Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs) →Additional questions: Just because you're paranoid... |
Bob the Wikipedian (talk | contribs) →Additional questions: warm and fuzzy |
||
Line 1,025: | Line 1,025: | ||
:I agree that it would be courteous to notify the candidate, although it's not entirely necessary. Keeping an eye on your request shows more competence than assuming it's finished and leaving it be for the rest of the week. Since I didn't want to clog up my watchlist, I've been watching my own request like a hawk with the help of an RSS feed. Go to the history page and subscribe to the feed there. You should be updated every time that page is modified. [[User:Bob the Wikipedian|Bob the Wikipedian]] <sup>([[User talk:Bob the Wikipedian|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bob the Wikipedian|contribs]]) </sup> 19:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC) |
:I agree that it would be courteous to notify the candidate, although it's not entirely necessary. Keeping an eye on your request shows more competence than assuming it's finished and leaving it be for the rest of the week. Since I didn't want to clog up my watchlist, I've been watching my own request like a hawk with the help of an RSS feed. Go to the history page and subscribe to the feed there. You should be updated every time that page is modified. [[User:Bob the Wikipedian|Bob the Wikipedian]] <sup>([[User talk:Bob the Wikipedian|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bob the Wikipedian|contribs]]) </sup> 19:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Agreed. I think that nervous paranoia is the generally assumed behavior, so it usually gets taken care off on its own. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|user]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|contribs]])''</small></font> 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC) |
::Agreed. I think that nervous paranoia is the generally assumed behavior, so it usually gets taken care off on its own. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|user]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|contribs]])''</small></font> 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Ha, the nervousness was my first reaction, but after about the first four supports I realized I stood a good enough chance I had no reason to be nervous. Now I've been reading the results as they come in simply because they make me feel warm and fuzzy inside. [[User:Bob the Wikipedian|Bob the Wikipedian]] <sup>([[User talk:Bob the Wikipedian|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bob the Wikipedian|contribs]]) </sup> 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:54, 22 September 2009
|
Current time: 07:38:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page
A philosophical discussion
Out of all the privileges exclusive to administratorship, which one would you be willing to spin off into an individual privilege granted at Requests for Permissions? I think it would make sense to couple rollbacker with semi-protection. @harej 19:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd quite like to have the ability to grant autoreviewer status, and I'm sure most of the admins who hang around IRC would agree with me there. I keep having to bug them to grant promising content creators the right, and it's save a lot of time for everyone. Ironholds (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Meh...I'll probably be alone in this, but I'd really like the idea of users being to able to see (not undelete) previously deleted articles. This way, we wouldn't have to repeatedly ask administators to temporarily undelete them or copy the entire text. This would also really help at UAA :) Cheers, I'mperator 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd grant the privilege to be taken seriously. Admins have unfair weight in discussions that have nothing to do with the use of admin tools. A close second would be a working understanding of IAR, but then I wake up and realize that most admins probably haven't got that. ;) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Of all the privileges, this is the one least likely to ever be spun out, as the Foundation's lawyer has said if it was done, the Board would step in and overrule the community. MBisanz talk 20:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Meh...I'll probably be alone in this, but I'd really like the idea of users being to able to see (not undelete) previously deleted articles. This way, we wouldn't have to repeatedly ask administators to temporarily undelete them or copy the entire text. This would also really help at UAA :) Cheers, I'mperator 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to see the move-subpages or noratelimit aspects spun out at some point, also probably editinterface and when it is turned on, movefile. MBisanz talk 20:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Movefile, semiprot (useful for vandal patrollers, as long as they are limited to doing e.g. a 12h or 24h semiprot only--can that be limited programmatically?), edit-through-fullprot (perhaps with a caveat: misuse it once and you never get it back). Definitely not viewdeleted, per Mbisanz above and Godwin's comments on the matter. → ROUX ₪ 20:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fascinating Roux. So I am better "qualified" to look at deleted pages than you? What makes me so special exactly? Pedro : Chat 20:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Lots of people use quotation marks to indicate a word being quoted. Since Roux said nothing about "qualified", it's interesting that you express it that way. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fascinating Roux. So I am better "qualified" to look at deleted pages than you? What makes me so special exactly? Pedro : Chat 20:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreeing with Matt, and ImperatorExercitus - the ability to view deleted pages would be an ideal unbundle. However, "apparently" RFA somehow qualifies people to view extreme libel, attacks etc. wheras just editing here does not. It is ever so slightly surreal that the foundation would, and Matt is right - they would-, make sure that non-admins could not view deleted pages - yet every admin can - despite most admins being anonymous usernames and little more when it come to the eyes of the law. Odd. Pedro : Chat 20:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Odd, yes, but I'm not sure anyone has ever explicitly claimed that admins are more qualified, or that anyone even had that thought in mind. It seems more to me as if the cookie crumbled that way, and here we are. That it doesn't make much sense is simply an indication that we're still humans, living on Earth. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- As I noted on your talk, a remark in quotes does not have to mean litteral quotation. I'm using them to make apprximation or to add a proxy voice. Please - this thread is marked "philosophical" (to use quotes per that convention) and thus to take second or third voice is perfectly normal. I'm sure if this were a spoken conversation the ill-will would not be here. Pedro : Chat 21:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- There's no ill-will. Were this a spoken conversation, that would be clear. Also, the remark to which you've replied just here had nothing to do with quotation marks. I'm neither upset nor offended in the least. I'm raising another glass to you now. Ahem... everyone: To Pedro's health. This being a philosophical conversation, drink! :D
Regarding the history of admin privileges, I am pretty sure that nobody ever explicitly decided "admins are qualified to see deleted pages, and others aren't". I think it's more an artifact of a lot of decisions that were made whenever. Again, cheers. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have to inteject here... I do believe that on previous discussions on this peren debate we raised the question of viewing deleted pages. And apparently, somebody, I want to say
Useeight(?)Mbiz talked to one of the Wikifoundation lawyers or quoted a wiki foundation lawyer, wherein the position of the Wikifoundation was that they wanted to keep viewing of deleted pages in the hands of Admins only. Apparently there was an expression of concern related to privacy, copy vios, etc. and that from a foundational level, it was easier to justify the keeping of these records if they could show fewer people had access to them and that those people were "admins." In short, in a past discussions, the unbundling of the ability to review deleted content was killed from powers on high. While you and I may see it as the easiest to spin out, it is actually one of the least likely to be done.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have to inteject here... I do believe that on previous discussions on this peren debate we raised the question of viewing deleted pages. And apparently, somebody, I want to say
- There's no ill-will. Were this a spoken conversation, that would be clear. Also, the remark to which you've replied just here had nothing to do with quotation marks. I'm neither upset nor offended in the least. I'm raising another glass to you now. Ahem... everyone: To Pedro's health. This being a philosophical conversation, drink! :D
- As I noted on your talk, a remark in quotes does not have to mean litteral quotation. I'm using them to make apprximation or to add a proxy voice. Please - this thread is marked "philosophical" (to use quotes per that convention) and thus to take second or third voice is perfectly normal. I'm sure if this were a spoken conversation the ill-will would not be here. Pedro : Chat 21:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- However, "apparently" RFA somehow qualifies people to view extreme libel, attacks etc. wheras just editing here does not. This is perfectly understandable. The foundation isn't saying that it makes one magically qualified, but it is an effort to show some sort of control/limitation on what people can/cannot do. In my profession, I've learned you often put controls in place as CYA's sometimes knowing that it isn't the perfect option. This is the type of control that the foundation can use to say, "We don't let just anybody see them... look at our RfA process and how many people fail. This is a volunteer project, but we have controls in place to prevent abuse." It says nothing about the people who have the tool, it just says, "we (the foundation) did something."---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Odd, yes, but I'm not sure anyone has ever explicitly claimed that admins are more qualified, or that anyone even had that thought in mind. It seems more to me as if the cookie crumbled that way, and here we are. That it doesn't make much sense is simply an indication that we're still humans, living on Earth. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think many current features would be suitable to be unbundled, but there are some things that could be useful to non-admins (eg. semiprotect for short periods of time, delete pages in own userspace, etc.) –Juliancolton | Talk 20:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I particularly like that second example. Does the technical ability exist to create such a privilege? Timmeh (review me) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Aye, that is a good one. I see no reason to oppose it. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- IIRC, there was a discussion about that several months ago, but obviously it didn't go anywhere. I expect that nearly any conceivable feature is technically feasible. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not as if it's difficult for non-admins to get user-space pages deleted at will. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- True, but it would still be more convenient. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not as if it's difficult for non-admins to get user-space pages deleted at will. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I particularly like that second example. Does the technical ability exist to create such a privilege? Timmeh (review me) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Ability to read deleted edits would be useful. It's the one reason I never got many other admins to retire voluntarily. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to bundle more things with rollbacker, you might as well do away with administrator entirely. I fail to understand what problem this is solving, and I fail to understand how this isn't addressed by Wikipedia:PEREN#Hierarchical_structures. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Philosophical discussions" are often not geared towards solving any particular real-world problems. Nevertheless, they may give rise (unexpectedly?) to good ideas. No harm in a little chat, eh? We spend so much time here being serious as nails... why not blow some bubbles? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Because this talk page is not for philosophical discussions, it's for ways to improve the RfA page only. You could try village pump, but even there "lowing bubbles" is not a good thing. Why not do some gnoming instead? 87.115.88.250 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, the wiki works in mysterious ways. Asking people to stop discussing something seldom results in much progress. I'll keep my own counsel on the value of bubbles; thanks. I mean, who is prepared to say that no good idea on this site ever arose from a seemingly pointless discussion? Not I. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Because this talk page is not for philosophical discussions, it's for ways to improve the RfA page only. You could try village pump, but even there "lowing bubbles" is not a good thing. Why not do some gnoming instead? 87.115.88.250 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Special:UnwatchedPages viewability could be granted to proven non vandals. If there was finer grained control on the mediawiki interface pages or edit protected then more trusted users could be allowed to edit those, for example spam blocking or including requested edits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I can see it, so I guess they have... Unless they only let checkusers see it? (which makes no sense) J.delanoygabsadds 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm an admin, and I can see it, but I'm no checkuser. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know, it's always been available to admins. I remember looking at it in my first week of being an admin, which was almost a year and a half ago. (X! · talk) · @995 · 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- You can see the first 1000 or so entries. Try looking at pages starting with anything further down the alphabet than "C". – iridescent 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- If more people put them on their watch lists, we could get it down the alphabet further.. Particularly if we have enthusiasts who liked big watch lists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- You can see the first 1000 or so entries. Try looking at pages starting with anything further down the alphabet than "C". – iridescent 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know, it's always been available to admins. I remember looking at it in my first week of being an admin, which was almost a year and a half ago. (X! · talk) · @995 · 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm an admin, and I can see it, but I'm no checkuser. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I can see it, so I guess they have... Unless they only let checkusers see it? (which makes no sense) J.delanoygabsadds 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: The admin role as such is pretty much obsoleted as is anyway. It might be handier to give the diverse tools to diverse specialists, as needed. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're the first really to make a "philosophical" point and it's a good one, though the problem may be how to put it into practice. Surely not RfBlocker, RfAfDcloser, RfPagedeleter... Dean B (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- @Kim: Good suggestion, however, the problem remains-How to prevent the pyromaniacs from getting the keys to the drawer with the matches...and how to quickly take those keys away should they gain access to them anyway.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can ask, fairly easily, for an admin to do anything I need done, except tell me what's in deleted edits. There are times when that would be quite useful to a non-admin, especially when working on sockpuppetry, or at the help desk when someone asks "why was my article deleted?", or when trying to decide if someone was AIV-worthy or not. Unlike most of the other tools, it is harmless to give it to someone trustworthy, but not necessarily very active or highly experienced in "admin-related areas". If any one tool was unbundled, speaking only for myself, I'd want it to be viewing deleted edits. Ironically (Alanis Morisette "irony", not irony "irony"), however, that's the one tool that someone nefarious could most easily damage other people with, so it's the one tool I'd never want to be handed out without a decent level of user review. As Pedro (I think) mentions above, it's not like passing an RFA is a great indicator of trustworthiness, but it's better than nothing. If it ever was unbundled, you'd have to have an RFA-type screening process for it, rather than a PERM-type one, or handing it out with rollbacker. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- If it required a screening process not unlike RFA, I think we're best off leaving it for RFA. @harej 00:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, I meant to end with that. I agree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- If it required a screening process not unlike RFA, I think we're best off leaving it for RFA. @harej 00:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Editprotected, imo. there was a proposal to spin it out but it died quickly when it was splintered across various mutually exclusive (and non-mutually exclusive) options. I would back another proposal to spin that right out again, provided it didn't require an RfA style confirmation. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've never understood why moving a page over a redirect that only has minor history is an admin-only task, other than that it technically involves deletion. That could very well be enabled for non-admins as well in my opinion. (With minor history I mean pointing the redirect to another target and adding categories to it.) Jafeluv (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think the issue is that the system has a hard time distinguishing between minor and major histories. It doesn't keep a count of the number of revisions until after the deletion process is started, which is why even with the BigDelete restriction, admins can sometimes trick the system into letting them delete pages with more than 5,000 revisions. This would in theory become a larger liability if more non-admins could trick the system in a similar manner. MBisanz talk 05:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that blocking should be spun off for highly trusted users. More specifically, blocking limited to, say, a 3 month time limit, and any longer would require an administrator to block. Until It Sleeps Wake me 06:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blocking is really the only feature I'd specifically object to unbundling. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that viewing deleted material would the feature that I wouldn't want unbundled, due to whatever legal ramifications that can occur. Until It Sleeps 23:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Requesting contents of deleted pages
Looks like some good did come out of this discussion. Non-admins, please enjoy Wikipedia:Requesting contents of deleted pages. @harej 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is this the first useful outcome, ever, from a WT:RFA discussion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please see WP:REFUND. Protonk (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- This would only be for the contents, not for wholesale undeletion. @harej 01:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Take a loot at the requests handled there. REFUND does anything with respect to deleted content that doesn't need a DRV. It's basically a noticeboard for Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Protonk (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let's redirect it, then. @harej 01:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why would someone redirect an active noticeboard, where people interact in a centralized venue, to a Category? That makes very little sense to me. I would add that WP:REFUND is the most cleverly named shortcut I've seen in some time. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- ...because people have spent or invested time into making an article, and want a refund or their article back. It is very clever. :) – B.hotep •talk• 08:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why would someone redirect an active noticeboard, where people interact in a centralized venue, to a Category? That makes very little sense to me. I would add that WP:REFUND is the most cleverly named shortcut I've seen in some time. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let's redirect it, then. @harej 01:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Take a loot at the requests handled there. REFUND does anything with respect to deleted content that doesn't need a DRV. It's basically a noticeboard for Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Protonk (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- This would only be for the contents, not for wholesale undeletion. @harej 01:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That's kind of nice. Sometimes for investigations, it helps to discretely review controversial deleted edits too. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A level of trust
Are there differing levels of trust? I would suspect the answer is "yes" based on the fact that we have rollbacker and other such lower-standards positions with tools. To this I must ask the question, "what levels are these"? I ask on a philosophical level, not simply that of looking for the answer of "oh, these rights and these rights make one level".
