being that major change could make things worse, not better. They keep doing editor studies, but are afraid of imposing a top-down solution. And I have to agree that the precedent of a top-down solution, once established, could itself lead to a Wiki-dictatorship which would be much much worse than the semi-disfunctional state we are in today. Jusdafax 19:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt they'll do anything meaningful unfortunately. They'll probably just do what they've always done and blame it on the interface and insist it needs to be more like Facebook, twitter or some other stupid thing. Pretty buttons and Graphical User Interfaces aren't the problem. Its the attitude and the environment. If we can fix that, people will come back and want to edit again. But as long as the ship is steared by Beavis and Butthead they'll go play on Facebook or build up their characters on World of Warcraft instead. Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have been saying that for years. The community de-adminship Rfc in 2010 (WP:CDA) clearly showed that these very "legacy admins" who could not face an Rfa today will band together to fight any changes that are perceived as a threat to their lifetime adminship. Until Jimbo and the WMF acknowledge there is a serious problem and take corrective action to fix adminship issues, including de-adminship and Rfa, nothing is likely to change. Jusdafax 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think that is absolutely true as well. Kumioko (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It also means that the majority of current admins could not be admins by today's criteria/process. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Besides that pretty much everyone knows that RFA is broken. The problem is the community is incapable of passing any changes that would fix it so were stuck with it. I for one hope the WMF steps in and does something. We may still not like it but something needs to be done and we have shown we can't do it. I wish we could, but that's not the case. Kumioko (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good heavens no! As an act it superbly rivals Monty Python. It fails only as an administrative structure. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's hardly surprising self respecting editors mostly avoid being associated with that disarray we call our admin system. It is not so much a functioning admin system as a bizairre entertainment system, presenting puzzling and wondrous performers called admins, some behaving as though they have escaped from the pages of Alice in Wonderland. Wikipedia has been deeply injured by the contempt some admins show to content builders. I thought once there might be hope, but it seems the Wikimedia Foundation is reinforcing this view that content builders are disposable. The crazed system cannot change from within, so why would any editor with the real interests of Wikipedia at heart put themselves forward in an RfA? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
A different approach
Considering all the discussions of RFA woes, the failed attempts to RFC change, and the very real dynamics of the process overall, I have contemplated an approach to change that hasn't been discussed (to my knowledge) which seems reasonably feasible to me. If an RFC gained consensus to lower the threshold for success to perhaps 70% with bureaucratic discretion to perhaps 65%, I believe it would have the effect of correcting the imbalance that we currently see at RFA. I don't see this as accepting a lower caliber administrator, but rather leveling the field that is currently too vulnerable to special interest clicks. Is there any merit in pursuing this kind of change? My76Strat (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Better still to lower the threshold for success to perhaps 30% with bureaucratic discretion to perhaps 15%. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I've thought about it a lot and I'm convinced that the best 3/4 solution would be to define the criteria/ qualities required, and force all responses to be (only) ratings on those criteria, along with dialog/info supporting those ratings. This would take a whole lot of the crap and bad defacto criteria out of the system. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It would be difficult to "force all responses to be (only) ratings on those criteria" without doing censorship, but a possible variant of this approach is to define the criteria/qualities required, as you suggest, replace the Support/Oppose/Neutral sections with a single Opinions section, and allow the Crats to decide whether the opinions point to a pass or a fail, unfettered by thresholds. This would allow the community to continue researching the candidates, while greatly reducing the incentive for irrelevant comments, petty score-settling and general bitching. I also wish that we could agree to unbundle at least the user-supervision roles from the more gnomish ones. There have been at least two recent RfAs where issues related to interactions with other users prevented candidates getting tools that would have enabled them to them to do even more wonderful work, just because we didn't want them to have other tools that they didn't actually want anyway. That's a crying shame. --Stfg (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to censor, I meant that that "meeting criteria" was the format for responses. Sort of like a GA review. There is no place for entry of "the article fails because the author once did something that I didn't like". For example, if the candidate has actively made an effort to help make articles neutral, they will certainly fail RFA due to the latter. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unbundling tools/roles would also be a good move. It takes a very very special person to properly handle tough closes and blocks and locks in difficult situations. When discussions on changes to the admin role or RFA process happen, we must recognize that current admins have a COI, being already a member of the now-exclusive group, being 99.99% immune to review (the .01% being the unavoidably obvious most eggregious cases) and already having all of the tools. I think that this is a part of what has prevented changes. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I also agree that unbundling would be the optimum solution and many others feel this way as well. Unfortunately this has been brought up many times and it has repeatedly failed because too many have a vested interest in keeping the system the way it is. Unfortunately I think the only way this is going to get fixed is if we put some pressure on the WMF to fix it. As I mentioned before it may not be the perfect solution and we may not like it (in fact its likely) but at this point its the only hope for any change at all. If the community cannot come to a consensus on making some meaningful change of the RFA process when virtually everyone agrees its a problem, then its time for the democracy of it to end and someone will need to make a decision. There are several things that can be unbundled with little to no impact (API High limit (allows more than 25, 000 articles to be pulled into AWB), view deleted content, view maintenance reports that are currently protected (such as unwatched pages), allow editing of protected template, Mediawiki pages or Module namespace (these could and probably should be different permissions), etc. Kumioko (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer the idea of upbundling the truly contentious stuff to crats rather than just unbundling. But there are some changes to the sets of tools that would be useful. However I'd challenge the hyperbole of 99.99% being immune to review. Historically we have run at close to 1% deadminship per annum if you include resigning under a cloud. Now not all of those deadminships were the right ones, and having an effective system to remove bad admins doesn't help you in cases where no one thinks that admin quite bad enough to start a process against them. But if we've desysopped a lot more than 1% of admins over the years then 0.01% is out by orders of magnitude. especially if the great majority of active admins are uncontentious users of the tools. ϢereSpielChequers 13:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- The truth is that most admins don't use the tools at all. There are about 650 admins but its the same 30 or so that do 90% of the admin work. Then you factor in that a big chunk of those 650 haven't editing in months (and that number is climbing), then factor in that we have more admin work (CCI, Vandalism, edits to protected content, more content being protected, etc.) the end is that fewer admins means higher stress for the ones that do use the tools. Its no wonder they start getting callous and power hungry. What we need to do is load balance the work. There are quite a few of us that would do it if we could, but we can't so frankly I don't bother with most of it. I can't edit though protected content so why bother even looking for problems with it. I have to wait upwards of a week just to get an edit to a protected template. Then I get told I can't be trusted and have to explain to some of the admins how to do the change because they don't know. Then I have to ask for someone to do a list compare in AWB of the WikiProject US articles because I can't pull in groups of more than 25, 000. Then when I am reviewing an arbcom case I have to ask for someone to make deleted content visible so I can see it. The list goes on. So in the end I/we get the attitude well my edits aren't wanted or needed so we just leave. Sometimes we come back, often we don't. Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- You make a good case as to why we need more admins. Though as a member of the long tail I would say don't ignore the other 620 of us. A small number of admins do 90% of admin actions, but some actions take more time than others, and some admin actions don't get logged as such. The rest of us do a useful amount of work, and someone who may be lightly active one month can be more active at another time. ϢereSpielChequers 14:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- The truth is that most admins don't use the tools at all. There are about 650 admins but its the same 30 or so that do 90% of the admin work. Then you factor in that a big chunk of those 650 haven't editing in months (and that number is climbing), then factor in that we have more admin work (CCI, Vandalism, edits to protected content, more content being protected, etc.) the end is that fewer admins means higher stress for the ones that do use the tools. Its no wonder they start getting callous and power hungry. What we need to do is load balance the work. There are quite a few of us that would do it if we could, but we can't so frankly I don't bother with most of it. I can't edit though protected content so why bother even looking for problems with it. I have to wait upwards of a week just to get an edit to a protected template. Then I get told I can't be trusted and have to explain to some of the admins how to do the change because they don't know. Then I have to ask for someone to do a list compare in AWB of the WikiProject US articles because I can't pull in groups of more than 25, 000. Then when I am reviewing an arbcom case I have to ask for someone to make deleted content visible so I can see it. The list goes on. So in the end I/we get the attitude well my edits aren't wanted or needed so we just leave. Sometimes we come back, often we don't. Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer the idea of upbundling the truly contentious stuff to crats rather than just unbundling. But there are some changes to the sets of tools that would be useful. However I'd challenge the hyperbole of 99.99% being immune to review. Historically we have run at close to 1% deadminship per annum if you include resigning under a cloud. Now not all of those deadminships were the right ones, and having an effective system to remove bad admins doesn't help you in cases where no one thinks that admin quite bad enough to start a process against them. But if we've desysopped a lot more than 1% of admins over the years then 0.01% is out by orders of magnitude. especially if the great majority of active admins are uncontentious users of the tools. ϢereSpielChequers 13:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the Wikipedia system isn't a democracy, it's a more complex and fuzzy system that works about 90% of the time and fails about 10% of the time. Larger scale and more complex situations generally fall into the "10%" and this situation is both. The other way that could work would be for 5-10 people to draft something that sounds reasonably good and agree ahead of time to all stick with and promote whatever they come up with. This would use a flaw in the system (that a small group of active wiki-savvy people working in unison can pretty much do anything in Wikipedia) to the advantage of Wikipedia. Wanna test my theory? North8000 (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest I'll support even a bad idea at this point. Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, we need at least a few more people. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are plenty out there. Dank just spent months doing RFC's to change the RFA process. He might be a good place to start. Kumioko (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why would we want a situation in which a minority of people can cause something to happen? Minorities can prevent things, but that's a lot better than them causing them. Perhaps we could cut the minimum for bureaucrat's discretion down to 50%+1 support? It seems that most RFAs get a few supports, and we don't want a blatantly NOTNOW case (e.g. registered last week, or blocked recently for copyvios) to get through, but the borderline cases are just about always past 50%. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Nyttend, it's nothing new/radical. That's how most things are determined in Wikipedia. But the direct answer is: because this has a good chance of working and nothing else has. Finally, why not join the party? North8000 (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Where in Wikipedia do we permit minorities to make the decisions? We routinely permit them to prevent decisions, e.g. when someone gets 55% support at RFA and is judged not to have passed, and that's fine. I'm questioning the idea of saying that there's actively consensus to do something that receives majority opposition. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It happens all the time when the developers implement a change none of us want (like killing the Orange Bar of Doom or forcing us to use the new notication piece of crap they can't get to work). It happens all the time when admins vote on various things. The rest of the community is often ignored or excluded completely. Kumioko (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Where in Wikipedia do we permit minorities to make the decisions? We routinely permit them to prevent decisions, e.g. when someone gets 55% support at RFA and is judged not to have passed, and that's fine. I'm questioning the idea of saying that there's actively consensus to do something that receives majority opposition. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why tinker so pointlessly with things the way they are? We already have a vast body of admins, far in excess of what is actually needed. It's just that most of the admins are not and never were really qualified to do the jobs they have been given the rights to do. And to aggravate things, we have appointed them for life. It is the structure of the system itself that needs changing. Such as giving every individual admin in this vast body the independent authority to block any content builder they chose, even though the majority of admins have little experience with content building. Or such as having, as we do at present, a huge group of these life appointees who do little or nothing of administrative value, like doddery old members of the House of Lords, yet can appear out of the woodwork at unpredictable moments and insult some content builder they don't like, knowing they can do so with immunity. Or the dozen or so other seriously dysfunctional aspects of the current admin structure that incumbundant admins resolutley refuse, as a group, to acknowledge. We don't need yet more admins reinforcing the way we already do things. That is not a solution but an intensified problem. Pumping up the existing system with yet more admins will just make the current mess a bigger mess. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC) (On second thoughts, perhaps that is the best way to go. Then we would finally have to do something sensible --Epipelagic (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC))
- Why does it matter whether or not we "need" more sysops? When did becoming a sysop become more about needing the tools and less about being proven to be trustworthy with them? TCN7JM 21:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- TCN7JM pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. It should be a matter of trust, not need. With regards to some major change proposal, I guess it's worth a try, but I've got no confidence that it would have a chance. AutomaticStrikeout ? 21:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's never been about being "proven to be trustworthy". That's just another admin myth, like the idea that there is a "community consensus" on RfAs. Some admins seem to preen themselves because they have been "proven to be trustworthy", but all they mean is that they once passed an RfA. Passing an RfA means getting general acceptance from admins, admin wannabes and other habituates of the drama boards. Very few outright content builders seem to come near these boards, and certainly not in numbers that can influence outcomes. The closing decision is invariably made, yet again, by an admin. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was speaking of how it should be, not how it is. If it was always a matter of trust and nothing more, RfA wouldn't be what it is today. AutomaticStrikeout ? 21:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's never been about being "proven to be trustworthy". That's just another admin myth, like the idea that there is a "community consensus" on RfAs. Some admins seem to preen themselves because they have been "proven to be trustworthy", but all they mean is that they once passed an RfA. Passing an RfA means getting general acceptance from admins, admin wannabes and other habituates of the drama boards. Very few outright content builders seem to come near these boards, and certainly not in numbers that can influence outcomes. The closing decision is invariably made, yet again, by an admin. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- TCN7JM pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. It should be a matter of trust, not need. With regards to some major change proposal, I guess it's worth a try, but I've got no confidence that it would have a chance. AutomaticStrikeout ? 21:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why does it matter whether or not we "need" more sysops? When did becoming a sysop become more about needing the tools and less about being proven to be trustworthy with them? TCN7JM 21:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are plenty out there. Dank just spent months doing RFC's to change the RFA process. He might be a good place to start. Kumioko (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, we need at least a few more people. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest I'll support even a bad idea at this point. Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- The current system is, of course, functional to some measure. The mere fact that a system exists at all means that it must function to some degree. Instead of dropping the acceptance level at RfAs to 30% or 50% as suggested above, here is much more straightforward and drama free approach, and an approach which will have outcomes even more favourable than our existing practices. Let us have a lottery every two days, where all registered editors who are not admins are entered by default. The successful entrant, selected by some random process, will then be crowned as admin for life, and can celebrate the success by randomly insulting and blocking an able content builder who is not an admin. This process will select by chance, from time to time, an admin who actually does have clue, and will work hard trying to make the project succeed. Admin moral will be at an all time high. The rest of the incumbents can have fun jerking round the content builders who aren't admins, knowing that they have security of tenure and immunity from sanctions so long as they do nothing that might weaken existing admin powers. No different from the present system really, but merely ensuring through sheer numbers that the necessary admin work actually gets done, and again ensuring through sheers numbers, that a significant proportion of Wikipedia users have fun, even if the effects on the non admins are rather, well, unfortunate. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- At this point, it's becoming impossible to take anything you say seriously. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But how is the present system any less crazy? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- At this point, it's becoming impossible to take anything you say seriously. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I also agree that unbundling would be the optimum solution and many others feel this way as well. Unfortunately this has been brought up many times and it has repeatedly failed because too many have a vested interest in keeping the system the way it is. Unfortunately I think the only way this is going to get fixed is if we put some pressure on the WMF to fix it. As I mentioned before it may not be the perfect solution and we may not like it (in fact its likely) but at this point its the only hope for any change at all. If the community cannot come to a consensus on making some meaningful change of the RFA process when virtually everyone agrees its a problem, then its time for the democracy of it to end and someone will need to make a decision. There are several things that can be unbundled with little to no impact (API High limit (allows more than 25, 000 articles to be pulled into AWB), view deleted content, view maintenance reports that are currently protected (such as unwatched pages), allow editing of protected template, Mediawiki pages or Module namespace (these could and probably should be different permissions), etc. Kumioko (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unbundling tools/roles would also be a good move. It takes a very very special person to properly handle tough closes and blocks and locks in difficult situations. When discussions on changes to the admin role or RFA process happen, we must recognize that current admins have a COI, being already a member of the now-exclusive group, being 99.99% immune to review (the .01% being the unavoidably obvious most eggregious cases) and already having all of the tools. I think that this is a part of what has prevented changes. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to censor, I meant that that "meeting criteria" was the format for responses. Sort of like a GA review. There is no place for entry of "the article fails because the author once did something that I didn't like". For example, if the candidate has actively made an effort to help make articles neutral, they will certainly fail RFA due to the latter. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with so much of what is being said above. And I've see other good ideas fail. I've tried WMF pressure, and will again I'm sure, but I was hoping some discussion would relate to the question I raised in good faith. I believe if all we were changing through an RFC was the success threshold, and that change was reasonable, we could see an RFC gain consensus. My belief is that doing it correctly and getting it done could correct the imbalance that has trended RFA for the past 3 years or more. There are some great editors like Kumioko and good ones like me who will never be able to generate +80% support; which is fine with me. If some of these became admins because consensus, or a WMF directive, caused a reduced threshold that made RFA success more viable, we would see much of the RFA fix that so many says that we need. I promise you I could list 10 of my opposes prior to transcluding it, and probably be right; to include that Ironholds would probably append his opposition within the first 5 minutes after transcluding it. But of course that is a battleground mentality so you better not say such a thing. And you better not address an oppose vote, even if it's untrue, because that draws more pile on opposition. The discussion about an inappropriate RFA question at the Bureaucrats noticeboard is pathetic bullshit because every single person who has commented there knows that the most inappropriate RFA questions are always raised by someone in the opposing section; nothing asked as an additional question has ever come close; and you are allowed to answer them. But the real bad ones; that tank a candidates chances are veiled as an oppose comment; and these you better not address. So I've rambled once again, said my piece—expecting nothing to change; and most of my angst is because I can't even ask a question about RFA, and see it considered. But I do expect to garner a fair share of criticism for things I said in this post. Especially the bad faith I displayed in mentioning Ironholds. Hey, I got to do something to get attention around here. Oh yeah, if you get a chance perhaps answer my original question in this thread. My76Strat (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I support the 50%+1 support idea mentioned above. TCN7JM 22:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'd also support lowering the threshold. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)