To answer that question myself in the specific sense I noted, I have to say that the level of trust I would have would be to trust people who have demonstrated ability in a certain work-role on the wiki. This was mentioned earlier by Kim Bruning, but I'd like to ask the question rather than pose the observation. Who, and in what circumstances, would you trust a certain right to a user?
Perhaps a second(ary) question (or expansion, after reading the paragraph) I would pose is, why does the mentality exist (as exhibited by harej replying to floquebeam) that "we shouldn't produce more processes to judge the different levels of trust"? Simply bureaucracy? I hope not; we should be employing as many people as we can in as many different areas as they possibly can aid in. Further, it's a poor argument. For example, User:Example is someone who understands the protection policy fairly well, and has been known to request protection frequently. Would it be appropriate for him to be handed the tools for deletion or blocking? Again, this comes to an issue of trust; is it possible that I may trust him enough to allow Example to protect articles but not to delete articles? Why, of course it's possible that this is true! and in fact, we see these same concerns (sometimes as supports and sometimes as opposes) pop up on many-an-RFA.
I was just a-pondering. --Izno (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. But there is no defined standards for each level. There are many ways to become viewed as untrustworthy, and many ways to become trustworthy. Of those who are trusted, that's really the only level. However, if someone who is trusted finds that they would like to do more maintenance around here, we consider them for administrator, which is essentially someone who is trusted, with a demonstrated track record. What qualifies someone for administrator depends entirely on the RfA voters who are active at that moment in time. After adminship, it is really just a matter of how many people you miss off with the mop that prevents you from climbing any higher in the "ranks". Hiberniantears (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ironically, actually taking ones responsibility as an admin seriously is a good way to make many people angry. This is because some admin actions lead to there being winners and losers, and not all losers are sporting about it. If you're active enough, or you are an admin for long enough, it starts to add up. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, it can get a bit hairy after a bit - you do your best, but the losers in a decision will treat you as an enemy or an automaton, and drag you through the mud for it. I once had a chap whose page I'd deleted drag me straight to RfArb for doing so. Non-admins so often forget that admins are just people trying to help out as well. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ironically, actually taking ones responsibility as an admin seriously is a good way to make many people angry. This is because some admin actions lead to there being winners and losers, and not all losers are sporting about it. If you're active enough, or you are an admin for long enough, it starts to add up. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Responding to comments scattered through this section ... Flagged Protection will be here shortly, and requires a new trusted position called "reviewers", and I don't think the decision has been made how to select reviewers, someone correct me if I'm wrong. As was mentioned above, the ability to see deleted material would be helpful for a variety of non-admins, but I don't personally think we'd want to handle that at WP:PERM, and even if I did think that, I have a feeling the lawyers would overrule us on this one ... OTRS problems are often handled by deleting material, and if untrustworthy people could see the material, that would mean that the usual legal solution to these problems would be no solution at all. So then the question is: has RFA improved over the last couple of years? If both successful and unsuccessful RFAs have generally led to fewer hurtful comments and hurt feelings, better communication and more useful work getting done for the project, and if enough people are willing to volunteer some extra time for a new process, then for me, an RFA-like process for "reviewership" and the ability to see deleted pages (and maybe we could unbundle other admin privileges) wouldn't be unthinkable ... I'm not saying "yes yes", I'm saying "I don't know, I'd be willing to try". I continue to believe that the biggest current failing of RFA is how we treat unsuccessful candidates ... we don't give them a clear enough idea of what they need to do and how long they need to do it in order to pass a future RFA, and we don't give them much feedback after the RFA, not as a community and often not at all. If we could fix that, I'd feel pretty good about RFA and about a possible new RFA-like process. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you read the 2 comments right above your own, and then think on the consequences for a moment, you will find that an RFA-like process culls not only the incompetent, but also the most competent. This alone shows that it might not be the greatest idea.
- More importantly, RFA has taken 8 years to obtain our current number of admins. Now, depending on what form of flagged revisions we use, we will need to hand out a fairly large number of reviewer flags (more reviewers than we have admins, I think), and we will need them in a very short time frame. Do you think an RFA-style process will work, at this time? :)
- That brings us to one of the big motivations for unbundling. It would be very useful for more people to have least some of the tools on-hand. If we can make more of the tools not-a-big-deal to have, people who need those tools will be able to avoid the overhead and drama imposed by RFA. Instead, they can quietly get on with the task of improving the encyclopedia.
- --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have an example of a "most competent" editor who was culled by RFA? - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can up with several, but are you going to then argue that "hey, they were rejected by the community", or "well, they clearly did nasty things x, y, z" (where x,y,z would be admin-like actions) ? --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wishful thinking. Anyone can watch BLPs and "quietly get on with it" (Monty Python fans, anybody?) right now, with or without FR and without any tools. Bundling shmundling does not make a slightest difference. NVO (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- And you're telling me that? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have an example of a "most competent" editor who was culled by RFA? - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- We should let "reviewership" evolve on its own rather than following the RfA model. Let it start simple, be able to learn and discover its own sets of problems and to allow the community adapt to it, rather than pouring politics down right at the beginning. Requests for rollback and even CUOS has went surprisingly well in this regard. - Mailer Diablo 00:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- tl:dr - rollbackers need *less* trust, because rollbacking is clearly defined and it's easy (and usually not controversial) to remove rollback, and rollback can be got again. It'd be great if all admin actions could be unbundled in a similar way; clear definitions of acceptable use, easy to grant, easy to remove, easy to re-gain. 87.115.88.250 (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
A fork in the road
There are several big questions floating around ... how to ensure that Assistants get sufficient RFA-style feedback and sufficient oversight by coaches, what subset of the tools to give them, and how high to set the bar. (A major problem is the objection of the WMF lawyer and others that there should be a fairly high bar to clear before someone can see deleted material.) But putting those aside for a second, imagine that we succeed in creating some kind of Assistant role, carrying some or all of the tools; then either the tools expire automatically in 3 to 6 months unless the Assistant does an RFA, or they are automatically granted admin status by applying 3 to 6 months later if their tools haven't been removed. To maximize the chances of success, it would be a good idea to figure out which way we're pushing. Feel free to add pros and cons:
Convert automatically to adminship after 3 to 6 months if the Assistantship tools aren't removed:
- Pro: This year, Arbcom has been more than willing to desysop admins for misuse of tools (the recent WMC-Abd case is a clear example), but not everyone has gotten the message yet. If the community gave Arbcom clear guidelines for what should trigger a fast-track tool removal of whatever tools we give Assistants, not only would it get the people who know best (Arbcom) involved with tool removal, it would allow Arbcom to better get their message out about what kind of tool misuse can get any admin into trouble.
- Pro: A lot of people don't prepare for and run for RFA because they think it's too hard to pass, and they're wrong, they could make it with a little effort. One option is to do a single RFA with 3 options (fail, promote to Assistant, promote to admin), which would give us some "accidental" admins from candidates who thought they were running for Assistantship. Sometimes the voters really like modesty.
- Con: If the tools don't get removed for misuse in cases where the community would have wanted the tools to be removed, There Will Be Blood, so there has to be a lot of communication between Arbcom, RFA voters and candidates for this to work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Tools expire automatically unless candidate does a normal RFA:
- Con: We'd need a second RFA-like process to promote an Assistant to adminship. Twice as much work, more opportunity for things to go wrong.
- Pro: OTOH, the lack of RFA-style input before a candidate gets to RFA is a big part of what's wrong now, and maybe this would provide that input. Also, until the community feels sure-footed with this new process, it might be a good idea to force the community to do it twice, so that everyone can check their own assumptions ... "Oh, I was worried about X the first time around, but now I see I shouldn't have worried" ... or "I told you guys this would be a problem, and no one listened to me ... see, I was right".
- Pro: The people who oppose at RFA don't generally get off on opposing, they have legitimate concerns. Most of them would be happier if they weren't forced into the bad-guy role, and the candidate would be happier to get the same advice with a Support vote. The lower standards (lower tool-expertise standards, not lower standards for honesty, civility and trustworthiness) at RF-Assistantship would allow a greater percentage of voters to shift to Support, and the training during the Assistantship period would both prepare the Assistants to pass RFA and warn them if they're not going to pass. Happier candidates, happier voters. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The first option seems more problematic to me. For one, as you mention, should something go awry there will be hell to pay, and all it will take is a single "oops" to throw the entire process into disarray. Regardless of that happening, I still have a feeling that the intial review process will quickly evolve into what RfA is now; the community will want to retain a certain "gatekeeper" status on the entry to the Admin pool. Knowing that passing a candidate for "Assistantship" means future decisions are out of their control, the community will almost invariably tighten their control on that first review and turn it in to a mirror of the current RfA - and who would want to subject themselves to the rigors of RfA for a kind of admin-lite?
- I understand that option two introduces a double-review process: once to become an "Assistant" and once to become an administrator. This shouldn't necessarily mean a much higher workload. The second review need not be an onerous affair. Questions of trust and the like can be dealt with up front, while the second review need only ask the question "Has this candidate used the temporary mop wisely?" There should be no need for a cavalcade of questions covering hypotheticals. The second review should be a much more straightforward affair, a simple yes-or-no kind of situation. Shereth 16:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Some have said in the past that they could never support 2 review processes, although we haven't heard from them recently; also, I'm curious about whether this is something Arbcom might want to do for reasons of their own. For myself, I agree with everything you just said. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether we have one or two elective reviews, I really like your idea of the third possible rfa result: "promote to assistant". Assuming we're able to build a convincing case that we have an urgent problem , we can combine this nicely with the threshold lowering suggestion WSC and SPhilbrick have been advocating. That is , at the crats discretion a % slightly below the current norm will now be a pass if it's a long term editor, or coaching offer for a fairly new editor. E.g.
+> 70% generally an automatic pass
60 – 70% typically an offer of coaching for a new editor , or a regular promotion for a new editor.
< 60% generally a fail.
This takes into account the fact that established editors have a lot to offer, likely have less need & desire for coaching , and are more likely to narrowly fall below the pass threshold due to the grudge factor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Initial reaction: that can't possibly work, because sometimes the issue at RFA is trustworthiness, and we're agreed that we don't want to give people the tools if we can't come to something approaching agreement that they're trustworthy. Second reaction: maybe it could work, if we can impress on voters the need to come back and take a second look in close cases (and contrary to the rumors, I think most voters do take a second look ... they just don't change their minds as often as some would like!). If we're agreed that we don't want untrustworthy Assistants, and that's the issue in their RFA, then everyone will know it and switch to Oppose if necessary to push it under 60% (or at least push it under 80% (or 75% or 70%) so that the crats feel they have discretion ... they should be able to figure out if the issues are a stopper for Assistantship). I'm still a little skeptical, but it would be so great not to have two different processes and not to have 4 different voting sections in an RFA (promote to admin, promote to Assistant, oppose, neutral) that I'm willing to keep an open mind. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- OTOH ... of course we'll need to have a trial period, and for the trial, one option is to convince at least one crat (hopefully most of the crats!) to pass candidates with 60%-70%, convince coaches to watch them, work with them and revert them as necessary for 3 months, and if they can't pass a second RFA, convince at least one steward (hopefully more) to desysop them after 3 months on the grounds that they didn't have community support for anything but 3 months with the tools, or convince Arbcom to desysop them for the same reason they'd desysop anyone, misuse of tools. We can still talk about whether a different system would be desirable if the trial is considered a success, if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 22:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we create 'provisional adminship' I think we have then created a need to give 'crats the technical right to desysop, removing one of my objections to that particular user right. We would be best off using a low level solution like that rather than calling a steward. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry to interject out of thread order, but requests to turn bits on or off at m:SRP that are clearly in policy (in this case, linked to a discussion at a standard page and requested by a closing crat or whatever) are among the easiest tasks for stewards to do, and there is rarely any great lag in getting them done. It's the harder stuff like cross wiki CU, usurpation that requires investigation, and the like that lag a bit. Just thought I'd point that out... a well formed request like that usually takes me under 2 minutes to do.. and that's if I'm dotting every ï twice and double checking all the T crossings. Hope that helps. It's not intended to argue against giving 'crats the turn off right, just as a datapoint. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I don't remember the link, but I believe that proposal got majority support, but not support from you or me, Protonk, on the theory that the poll was bass-ackwards ... first come up with a reason, then give crats the desysopping tool. If there's community support for even a trial of Assistantship, that's a good enough reason for me to switch my vote, too. - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights/Proposal 2 and Wikipedia:Bureaucrat removal. MBisanz talk 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we create 'provisional adminship' I think we have then created a need to give 'crats the technical right to desysop, removing one of my objections to that particular user right. We would be best off using a low level solution like that rather than calling a steward. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- OTOH ... of course we'll need to have a trial period, and for the trial, one option is to convince at least one crat (hopefully most of the crats!) to pass candidates with 60%-70%, convince coaches to watch them, work with them and revert them as necessary for 3 months, and if they can't pass a second RFA, convince at least one steward (hopefully more) to desysop them after 3 months on the grounds that they didn't have community support for anything but 3 months with the tools, or convince Arbcom to desysop them for the same reason they'd desysop anyone, misuse of tools. We can still talk about whether a different system would be desirable if the trial is considered a success, if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 22:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
What problem is this supposed to solve?
What problem is this supposed to solve? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The admin corps growing steadily smaller via attrition; the replacement rate is negative. → ROUX ₪ 16:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's a perceived problem. Why is the admin corps growing smaller a problem? We can agree its growing smaller. How is this negatively affecting the project? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hammer, you gave your position on RFA and on RFA reform above, and I respect it. One of the things that's been discussed at WT:CONSENSUS is that people who prefer "no change" in a policy discussion will sometimes achieve their result (intentionally or not, I'm not asserting bad faith) by objecting to every little step along the way, as if the smallest points were all critical, when in fact they simply object to the whole idea. If neither of these options is appealing to you, then say so; all I'm trying to do here is to lower the total number of options under consideration, so that when we take this to WP:VPP, we don't all die in a big combinatorial explosion. No new process will be approved here today. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- And what I'm getting at is that before a solution can be carved out, you have to understand what the problem is. You've advocated a solution. You've not identified what actual problem this solves. It might increase the number of administrators. Let's assume it does. Let's assume it doubles the number of administrators. Does it matter? No, because no problem has been identified. You're asking us to assume that fewer administrators is a problem. I call that assumption into question. I'm not suggesting no change in policy or procedure. Let's just stop discussing that, ok? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- And I'm saying that your perspective is very welcome, but not in this section. Many people disagree with you and think that the case was made above that admin jobs are not getting done, and that the trend is bad. I know you don't agree; you said that. This section is for the other side to prune away some of the options on the table, so that when we take this to WP:VPP, it doesn't become so confused that nothing gets done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't presume to tell me where I can and can't comment. If you don't want me commenting in sections you start, then don't start sections. I look at the "Is there an admin shortage?" and I see a lack of consensus, and not "many people" agreeing that a shortage of admins is bad. If you take this to VPP without figuring out what problems this proposal solves, it will go up in flames. I'll guarantee it. Identify the problem first, then work towards a solution. See Problem solving. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good point; this is a question for WT:CONSENSUS ... the question has been debated before, with informal understandings but no update to policy, perhaps it's time to add something to policy. See you there. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in chasing a rabbit into the brush regarding whether the noted section had consensus or not. Identify the problem, then work towards a solution. If you don't, this proposal will not fly. Look, I'm trying to help you. I'm showing you where your plan fails. If you want to charge ahead without ever identifying what the problem is that this proposal is supposed to follow, it will fail. These proposals are a dime a dozen, and have been tried many, many times before. Every time they've been proposed, they've been shot down. There's a reason for that. Believing that reason is going to go away because we're at some crossroads we were never at before is resting this proposal on a belief, a belief that isn't supported by evidence of backlogs. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good point; this is a question for WT:CONSENSUS ... the question has been debated before, with informal understandings but no update to policy, perhaps it's time to add something to policy. See you there. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- And I'm saying that your perspective is very welcome, but not in this section. Many people disagree with you and think that the case was made above that admin jobs are not getting done, and that the trend is bad. I know you don't agree; you said that. This section is for the other side to prune away some of the options on the table, so that when we take this to WP:VPP, it doesn't become so confused that nothing gets done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hammer, you gave your position on RFA and on RFA reform above, and I respect it. One of the things that's been discussed at WT:CONSENSUS is that people who prefer "no change" in a policy discussion will sometimes achieve their result (intentionally or not, I'm not asserting bad faith) by objecting to every little step along the way, as if the smallest points were all critical, when in fact they simply object to the whole idea. If neither of these options is appealing to you, then say so; all I'm trying to do here is to lower the total number of options under consideration, so that when we take this to WP:VPP, we don't all die in a big combinatorial explosion. No new process will be approved here today. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hammersoft asks for the problems to be identified, which is fair. It seems the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Is_there_an_admin_shortage.3F is that:
- Admin recruitment is below replacement rate.
- CSD is understaffed. The problem may partly that geography makes holes in coverage over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The best realistic solution might be to look for additional admins located on the east coasts of the Atlantic and Pacific.
- Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages and Wikipedia:New histmerge list are heavily loaded, but it's uncertain that addig admins will help.
- Wikipedia:Requested moves is struggling to keep up, but not all of that needs admins, non-admins could do some of it. I suggest that a non-admin who's not really confident about the rules would be unwilling to get involved in case a blows up, and an editor who knows the rules well is probably already an admin. --Philcha (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hammersoft asks for the problems to be identified, which is fair. It seems the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Is_there_an_admin_shortage.3F is that:
<left adjust> Responding to perceived problems outline by Philcha:
- Recruitment below replacement rate: Acknowledge this is the case. Not acknowledged this is a problem. Without companion analysis showing admin workload increasing in concert with this rate, it's meaningless.
- CSD understaffed: If it is, then we should see high CSD backlogs. We don't.
- Histmerge needs help: We don't know if more admins will help or not.
- Requested moves backlogged: but non-admins can do it.
Great to bring these points forward! But, so far we're not identifying a problem that having more administrators would solve. Other thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is no point in worrying about not having enogh admins. If things do get so bad that we need more people will reduce their standards, which will result in more passes and as a feedback effect more candidates, untill we reach this stage again when the cycle will start over.--Patton123 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Is there any reason to believe that these new semi-admins would work in those areas as opposed to the areas that are already well staffed? It seems that the first step would be some sort of encouragement to existing admins to take a hand in these underworked sections.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- This spring and summer, I deleted a ton of promotional pages from userspace, most of them tagged by User:Calton (who rarely seeks or gets credit for his hard work, btw). The majority of these pages had been around for at least a month, some for years, and anyone doing a Google search on any of those terms (and many of these pages used search engine optimization techniques, and were probably pulling more hits than most of our articles) got a very poor impression of the quality control on Wikipedia. The fact that we patrol for that kind of stuff was a major factor in drawing people to Wikipedia in the first place, and WP:CSD#G11 deletions are a critical admin job that never gets finished. Others have pointed out other jobs above that aren't getting done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The G11 category currently has 20 pages awaiting deletion. That's not a backlog. Sure, it was a problem. But the problem was taken care of by the existing admin corps. Show a chronic problem that the current admin corps isn't handling well, and a problem that is truly a problem. For example, WP:AIV being backlogged (which it isn't...occasionally it is, it's brought up at WP:AN, and the backlog vanishes...that's an admin corps that is working well). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's not the only issue; there are at least 3 others. Almost every morning, there are pages in the G11 queue that were there the night before. Some are still there 8 hours later. What effect does this have on taggers, knowing that we're only barely keeping up and probably couldn't keep up if they did more tagging, and knowing that we don't consider their work urgent enough to recruit more admins to get the deletions done? Second: tagging is not done in a vacuum; it's an exchange of information between admins and taggers. The more and smarter admins, the more successful tagging gets done. Third: although taggers as a group are happy with the occasional barnstar, many of the more prolific ones would like to at least hope that they'll become a part of the admin corps some day. We've got a lot of evidence that indicates that when these hopes are dashed, they get a lot less interested in tagging. Providing an intermediate step that seems attainable to them can only help.
- On the other point ... are we good? I'm seriously not pushing back against you; what I'm saying is that there are people on the other side who need to talk about this very complex issue in order to get anywhere with it. If people who don't buy the premise keep jumping in the middle, then people stop watchlisting and the critical prep work never gets done, and the proposal can't proceed. Not that that's going to happen in this case; I'll keep bringing these questions up until the community provides answers. I don't have any serious disagreement with your point that there are other options that don't involve RFA that could be tried and ought to be discussed. And I never said you're not welcome; comments that aren't relevant to a particular conversation are not welcome in that section. I created your own section, you converted it to a subsection, and that works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- The G11 category currently has 20 pages awaiting deletion. That's not a backlog. Sure, it was a problem. But the problem was taken care of by the existing admin corps. Show a chronic problem that the current admin corps isn't handling well, and a problem that is truly a problem. For example, WP:AIV being backlogged (which it isn't...occasionally it is, it's brought up at WP:AN, and the backlog vanishes...that's an admin corps that is working well). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- This spring and summer, I deleted a ton of promotional pages from userspace, most of them tagged by User:Calton (who rarely seeks or gets credit for his hard work, btw). The majority of these pages had been around for at least a month, some for years, and anyone doing a Google search on any of those terms (and many of these pages used search engine optimization techniques, and were probably pulling more hits than most of our articles) got a very poor impression of the quality control on Wikipedia. The fact that we patrol for that kind of stuff was a major factor in drawing people to Wikipedia in the first place, and WP:CSD#G11 deletions are a critical admin job that never gets finished. Others have pointed out other jobs above that aren't getting done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Thanks to both of you for the work. However this anecdote completely ignores my question. Is it too few admins, or to few who want to do those jobs. What reason do we have to think that the new trainee admins will move into these areas?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Cube lurker, we cant be sure, but if we increase our aggregate admin function in line with the perceived aggregate admin workload , theres a fair chance things will balance out on there own, especially if we promote enough gnomnes \ vandal fighter who enjoy doing the more process orientated work. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I recall reading something somewhere else where Wikimedia and Google agreed not to have anything other than article, image, and portal space indexed. I don't think that's been put into play yet (a casual test showed it hasn't), but a solution like that obviates the need for user space to be patrolled for spam. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's a long story, and it doesn't look like we're going to get anywhere with that. A proposal to noindex user pages was defeated (by a whisker) in July. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Thanks to both of you for the work. However this anecdote completely ignores my question. Is it too few admins, or to few who want to do those jobs. What reason do we have to think that the new trainee admins will move into these areas?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Additional analyses of admin workload and queues would definitely be helpful. However we don't necessarily need to demonstrate those rising in concert with the declining numbers. There's very often a time lag between the decline of an essential resource and the subsequent collapse of the community it supports.
Example: The Easter Island culture collapsed due to the lack of trees, but authorities like Jarred Diamond suggest that their quality of life wasn't much effected until very near the end. They would have had little shortage of firewood and the like even close to the last tree being felled, just less dead wood being left to decompose. Even with no trees they still would have had a stockpile of rope to build statues, and for a while plenty of crops as it took years before the deforestation led to serious soil erosion.
King: "What do you mean we need to replenish the forests? We're good as gold here, folk have as much food as ever, babies are still being born, and even if you're right about firewood its summer now and nice and warm! Lumberjacks, off to work!"
Easter Island scientist: "You just signed our death warrant"
King: "Prophet of doom!! Away with you and your perceived problems!"
Succesful communities act to head off potential problems before cast iron evidence exists, as by then its often too late. No ones saying Wiipedia is going to collaspe if the active admin ranks arent replenished in the next few months, but it would probably be wise to address the issue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- How about ANY evidence that a problem exists? So far, I've seen none. I noted much earlier on this page that there are a number of things that have taken the place of the traditional role of administrators, frequently reducing or eliminating their workload. Case point; administrators don't have to manually update WP:AIV anymore when they block someone. A bot does it for them. That makes it less time consuming to patrol WP:AIV. I do think it is worth studying what is happening to the community and identifying potential problems. But, to use another analogy akin to the Easter Island one but with a rather different outcome; nobody thought the end of the horse drawn buggy was an imminent sign of the end times. Yet, we have an awful lot fewer horse drawn buggies than we did a hundred years ago. I simply fail to find a reducing number of active administrators to be a problem since no negative outcome of their being fewer administrators has been determined. None. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Replacement rate is negative. Mean time since last admin action for active admins is growing larger. Your argument relies on a notion of increasing productivity subsuming losses in labor, which is true but has special connotations for small communities. As the admin community grows smaller, the active admin community provides a bigger and bigger share of actual task completions (deletions, protections, moves, etc.). The marginal impact of desysopping or retirement becomes much larger. The comparison to productivity and labor is that increasing returns to scale from productivity gives us an incentive to build fewer factories. In a world where factories disappear over time that is a losing strategy. In english the fewer admins we have the more important admins like WMC become and the more desysopping him or him retiring impacts us. Protonk (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Totally agree with what Protonk's said. The horse drawn buggy was replaced with vehicles that could 100% duplicate its function several times over, unless you count the cuteness factor. No large human organisation has ever managed to do without administrative personal that I can think off, it's a function that technology can enhance but never replace. Some of the specific area's suffering from the lack of admin attention have been summarised over at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Draft presentation for admin reform. Nothing new there though, I agree you’ve identified our weak point. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well I want to make clear that I agree w/ one point of Hammer's. the productivity of admins has increased dramatically over time thanks to improvements in the interface, semi-automated tools, and bot accounts (e.g. I don't de-link images after I delete them in most cases, a bot does). Protonk (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Totally agree with what Protonk's said. The horse drawn buggy was replaced with vehicles that could 100% duplicate its function several times over, unless you count the cuteness factor. No large human organisation has ever managed to do without administrative personal that I can think off, it's a function that technology can enhance but never replace. Some of the specific area's suffering from the lack of admin attention have been summarised over at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Draft presentation for admin reform. Nothing new there though, I agree you’ve identified our weak point. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Replacement rate is negative. Mean time since last admin action for active admins is growing larger. Your argument relies on a notion of increasing productivity subsuming losses in labor, which is true but has special connotations for small communities. As the admin community grows smaller, the active admin community provides a bigger and bigger share of actual task completions (deletions, protections, moves, etc.). The marginal impact of desysopping or retirement becomes much larger. The comparison to productivity and labor is that increasing returns to scale from productivity gives us an incentive to build fewer factories. In a world where factories disappear over time that is a losing strategy. In english the fewer admins we have the more important admins like WMC become and the more desysopping him or him retiring impacts us. Protonk (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Protonk: Suppose there is, indeed, a problem. And all the king's supermen who victoriously cleared the allegedly draconian RFA hurdles cannot solve it because there's too few of them. Now you suggest to lower the standard, let in a bunch of users who would not otherwise make it or even try to, and expect significant relief? Why? Their skill set and productivity is lower; their functionality is limited by design; they will drain your own batteries because they need to be coached and watched, right? I have no evidence to back up my feeling that sub-sops will actually reduce the capacity of the system, only a live test will show. Get a Joe from the street and a stopwatch, and a few uninvolved Swedish wikipedia referees to double-check the records... NVO (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- A few things. (1) I don't necessarily support the admin-lite issue. (2) I have no evidence that RfA is a good check of productivity or skillsets. On the contrary I would imagine that productivity is relatively uncorrelated with RfA success for candidates, given that the candidates wouldn't be snow closes. (3) I think rollback offers a great example of how assigning subsets of admin rights to users makes everyone better off, even if those users can't do all the things admins can. Protonk (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. Perhaps I shoudl actually respond to your question. :) I didn't fully get it until I saw the edit summary. I don't think that coaching from current admins will appreciably reduce their productivity. The reasoning follows my discussion w/ Timmeh over the productivity lost in status indicators (here). The common belief, best summarized by the admonition "let's get back to work on the encyclopedia" is that content work trades off with non-content work (WP space stuff, drama, talking, etc.). While this is generally true, we make the further implicit assumption that the marginal productivity is the same, which is obviously not true. By that I mean we often say things like "in the time we spent arguing about blah, we could have improved 10 articles on generals in the War of Jenkin's Ear". That assumption is false. It is much easier to undertake some tasks than others and the relative ease of those tasks differ between individuals. So I don't suspect that admins who are productive will lose so much productivity from coaching that the net effect of their loss and the coachee's gain is <0--this is doubly so because coaching is not time sensitive. I could chose which part of the day I respond to questions or check up on actions. Does that make sense? Protonk (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Editing break, editing break
Another general point I will make. I am open to debate on a lot of things, but My reservoir of goodwill runs dry when I am engaged in a debate where someone sees this graph this graph and this graph combined and does not see the problem. Slightly decreasing number of admin actions, combined with a negative replacement rate and a clearly decreasing admin stock spells disaster in the future. Period. Full stop. End of story. We don't have to assume linearity. We can adopt reasonable assumptions about the existence of inflection points, but even if we do so, the future is that fewer admins do fewer total actions all while increasing the number of actions done per admin and increasing the hazard rate for admin attrition. That doesn't have to continue very long before there isn't a wikipedia anymore. Meaning before we have to lock page creation and semi-protect articles in order just to keep content manageable. And it will happen very drastically. One month we will have enough support to get by and the next a few admins retire or are removed and we literally don't have enough volunteers to overcome the flow. This will be true even if we make reasonable assumptions about increasing productivity of admins as a decreasing function of the number of admins (obviously we can make an unreasonable assumption about that function and be fine forever). There is a problem. We need a solution. Protonk (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- We can probably hold out a couple of months beyond the "danger point", if we don't mind letting low priority tasks stack up.
- Some kinds of action that are currently being done by admins can really be done by anyone, if people were willing to be a tad flexible.
- There's a lot that can be done with a little smart systems-design, depending on whether the community is still flexible enough to allow folks to do it. (granted, the whole "policy must be stable" movement doesn't really inspire confidence here ^^;; )
- We could probably do without the specific admin role. The buttons are (almost) (all) sufficiently nerfed that most people can use them without harming the wiki. For instance, when the admin flag was first created, "deleting an image" actually physically and irrevocably deleted the image file. Nowadays there's an undo option, thank goodness. (a few known exceptions exist)
- The wiki probably won't die over this issue, and it won't drop dead tomorrow. But we *do* need to start thinking and planning as to how to prevent it from failing in the course of the coming year or so.
- By analogy: Driving a modern car is quite safe, but if you don't turn the wheel when you come to a corner, you're still going to crash ;-) Same for the wiki: we can see the corner down the road. We have plenty of time to decide to turn the wheel and change gears. But when we get to the corner, we do need to be ready and do so.
- --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- The problem here is we do an absolutely shitty job of looking down the road and seeing what the problems approaching us are. We do a masterful job of saying "Hey, there's lots of roads in this country and some of them have bends in them!" but a crappy job of saying "Hey, we're flying at 100mph down this straight road, but I can see a bend in the road 1/2 mile ahead, I'd better slow down". Almost nobody here is willing to perform any analysis to gain understanding of what the problems are. Instead, everybody and their brother's pet dog's second cousin's cat's pet fish is incredibly happy to come up with solutions (not picking on any one person here. We all do it). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think at this point you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. I'll direct you again, as Protonk said, to here here and here. → ROUX ₪ 13:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh come on. All I'm asking is people approach problem solving with proven techniques. How is that being contrary for the sake of being contrary? I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I'm not saying we don't need to do something. I'm saying that we should figure out just what the problem IS before running off into the sunset on the nearest galloping horse. Solutions are easy to make. Everybody's got an idea. But without some problem analysis and use of problem solving techniques, you're just fumbling about in the dark. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh come on yourself. You've been sniping here over and over without contributing anything constructive, and indeed flat-out ignoring what people are saying to you. I'll make it nice and simple. The problem: losing admins faster than we replace them. The solution: replace them faster. Again, look at the graphs. The rate of loss is getting faster and faster. Even without assuming a linear progression--even taking best case from this trend--there is a significant downward spirial and it needs to be addressed. You're welcome to continue pretending that it doesn't need to be, and disingenuously claiming that because there are no backlogs at this moment that nobody has shown an actual problem, but those of us who are interested in actually trying to fix this problem will continue doing so, and shall ignore people who have nothing constructive to contribute. You keep saying "Waaaaaah what's the problem waaaaah." And as far as I can tell, that's all you're saying. And yet, you just said you're not saying there's no problem... so put up or shut up. Answer your own question, or to use one of my favourite sayings: lead, follow, or get out of the way. At this point you're just being a particularly loud lump on the side of the road. → ROUX ₪ 13:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just because you don't happen to like my approach to how to solve this problem doesn't give you or anyone else permission to attempt to force me out of the discussion. If you don't want Wikipedia editors contributing to the discussion of your solution, then take it off site and have a discussion among yes-men who are quite happy to go along with your solution.
- As I've repeatedly stated, losing admins faster than they are being replaced hasn't been shown to BE a problem. It could be a catalyst to a problem, but isn't a problem in and of itself. If some real problem analysis was performed, this would be blatantly apparent. But since none has been done, this is being viewed as the problem. And kindly cut the crap with my noting a lack of evidence of backlogs is disingenuous. It isn't by a longshot. If the number of admins is going down, maybe it's because we don't need as many admins as we did before. Abuse filters in place, bots handling routine work, people using automated tools, uploading interface change, autoconfirmed users, patrolled pages...all of these have had a HUGE impact on the amount of work administrators need to perform. Comparing Wikipedia now to Wikipedia two years ago and saying the sky is falling is absurd on the face of it. Wikipedia has dramatically changed. Just because there are fewer administrators doesn't mean there is automatically a problem. For all you know, the attrition rate vs. promotion rate will level out. You don't know, and you don't know if fewer administrators is actually a problem, because not one of you has provided shred one of evidence that there is an insufficiency in the number of admins to keep up with the work demand. If you'd read my comments, you'd know I already have, as you so eloquently said, put up or shut up. I've been telling you how to begin this process in a proper, logical way. That you don't like using problem solving techniques and therefore discount them as a place to begin isn't my problem. Just because you don't like my suggested course of action doesn't mean I haven't suggested one.
- Regardless of this ridiculous bickering, I am happy for one thing. It's blatantly obvious this proposal has already gone up in flames for a variety of reasons. A while back, a very hard worker (User:Gazimoff I believe) started a review process that approached RFA reform in a way similar to what I'm suggesting for approaching the determination of whether there is a problem with fewer administrators. Look at Wikipedia:RfA Review. Unfortunately, Gazimoff has largely become inactive. But, that case is a study in how to do it.
- Coming up with a 'solution' to the 'problem' when you haven't ascertained the problem is highly problematic. Have any of you stopped to consider why the attrition rate is as high as it is? The number of administrators resigning has skyrocketed over the last three years (I'm looking at the table here). The other half of attrition rate is the number of resignations. I don't see people coming up with any effort to interview these people, get them to answer a survey regarding their adminship and why they resigned, etc. Maybe if you did that you would uncover some kernels of truth. But, since no problem analysis is being done, nobody has a clue what the problem is. You're just fumbling about in the dark. So, my suggestion as I've been stating all along here is get off the solution horse and get on the problem analysis horse. If you stay on that solution horse, you're going to find you're trying to win the Kentucky Derby with a Percheron. It isn't going to work. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blah, blah, blah. Are you going to actually contribute something or keep whining that people aren't doing what you have decided they must do? → ROUX ₪ 14:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Shockingly, I've decided to keep whining that people should use problem analysis and solution techniques to develop a reasoned, careful approach to this 'problem'. I'll keep maintaining that finding a problem is important to determining the solution. I'll keep suggesting to those willing to listen that solutions are most effective when they address a known problem. I'm terribly sorry this is violating WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, and who knows what else. But, having a logical, reasoned approach to problem solving is just my queer bent. Go figure. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:50 am, Today (UTC−4)
- Are you going to do anything, or are you going to sit there telling everyone that they have to do what you tell them to? → ROUX ₪ 14:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Are you going to do anything other than scream at me for suggesting people follow problem solving techniques? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Scream? No. If I were screaming you would be in no doubt, I assure you. You're not suggesting, you're dictating and bitching when people don't jump when you say frog. Having seen a lot of your posts in various places the past few days, this seems to be par for the course. Again: you going to do anything? Or just keep whining when people don't do what you say? You said you're not saying there's no problem--so identify what you see as the problem. You say people should use problem solving techniques--so use them. Or is this a matter of do as you say, not as you do? → ROUX ₪ 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I like "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." I try to apply it to how I live. I've never seen a situation where telling someone that resulted in them saying, "oh gosh, you're right." Empirically speaking, it tends to lead to more arguing, which is fun and all... -GTBacchus(talk) 15:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- And Roux, you're doing the same thing you're accusing me of. You don't like it that I'm not jumping on your band wagon, which is making you angry. Tough ritz crackers. You don't like it, then lead better. Look, I can say there is a lack of using problem solving techniques and not have to do a million man hours of work to conduct the work myself before I have a right to say the lack of using the techniques is an issue. I honestly was trying to help yours and Dank's efforts. Instead, both of you have attempted to railroad me out of this conversation. Frankly, I'm done talking with you. If all you can do is yell at me for not jumping on your band wagon, keep on yelling my friend. The soapbox is all yours. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- See this? It is the wrong end of the stick, and you are holding it very firmly. What you are doing here is this: "You go do what I tell you to do. What? No, of course I'm not going to do it. You go do it." You fail to see how that is not constructive in any way. And Protonk has done an excellent job of clearly and concisely explaining one enormous facet of the problem: fewer admins means more actions done by each admin, increasing error rates and rates of burnout. Again: do something constructive or shut the hell up. That you disagree is immaterial; it is that you refuse to actually do what you are telling other people to do that is the problem.There is no railroading here; you are showing that all you are interested in or capable of doing here is sniping from the sidelines. That is not constructive and it is not a contribution that is useful in any way. If you would actually do what you keep telling everyone else to do, you'd be worth listening to. Since you're not, well... old saying: you're part of the solution or you're part of the problem. You're not solving anything here, so I leave it as an exercise in your own self-awareness to figure out exactly what you're doing. → ROUX ₪ 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nice soapbox you have. Though, it's looking a little worn. Still, telling me to "shut the hell up" puts a sparkling shine on it! --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- (I don't understand how you cats indent, and) I think that Roux thinks that if he keeps criticizing you, such criticism will somehow become effective, or have a beneficial result other than feeling good to him. He's wrong, which is a shame, because he's usually very smart. In this case, he prefers the psychological satisfaction of yelling at you to the real-world effectiveness of using his time for something useful. That's right, Roux, yelling at Hammersoft is useless, because it will have no effect on him or anyone else. I have no idea why you, who are intelligent, don't realize the utter fatuity of bitching this guy out. Sad, really. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Then he should do something effective, not something juvenile like filling up this page bitching about his personal frustration. Adults know the difference between venting and getting something done. This website is for getting something done. For venting, get a punching bag. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I suffer from a terrible affliction: the vain hope that people can actually use what's between their ears, or at least learn to. Alas, I am proven wrong time and time again. → ROUX ₪ 19:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you're inferring that I am not using my brain, why thank you for the compliment! --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- (after ec) Oh, it can happen, Roux. Being rude to them just isn't the way to get them there. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar; ever hear that saying? It's very, very true. Tact costs nothing. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Are you going to do anything, or are you going to sit there telling everyone that they have to do what you tell them to? → ROUX ₪ 14:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think at this point you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. I'll direct you again, as Protonk said, to here here and here. → ROUX ₪ 13:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that looking at Wikipedia from the perspective of a reader, I have a hard time understanding how the decrease in active administrators has harmed my experience. Vandalism control does not seem to have suffered, control of spam in widely viewed articles does not seem to have suffered, the content dispute mechanisms that maintain quality in widely viewed articles does not seem to have suffered. I wholly support lower RFA standards since I think the rise in standards has been unfair to new editors and harmful from a morale perspective, but I don't see that the quality of our final product is threatened. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I may be a heretic here for saying this, but I think RfA is broken (that is, it's not pleasant for candidates and it has a tendency to select successful MMORPG players rather than thoughtful leaders by example) and I don't see that the case for more admins has been made. Here's a radical idea: If you're concerned about the admin workload, examine the tasks to see which ones really need doing and which ones can be eliminated. Sometimes changing assumptions is the way to go... One way to get rid of a lot of busywork is to eliminate the incentive. People vandalise? Eliminate the incentive, implement flagged revisions. People post spam? Eliminate the incentive, noindex everything but articles, and put linkfollowing utilities in place that make it less useful to put URLs in articles. People post conflict of interest material? require real names and disclosure of CoI in advance. And so on. Trying to get more admins to do jobs is one fix, but "work smarter not harder" tells us to examine our assumptions instead. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Heretic! Get the stakes! Get the fire! What you describe is, as of course you know, what has been happening. Which is why the number of required administrator tasks to keep things going has gone down over time. Wikipedia is a lot less vandalized now than it used to be. Less vandals, less blocks. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I may be a heretic here for saying this, but I think RfA is broken (that is, it's not pleasant for candidates and it has a tendency to select successful MMORPG players rather than thoughtful leaders by example) and I don't see that the case for more admins has been made. Here's a radical idea: If you're concerned about the admin workload, examine the tasks to see which ones really need doing and which ones can be eliminated. Sometimes changing assumptions is the way to go... One way to get rid of a lot of busywork is to eliminate the incentive. People vandalise? Eliminate the incentive, implement flagged revisions. People post spam? Eliminate the incentive, noindex everything but articles, and put linkfollowing utilities in place that make it less useful to put URLs in articles. People post conflict of interest material? require real names and disclosure of CoI in advance. And so on. Trying to get more admins to do jobs is one fix, but "work smarter not harder" tells us to examine our assumptions instead. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that looking at Wikipedia from the perspective of a reader, I have a hard time understanding how the decrease in active administrators has harmed my experience. Vandalism control does not seem to have suffered, control of spam in widely viewed articles does not seem to have suffered, the content dispute mechanisms that maintain quality in widely viewed articles does not seem to have suffered. I wholly support lower RFA standards since I think the rise in standards has been unfair to new editors and harmful from a morale perspective, but I don't see that the quality of our final product is threatened. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I also found Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform, Wikipedia:Adminship_survey and User:White Cat/Adminship survey summary. All very interesting reading. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah! Even more interesting; I just found User:Emijrp/Deleting and User:Emijrp/Blocking. Both of these show a very significant drop off in the number of deletions and blocking since the beginning of 2007. If the needed number of deletions and blocks remained static or increased, we'd see backlogs in deletion and blocking queues. We don't. One conclusion to draw from that is we need less deletion and blocking work than we did two years ago. Both of these sets of statistics don't seem to support the conclusion that the sky is falling or is about to fall any time soon. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blocking queues? Considering that blocking is used to stop ongoing disruption, I don't think that concept makes any sense. If it's been two days since someone vandalized, then they don't need to be blocked. Or is there something I'm missing? -GTBacchus(talk) 14:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- User:Emijrp/Blocking#Relapse_by_user_class seems to show 80% of our blocks happen with anonymous users. I think most of those would appear at WP:AIV, where there's no backlog and when there is, a message to WP:AN always clears it up quickly. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Right, so I still fail to understand... how would a "blocking queue" ever occur? These blocks are either very, very easy to take care of, or else they're obsolete. There's no force to that part of your argument. Think about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, but WP:AIV does get backlogged from time to time. If we weren't responding to requests for blocking in a rapid fashion, we'd see problems with insipid vandalism. But, Christopher Parham notes that is not happening. Further, we could easily run some numbers on how long after a block request is posted to WP:AIV it gets addressed. At least that would provide some analysis to determine if there really is a problem with blocking vandals in an efficient manner. Right now, we're just guessing and there isn't agreement. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe dealing w/ vandalism is easy admin work, and dealing w/ other backlogs isn't. I think AIV is the last place likely to get backlogged, because of qualitative differences between it and other admin tasks. No? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe. If that's the case, then we should see a backlog at places that are 'hard' admin work. What would those be and where are the backlogs? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Um.... CAT:AB? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can you identify one or more areas in there that are actually backlogged? It's labelled as backlogs, but the reality is a lot of things aren't. For example, Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons has 58 files in it. Not much of a backlog. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Um.... CAT:AB? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe. If that's the case, then we should see a backlog at places that are 'hard' admin work. What would those be and where are the backlogs? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe dealing w/ vandalism is easy admin work, and dealing w/ other backlogs isn't. I think AIV is the last place likely to get backlogged, because of qualitative differences between it and other admin tasks. No? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, but WP:AIV does get backlogged from time to time. If we weren't responding to requests for blocking in a rapid fashion, we'd see problems with insipid vandalism. But, Christopher Parham notes that is not happening. Further, we could easily run some numbers on how long after a block request is posted to WP:AIV it gets addressed. At least that would provide some analysis to determine if there really is a problem with blocking vandals in an efficient manner. Right now, we're just guessing and there isn't agreement. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Right, so I still fail to understand... how would a "blocking queue" ever occur? These blocks are either very, very easy to take care of, or else they're obsolete. There's no force to that part of your argument. Think about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- User:Emijrp/Blocking#Relapse_by_user_class seems to show 80% of our blocks happen with anonymous users. I think most of those would appear at WP:AIV, where there's no backlog and when there is, a message to WP:AN always clears it up quickly. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blocking queues? Considering that blocking is used to stop ongoing disruption, I don't think that concept makes any sense. If it's been two days since someone vandalized, then they don't need to be blocked. Or is there something I'm missing? -GTBacchus(talk) 14:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hammersoft makes the important point that forecasting suffers from the fundamental fallacy of extension of current trends. This is a point which should be shouted from the rooftops. I don't think he deserves the hassle that he is getting for it. However, we have to accept it and move along. As I see it we have a few trends at work: slightly decreasing total activity, decreasing individual activity and increasing loss rate. All three of those are general of course and can be broken into their principal components. Those three trends result in a sort of meta trend (through nothing other than division): an increasing share of admin actions are undertaken by more active admins. That meta-trend has the important implication that it exacerbates the impact of the third component--admin loss rate gets more painful. This doesn't even include the allied problems with more tasks undertaken by fewer people. In order for things to get worse we don't need to assume that all these trends continue along their merry way. Indeed the admin activity graph looks to be at an inflection point (making forecasting especially difficult). We can even assume (As I said above) reasonable counter-trends like increasing admin productivity as the number of admins decrease (again, just talking about quantity and ignoring the obvious issue that quality suffers). We can assume that total admin activity remains constant, that the replacement rate stops decreasing (or growing more negative if you prefer) and that the hazard rate for admin loss decreases mildly. Even under those assumptions the meta-trend gets worse. And making those assumptions requires that three reasonably unrelated characteristics of the 'pedia get better (or their 2nd derivative gets better) simultaneously. So my point above is that opposing the forecast requires that all three components reverse their trend (even if they stop growing worse it isn't enough). When does it become more sound to argue that simultaneous across the board improvement might occur? Why is that the grounded approach? I don't think it is. I think the sober approach is to review the data, conclude that we have some problem in the future and try to undertake some solutions. More important is the historical understanding. Wikipedia will not be the same resource it was in 2003 ever again. In 2011 it will not be the resource it is today. If we are not cognizant of that we fail. Protonk (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- One more comment. In order for me to believe that trends will reverse I have to be given some way to rationalize it. I don't see how fewer admins causes the loss function to decrease (and I can see a half dozen reasons along w/ some empirical support indicating that it might increase). Ditto the other trends. This may be due to lack of imagination on my part. So let me know what I'm missing. Protonk (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Admin retention
Hammersoft has rightly pointed out that we should consider the attrition side of this as well as the dearth of new admins. My view is that attrition is very much the lesser side of the issue - we expect to lose a proportion of admins, not all of those who have ceased to be active are actually lost, and as expressed on a graph the fall in new RFAs seems to me the main problem. However I would support doing some sort of survey on our formerly active admins, and I see no contradiction into looking into this at the same time as trying to resolve the larger problem of the dearth of new admins. I'm hoping that such research would show that many of our inactives may come back at some point in the future, and that the increasing numbers dropping out is in part a reflection of the high numbers of admins appointed in 06 and 07 coming to the end of their wiki careers but that is mere speculation on my part - we need research on this. I'll see if I can track down some of the researchers who presented at Wikimania. ϢereSpielChequers 15:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Was there a corresponding bump from returning admins in 2005-2006 or reason to believe that loss/return rates would differ over time? Protonk (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Upsetting the cart
(being jokingly facetious here to start off; smile people) I know one of the worst things you can do in a debate is introduce statistics that flip the cart over. Nevertheless, at the risk of incurring the wrath of many...
I did a synthesis of the data presented at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Draft presentation for admin reform and User:JamesR/AdminStats (updated daily by bot) to generate figures on the average number of actions per admin per month for the last several months, going with the 17th of each month to the 17th of the prior month for that month's numbers. What I found:
- May 2009 : 129 actions per active admin
- June 2009: 118
- July 2009: 120
- Aug. 2009: 105
- Sep. 2009: 104
If anything, the number of actions per active administrator is going down, not up. I don't see any trend supporting the idea that each administrator is having to carry additional load to keep things going.
Another factor to consider; have a look at User:Katalaveno/TBE. The amount of time it takes for our editors to accumulate 10 million new edits has effectively remained static for more than two years, varying between 6 and 9 weeks. Yet, thanks to things like edit filters, the numbers of actual vandalism has gone down. With less vandalism, there's less need to block (just one example of many). There really is less work for administrators to do around here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think you can draw too many conclusions from these data. If it was stretched out over several years, sure, but I bet there could be seasonal shifts accounting for this. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- This seems like a very reasonable conclusion. It's also worth noting that on the vandalism front, active admins are complemented by the growth of the rollbacker class. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with IronGargoyle. Five months worth of numbers doesn't tell us much in terms of trends. We really shouldn't conclude anything unless we have data going back at least a year or two. Timmeh (review me) 22:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the edit filters alter the admin workload - we are still getting ten million edits in the same time period, the vandalfighting bots are reverting vandalism but we still need admins to block people. What the vandal fighting bots have replaced are some of the vandal fighters who once would have been huggling towards adminship. I suspect that in the longterm our indef blocking of millions of IP addresses has reduced the admin workload, but cost us an unknown number of potential editors. As for admin actions per "active" admin, those admin actions won't include declining incorrect speedies, and those "active" admins will include a fair few editors who still do the 30 edits every 60 days needed to count as active editors but haven't done any admin type things for yonks. If we are going to try and live with fewer and fewer admins then I think we need a better definition of an active admin, preferably not including people who are currently retired, on extended wikibreaks or who haven't recently done anything admin related. ϢereSpielChequers
- We should distinguish though, that reverting vandalism is a critical task (we don't want readers seeing vandalism) whereas blocking is a non-critical task (if we can revert consistently and quickly, blocking may not be necessary - i.e. it may improve efficiency but isn't itself productive). If our reversion mechanisms have greatly improved, reduction in our blocking capacity is probably okay. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the edit filters alter the admin workload - we are still getting ten million edits in the same time period, the vandalfighting bots are reverting vandalism but we still need admins to block people. What the vandal fighting bots have replaced are some of the vandal fighters who once would have been huggling towards adminship. I suspect that in the longterm our indef blocking of millions of IP addresses has reduced the admin workload, but cost us an unknown number of potential editors. As for admin actions per "active" admin, those admin actions won't include declining incorrect speedies, and those "active" admins will include a fair few editors who still do the 30 edits every 60 days needed to count as active editors but haven't done any admin type things for yonks. If we are going to try and live with fewer and fewer admins then I think we need a better definition of an active admin, preferably not including people who are currently retired, on extended wikibreaks or who haven't recently done anything admin related. ϢereSpielChequers
- I agree with IronGargoyle. Five months worth of numbers doesn't tell us much in terms of trends. We really shouldn't conclude anything unless we have data going back at least a year or two. Timmeh (review me) 22:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Admin editors, admin bots, and admin editors who act like admin bots
This is essentially an insulting comment, and purely my own anecdotal opinion. It is not meant as an attack on any one person. Probably the worst possible way to start off an observation, but here goes. We all know that there has always been attrition in Wikipedia, outweighed by new blood coming into the project. There are a thousand reasons for attrition, and as everything pointed out above explains, there are also a thousand reasons why things are in decline here this year. Additionally, in the past few years we've rolled out various bots and admin bots which have taken away much of the busy work that admins performed in the past. Meanwhile, many of the admin tasks that remain are those which require critical thinking, which still requires a human who is willing to put in the time to apply some analysis before using the extra buttons. Thinking is tough, so I think that many of the admins who essentially performed the tasks which are now handled by various autonomous tools really found themselves in a role they had never wanted. This means that many of the experienced admins who are still around, such as myself, are the old vandal fighters and peace keepers; and editors like us would probably not find our way to the mop becuase vandal fighting does not require the same human touch that it did when I was active in it. Thusly, fewer people like me want the mop, or ever want to do those things they now need to do to get it. All of this has been said above in some form. So while you have bot-like admins with nothing to do, anti-vandal editors like myself suddenly found that conflict resolution was one of the only things left to do. ArbCom has busied themselves this year with taking the mop away from a whole bunch of admins of this type, so it strikes me that many such as myself have dialed it way back.
I've made a lot of noise on this point, and accused ArbCom of being inept, or corrupt, or lazy, or simply out of touch. The actual members are mostly great people, who are highly dedicated to this project, but the decisions they have made this year on removing the mop have struck me as largely emotional, rather than rational. A lot of talentented, smart, highly active, and dedicated admins have lost their mops, or resigned in disgust, or simply faded into the background as a result of frustration with admins having their hands tied to deal with persistently disruptive and contentious editors. I think there is consensus that editors who push Holocaust denial should not be allowed to insert holocaust denial into our content. Yet it happens. I can't imagine that there is consensus for Wikipedia to be a nationalist battle ground, yet spend some time on the Greek and Turkey pages and you might think that there has been a long violent struggle between these two countries that is active today. You would not get the impression that they are actually NATO allies. Dealing with this kind of stuff is neither fun, nor simple. It involves actively monitoring heated disputes over a long period of time in order to identify patterns of behavior. As a recent and former member of ArbCom proved, it is not that difficult to conceal your misbehavior for an extended period of time, whilst gaining the respect of those around you. None of his is an official admin responsibility or user right, but rather an abstract set of actions that have to be taken in order to execute the admin duties in these areas.
Of course, these are heated, emotionally charged areas, and they often result in admins losing their cool. I've done it, and I know of few who haven't: In response to an angry action, another editor has an angry reaction. An admin is called in and tries to help, but the series of angry reactions continues, and the admin soon finds themself "involved" and on the receiving end of a high volume of further angry reactions for failing to see the "truth". Mediation fails. RfC fails. Blocks result in a landslide of socks. Eventually, after the community's mechanisms have all failed, the admin finds they are alone in trying to fix the issue. If they lose their temper in any way and make a rash decision... BOOM, here comes ArbCom to the rescue to... remove the admin's mop, maybe block a few socks, and then do nothing viable to stop the underlying disruption issues. Maybe the admin gets the mop back a short while later, or maybe they just leave in frustration, but many other admins just sit by watching in frustration as a great project which managed to get some hip social cache for a few years sinks into a static mediocrity. Saying as much just invites criticism, which I have a very difficult time understanding. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Other forks (the pointy kind)
There are some other decisions that should be made before we head to VPP so that things don't get too wild and crazy. 3, 4 or 6 months? Sounds like a hard question but my guess is that it's actually easy; we just look at failed RFAs and correlate the following items: 1. advice of "wait 3 months" vs. "wait 6 months" 2. Showing up at RFA again after 3 or 6 months 3. long-term trustworthiness of the candidate, at least sufficient to overcome Mike Godwin's objections. Any volunteers?
Another question is what subset of the tools is ideal. A minimal subset ... seeing deleted pages and moving without redirects ... would only allow the candidates to better perform tasks to help them eventually pass RFA ... so, lower risk, but not as much admin work gets done and they don't get as much practice. Julian and others have said the blocking is the problematic userright, that any other userrights are fair game. Balloonman is suggesting we give them the whole box of tools, as long as a coach or coaches are watching them like hawks. Is it possible to discard any of these options before we head to WP:VPP? - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- If we give someone the whole box of tools and then keep an eye on them, I would think that 3 months would be long enough to figure out whether or not they have a good grip on them; any mistakes should show up in that amount of time. If the purpose fo this "admin-lite" is to create a preview mode, allowing us to judge whether or not the candidate is competent with the tools (I assume the question of trust would be handled previously), then giving them an incomplete set of tools will result in an incomplete assessment of their competency. Shereth 16:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Another fork, credit to Balloonman for the excellent idea of bundling this with some form of coaching/oversight: one coach per Assistant, or does everyone who wants to volunteer as a coach and all the Assistants participate on the same page? - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- It would be a single page per coachee/coach, but others (like now) could drop in and add their comments/thoughts.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) I suppose the coach-assistant relationship would need to be defined a little more firmly, no? I get the impression it is the sort of thing where a coach is accepting a certain amount of responsibility for their Assistant's actions; for example, it should be incumbent upon them to correct minor mistakes, and to request a removal of the tools in more serious cases of Assistants gone wild. That being the case, it seems to me that a "one coach per Assistant" rule is prudent. Multiple coaches can muddy the issue of responsibility, and in some cases may provide inconsistent feedback and oversight. Too may cooks in the kitchen, and all. I could forsee some instances of multiple coaches who have an ability to closely coordinating their efforts, but in the long haul I imagine a 1:1 ratio being the most sensible. Shereth 20:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- My initial proposal was that somebody could accept up to 2 coachees at a time, but if they showed themselves capable, that number could go up (or down) with 'crat discretion. But a coachee would have one formal coach, who is in essence lending them the tools, but could have multiple couches for guidance. (EG I know that under the old system new coaches often asked for help with coaching.) But yes, the principle difference in my proposal over the old "temporary admins" which has always been shot down is that the coachee is not an admin, but is working as an extension of a coach. The coach takes some responsibility in the coachees actions and should the coachee go off the deep end, would need to request an emergency desysop. Similarly, if a coachee goes off the deepend, other admins could request that desysop as well. As they are not admins yet, this would be a simple process.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- That makes sense, let me put it another way. Presumably, the community will pull the plug on this if the coaches plus concerned admins don't perform as expected by the voters. My question is: do we send a message to the coaches that we believe they're signing up to make the whole project work, or just signing up to look at one or two coachees? Only 1 or 2 coachees is more prudent; on the other hand, it's possible the community won't back the proposal without knowing that there's a group of people who are trying to make the whole thing work, because otherwise, mistakes may happen that slip through the cracks. I don't have a good feel for what we need to get the votes. (Btw, it makes sense to call them coachees informally, but User:Vandal is going to be less than impressed when they get blocked by "Coachee" Smith, it will probably just fuel the backlash ... User:Soap suggested "Assistant", does that work for you?) - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- My initial proposal was that somebody could accept up to 2 coachees at a time, but if they showed themselves capable, that number could go up (or down) with 'crat discretion. But a coachee would have one formal coach, who is in essence lending them the tools, but could have multiple couches for guidance. (EG I know that under the old system new coaches often asked for help with coaching.) But yes, the principle difference in my proposal over the old "temporary admins" which has always been shot down is that the coachee is not an admin, but is working as an extension of a coach. The coach takes some responsibility in the coachees actions and should the coachee go off the deep end, would need to request an emergency desysop. Similarly, if a coachee goes off the deepend, other admins could request that desysop as well. As they are not admins yet, this would be a simple process.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure I agree with the admin-lite concept as a solution to the problem. I think what we need is an unbundling of tools in an apolitical fashion, much like rollback was intended to be. Obviously the low hanging fruit has been picked, there aren't any clear analogues to rollback in the admin toolkit (insofar as rollback was basically simulated with semi-automated tools when the right was unbundled). But I think rollback has been an enormous success and we would do better to follow that success and push for devolution of rights rather than establishing a tiered approach to adminship. A few problems w/ assistantship/admin-lite:
- We place another implicit step between editors and admins.
- We place an extraordinary amount of faith in coaches and trust in candidates. If someone 'fails' a RfA in such a way that they become a candidate for admin-lite we have to believe that the coach will effectively cover the concerns listed in the RfA and that the candidate won't just go through the motions of the coaching process.
- We implicitly lower the bar for RfA where that isn't necessarily the problem (while I agree that replacement rate is a problem it doesn't follow that RfA standards or percieved RfA standards impact that replacement rate much).
- Lowering RfA standards (I'm assuming the model of 60%-->admin lite for 3-6 months-->Admin) may result in getting admins we don't want. There are folks who (in my opinion, obviously) should never have the bit but might scratch 60% in an RfA. If that isn't convincing then remember that with a bright-line promotion criteria of 75% each opposing vote is worth three support votes at the margin. At a bright-line promotion criteria of 60% each opposing vote at the margin is worth half as much, only 1.5 supporting votes. It becomes increasingly difficult to prevent promotion.
I'm not opposed to this wholeheartedly. I certainly prefer a WP:PERM style devolution of some tools over admin-lite and I strongly prefer some real check over autopromotion. But those are my thoughts. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would favor something like "apprenticeship" instead, which would happen before RFA instead of after a failed RFA. The idea would be that a candidate who finds a coach and gets approval from (say) five current admins is given temporary adminship. The coach is given the power to request de-sysop, which would be done immediately with no questions asked. The candidate would have to do a proper RFA within (say) three months, or the adminship would expire. Looie496 (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's just not possible; decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia. That's a Foundation principle, it's been policy since Day One, and it particularly and especially applies to handing out admin tools, including the right to see deleted material. The Wikimedia lawyer has gone so far as to say that he'd ask the Board to take action if the community ever decided to let non-administrators see deleted pages, so we need to make the argument that if someone passes RFA in an "Assistantship" role, the same standards of trustworthiness and dedication are required. So there has to be something like an RFA, and we might as well do it at RFA, to let someone experiment with the tools. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
A modest proposal
Can someone please concisely summarize the positions in the spiraling mess in the above sections, for those of us who havn't been engaged since minute 1? Please take several minutes to think about it, and write it with the quality and neutrality we expect of articles.--Tznkai (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- This would be a good time for us to construct the TLDR summary. There are some questions still outstanding, but maybe we can fill them in as we go. Here are some notes, I hope people will change or fill in details:
- There's enough concern about the long-term trends involving admin work that many people are willing to try out some new things and see whether they work.
- One trial would involve spinning-off of certain userrights; many userrights have been suggested above. (Obviously we don't have a way to do this for real until we get consensus, and we're not going to get consensus until we have a successful trial. I'll volunteer my admin services to help us get past this paradox; if someone is selected by the community as a likely candidate for some userright, then I'll work with them, let them tell me what articles they want to use that userright on, and I'll push the admin button if I agree and I won't if I don't. At the end of the trial, we come back and see if the community still thinks it would be a good idea to give them that userright. If a bunch of admins volunteer to do this, we should get sufficient data.)
- Another trial, I'd suggest we try it for one month before making a more permanent decision, is to allow for a new possibility at RFA. [tweaked - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC):] If the supporters for full adminship, plus the opposers who say they're okay with "Assistantship", together constitute a consensus in the view of the closing crat, then the candidate could be promoted by the crat to "Assistantship" with full admin userrights for 3 months. Some coach would need to volunteer to answer the Assistant's questions and revert any mistakes the Assistant makes for 3 months, and approving the Assistantship would de facto approve that coach in that role. The Assistant would either come back to RFA 3 months later and pass, or lose the admin bit if they don't. (Obviously, for purposes of the trial, we need to get some kind of agreement from a steward or Arbcom that they'd be willing in principle to take the admin bit away after 3 months. Whether things actually work out that way, who knows, but as long as we can get agreement in principle, that's probably good enough to conduct the one-month trial in good faith that things will turn out as planned.) There's some talk that if the trial works out, the community will request the desysop bit for crats, for the limited purpose of desysoping Assistants after 3 months if they fail RFA or don't do RFA. Who knows what the voters will do, but the hope is that Assistantship will require the same standards of trustworthiness and dedication that we'd expect from any admin, but not the same standards of familiarity with the tools; that's what 3 months of coaching is for. - Dank (push to talk) 17:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could someone summarize the long term trends?--Tznkai (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Protonk did that above; it's this graph, this graph and this graph. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- With fairness to Hammersoft, please realize that summary of past trends don't automatically extend to future trends. You have to wade through some claims and counterclaims and see which story speaks to you if you want some idea of future paths. I could write a summary but it might be biased toward my view that enough of current trends may continue to place us in extremis in the near-distant future. Protonk (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it insults Hammer or anyone else to say "There's enough concern about the long-term trends involving admin work that many people are willing to try out some new things and see whether they work." No need to claim crystal balls, the claim is that many people are concerned and feel the need to try new things and see if they help. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just saying for purposes of a concise summary hedging is ok. If/when we write up a longer summary I am ok with asserting the consensus view above and offering some detailed qualifications. Protonk (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be helpful to get a breakdown of where admin activity is lacking, unless the contention is tat there is a general loss of admin "presence" with its attendant inefficiencies. --Tznkai (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Biggest backlogs are in deleting maintenance style pages like spam userpages and nonsense minor talk namespace pages as well as blocking drive by vandals. MBisanz talk 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well my first contention (summarized above in the 'editing break editing break' section) is that the current trends manifest primarily in fewer admins each performing a larger share of admin tasks. Anecdotal support for this can be found by perusing the less 'emotional' XfDs (basically all X not A), SBL operations, EF operations (which isn't strictly an admin task of course) and so forth. The threat from that isn't increased backlogs but the possibility that desysopping someone like WMC a year from now could move WP from an operating equilibrium to collapse. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- So your argument, in summary would be that there is an increased concentration of overall workload onto fewer admins, and if for whatever reason one of those admins quit or was desysopped or otherwise stopped, the workload would not be spread quickly and efficiently enough?--Tznkai (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's one of my arguments, yeah. Protonk (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's part of the problem. Loss of institutional knowledge is another. In a previous life, one of my job functions involved working with the executives who oversaw the sales team, which meant a lot of focus on transition plans. We operated on the 'hit by a bus' theory; If Mr Sellsalot gets hit by a bus tonight, how do we pick up his clients where he left off? If Ms Companyboss gets hit by a bus, how do we keep the company functional until a new CEO is picked? Of no less concern is how to deal with workload balancing if/when a tragedy occurs, and particularly around heavy holiday times. At such times, more work is devolved to fewer people anyway, so each person then becomes that much more crucial to ongoing success. Which is basically the position we're in now. The solution is therefore twofold: more admins--however we do that, preferably this trainee (I prefer that over 'assistant') scheme--and a radical realignment of how RfA works. Really, RfA needs to boil down to one simple question: can this person be trusted to follow consensus as expressed via policy and guidelines? That's it. Nothing more. However, the reality of trying to turn RfA into anything less than a trial by fire (and knives and pointy sticks and small biting insects), to say nothing of even making it rational, is simply impossible the way Wikipedia works; this site is one of the longest-running examples of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (anonymity = fuckwad). The short version: people like to assume the worst, RfA is largely the only place where it's not only allowed but positively encouraged. So that's not going to change anytime soon.
- What can change is how we get people to RfA. And the trainee/assistant scheme is the best way of doing that, Provisionally grant the tools for three months. At the end of those three months, demonstrate at RfA that you used them wisely, with the requirement of opposers that they must show abuse of the tools in order to oppose. And done. Hand-in-hand with this we need a desysopping system (my proposal is still twitching here; I haven't had much time to really dig my brain into things lately) so that when someone--this has happened with RfA, it's happened everywhere on this site--games their way through this process and then becomes abusive after an RfA, the tools can be removed quickly and with a minimum of fuss.
- As a side note, given the Archtransit and Pastor Theo debacles, obviously CUs should be run on coach/trainee pairs. Sorry if that ruffles feathers, but that's how it is. → ROUX ₪ 18:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Here Roux offers a powerful corollary to my general statement, one which I should have added in the summary. I agree almost completely. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- IMO not a good idea to force CUs on admins because 0.1% of admins happened to have problems that would have been detected by using it...If anything it would scare people off.--Patton123 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- So your argument, in summary would be that there is an increased concentration of overall workload onto fewer admins, and if for whatever reason one of those admins quit or was desysopped or otherwise stopped, the workload would not be spread quickly and efficiently enough?--Tznkai (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be helpful to get a breakdown of where admin activity is lacking, unless the contention is tat there is a general loss of admin "presence" with its attendant inefficiencies. --Tznkai (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just saying for purposes of a concise summary hedging is ok. If/when we write up a longer summary I am ok with asserting the consensus view above and offering some detailed qualifications. Protonk (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it insults Hammer or anyone else to say "There's enough concern about the long-term trends involving admin work that many people are willing to try out some new things and see whether they work." No need to claim crystal balls, the claim is that many people are concerned and feel the need to try new things and see if they help. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any tweaks to my rough draft of the summary on Assistantship? Has anyone heard what the WMF lawyer, User:MGodwin, thinks? He's probably our next stop, since he could be a stopper. - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Pointer to the project page, dan? Protonk (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Balloonman has apparently contacted Godwin. Not sure what the response, if any, has been. Bear in mind he's only needed if the viewDeleted right is included in this traineesistantjuniorgophership. If, instead, we had the devs create a userright called sysoptrainee or something, we could easily keep viewdeleted out of it (thus removing WMF's objection) while still allowing all other admin tools. → ROUX ₪ 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- If the community clearly says "yes" and MGodwin clearly says "no" then I suppose we'd have to ask the devs to give us a version of Assistantship without the ability to do deletion work or see deleted pages. But no telling if the devs would do that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- If there is community support for a new usergroup, they will make it. cf. 'confirmed' which was created fairly swiftly after the discussion closed. –xenotalk 22:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's good to know ... but we'd still have a problem: no one has expressed any interest in a version of Assistantship that doesn't involve deletion work. - Dank (push to talk) 22:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- If there is community support for a new usergroup, they will make it. cf. 'confirmed' which was created fairly swiftly after the discussion closed. –xenotalk 22:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- If the community clearly says "yes" and MGodwin clearly says "no" then I suppose we'd have to ask the devs to give us a version of Assistantship without the ability to do deletion work or see deleted pages. But no telling if the devs would do that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Deleting pages of temporary wikipedians is a job an adminbot can take care of very quickly, and non-controversially. Poof. Problem gone. MBisanz suggests there's a backlog of blocking drive by vandals, but there's no evidence to suggest there's a backlog there. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Probationary adminship
I'm not sure if I buy the idea of assistant ship - it seems like a lot of work thats unreliable, so I thought I'd offer something similar but a bit simpler in conception. There are some problems with this approach, but I thought it might be worth considering.--Tznkai (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
All new admins (or admins under a certain threshold) starting (date) are considered probationary administrators. Probationary administrators have all the permissions duties and standards that full administrators have. After (x) months, they must pass a reconfirmation RfA, or a steward is asked to desysop without prejudice.
- And I'll ask the same question I asked above; what problem does this solve? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Interestingly, Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Reconfirm administrators doesn't address this. What you're suggesting here is the same as the proposal that's being discussed, except that you're changing the name from Assistant to Admin, there's no mention of coaches, and the current proposal allows the RFA community to decide whether someone needs a reconfirmation or not, which seems like a reasonable time-saver to me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fine with this where threshold >60% and x is between 3 and 8 months. I would prefer it be done concurrently with devolution of some rights (which I prefer over this and other 'provisional' style proposals). Protonk (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- (To Dank) Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Hierarchical_structures does note the perennial proposal of a probationary period, which is what this is. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c)The absence of coaches is actually a major difference, and streamlines the ordeal rather significantly. Its also considerably more intuitive, and does not need additional bits to flip, and doesn't imply tiers of authority. Rather, it is considerably more like the difference between tenured non tenured professors rather than teachers and student teachers. (Which reminds me, a variation here is to allow repeated probationary periods) The assistant model creates a supervisor/supervisee relationship, which the extensive failure of multiple mentorships proves is not systemically reliable. (To be fair, many mentorships do succeed) Probationary adminship have a number of benefits, and also disadvantages, which I'll try to outline below:
- Advantages: Allows an opportunity for "bad apple" admins to be weeded out. If x is a sufficient number, most admins will show their warts. Additionally, some newly admins will find they really don't like having their bits, approach burn out, and will have an easy out by simply not requesting reconfirmation. These opportunities to control the admin population will also ease concerns of the community members who are always on the look out for not promoting a bad admin. This should increase the number of admin candidates, and bring along with them more good admins, which I will simply assert is good.
- Disadvantages: The probationary admin is likely to be excessively risk adverse, unwilling to step into areas where admins may well be needed, or unpopular opinions will arise. This could make newly minted tenured admins suddenly run wild with their freedom. Likewise, the known flaws in the RfA process are likely to be exacerbated if any candidate is voted on twice.
- I think this process is superior to the assistant model because it doesn't make one volunteer admin disproportionately influential or responsible for monitoring a new admin, and doesn't tier admins in their abilities.--Tznkai (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Further thought: I'm only lukewarmly in favor of my own proposal. I am merely trying to refine the changes that are being suggested into something more practical, in case the change is made.--Tznkai (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see those disadvantages that are listed above really being disadvantages. The trickiest areas are, almost by definition, rare. I think of things like deletion review and cases of long term abuse/bad behavior. Deletion review's workload is almost half of what it was a couple of years ago (although why this is, I have no clue). The backlogs are on things that provisional admins would have no problem tackling. As for newly minted "real admins" suddenly running wild, psychological data simply doesn't back that up. Behavior stays consistent over time. An admin who begins cautious is likely to remain cautious. Sure, there may always be "sleeper agents" but there is very little that can be done to prevent someone with truly bad intentions from screwing us later if they are behaving well at first (I'm thinking Runcorn). IronGargoyle (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- The disadvantages that you mentioned are why provisional admins have never been encouraged, which is why there would be a coach. The coaches job would be two fold 1) to encourage the coachee to get involved in new areas and 2) to help run interference when they do mess up. If a coachee messes up they would have the safety net of having a coach to talk them through what they did and why they did it wrong. A mistake thus doesn't become the kiss of death that it would have in a simple "provisional admin" scenario... in fact, mistakes would be a chance to show growth and development.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This notion has been proposed ad naseum and killed every time. The coachee/coach method is a variation on this but with a few distinct differences that I hope would get this past the objections. Namely, that the person would NOT be an admin and would be supervised from the start.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it brings way to many attendant difficulties in the coachee/coach. Hierarchies are not only bad inherently, but they're impossibly difficult to make work on a wiki of this size. Honestly, those worried about the drop off in admins may just need to go out and recruit.--Tznkai (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Heirarchies are inherently bad? Sounds like you must be an anarchist? Now, I know that on WP, we try not to have heirarchies, but in the real world they are what maintain order. As for making them work? I don't see much of a problem. A coach would be allowed a maximum of 2 coachees and would be partially responsible for monitoring said coachee's actions. If the coach fails in this, he won't be allowed new coachees amd removing the buttons from a trainee would be rather simple. We won't have to go through an RfC/ArbCOM/ANI, we simply make the request showing why it is necessary. (Again preferably with the coach involved, but in the case of a rogue coachee, that wouldn't be necessary.) But the coaching model also gets rid of the two step RFA confirmation process that has been criticized in previous provisional admin models.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thats an oversatement on my part. How about "hierarchies have inherent flaws" I'm not sure if I can explain the problem with maintaing hierarchy on wikipedia adequately, but it revolves around the instability of the time, space of volunteers , and restricting/relying on the volunteer on a project like wikipedia.--Tznkai (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- We rely on volunteers all over the place around here. The coach who accepts the responsibility is simply accepting another task. While s/he is assuming additional responsibility to be directly invovled, s/he won't be alone. If a coachee goes off the deep-end it will get the attention of others (just as an admin who makes a questionable call get the attention of others.) The coach is merely stating, I trust this user enough that I'm accepting some of the responsibility for his/her actions. Most people won't do that for strangers or people they don't trust. Similarly, if a coachee really starts to blow it, the coach will pull the plug because the actions are linked back to them! But other admins can (and will) step in if necessary. The coach is also sitting there saying that s/he will help monitor the actions to make sure they are done right.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thats an oversatement on my part. How about "hierarchies have inherent flaws" I'm not sure if I can explain the problem with maintaing hierarchy on wikipedia adequately, but it revolves around the instability of the time, space of volunteers , and restricting/relying on the volunteer on a project like wikipedia.--Tznkai (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Heirarchies are inherently bad? Sounds like you must be an anarchist? Now, I know that on WP, we try not to have heirarchies, but in the real world they are what maintain order. As for making them work? I don't see much of a problem. A coach would be allowed a maximum of 2 coachees and would be partially responsible for monitoring said coachee's actions. If the coach fails in this, he won't be allowed new coachees amd removing the buttons from a trainee would be rather simple. We won't have to go through an RfC/ArbCOM/ANI, we simply make the request showing why it is necessary. (Again preferably with the coach involved, but in the case of a rogue coachee, that wouldn't be necessary.) But the coaching model also gets rid of the two step RFA confirmation process that has been criticized in previous provisional admin models.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
A thought
All this seems unnecessarily complicated to me. Apparently the admin system does work to some extent since rogue admins get caught sooner or later and desysopped. Assuming that there is a shortage of admins, wouldn't it be a lot simpler if all the people proposing proposals on this page just stepped back a bit and agreed to cut that extra bit of slack for RfA candidates? So the candidate doesn't yet understand 'fair-use rationale' - explain it and assume they will. Messed up a few CSD tags, list em, explain why, and move on. If we all did that, more admins would automatically flow into the system. The proposals above make little sense because the true rogue admin will just lie low until reconfirmation (do a few routine things and avoid anything that looks hairy) while the dedicated apprentice admin will try to do something and his/her reconfirmation RfA will go down in flames ("you csd-a7 THAT page! How could you!" - that sort of thing). Not to mention that editors willing to undergo two RfAs will skew the admin population toward the masochistic set! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck getting people to vote more sensibly. Making the selection process less democratic might have a chance, though. Friday (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, can you support the proposal to break off one or more userrights and make them available by a (presumably easier) community decision at WP:PERM? Or does that have the same drawbacks for you? - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- That makes sense to me. For example, I can think of hundreds of editors who could safely be given the right to delete pages but won't run for adminship. Ideally, for the system to work well, we really want lots of non-hard working admins. One way of achieving that is unbundling the tools and distributing rights. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that a probationary period is not going to be terribly useful. As usual, I think the best solution is to make adminship non-permanent (I dislike reconfirmation proposals because they still generally start from the assumption that admin positions are permanent, unless removed). When a term is up, an admin can choose to stand for a new RfA or not. It sets us up for less drama when admins want to give up the tools or when they fail a subsequent RfA. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Second Friday's comment, although I suspect for different reasons. :) The RfA process isn't all that bad; but when you have 100+ editors, each with their own distinct view, participating in a fairly high-profile discussion, it's hard to get anything that resembles consistency. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just an editorial comment: at this point in the discussion, there's enough variation in what people would like that we can't, as a practical matter, get any farther with Assistantship ... it's not that there's a clear yes/no, it's the combinatorial explosion thing, it would fragment into too many different discussions to be able to come to resolution. If opinions come together over time, I'll say something, but at this point I'm thinking that the proposal for a trial of unbundling specific userrights is way less controversial, and won't have us fighting the Foundation attorney. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Enough with the questions already?
Does anyone have any evidence showing that the ridiculous mountain of "optional" questions which are now asked in RfA (beyond the basic 3) actually provides us with a better quality of admin than before these questions were the norm? I know we can't prohibit the asking of questions (nor should we), but I'm sure it is very discouraging for many editors to see the number of questions that they will have to answer in a way that dodges traps and placates every special interest. It is one thing to identify a particular concern in an edit history and pose a question in relation to that concern, it is quite another thing to just template-spam them. RfA is stressful enough. If it doesn't improve the quality, we should take a serious re-examination of all these questions as the individuals asking them. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have data showing that it doesn't improve the quality? If you want to change things, don't you have the burden of proof?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- It was more an open question. I see people presenting a mountain of data above. I thought there might be something in that mountain of numbers that could be data-mined to answer my question. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- e.g.: Do admins confirmed before X date have a higher (or lower) rate of blocks/desysops/RFC/arb sanctions per month of service? IronGargoyle (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I should also say that I'm not proposing a rules change per-say. I don't think it's a good idea to prohibit questions, I just think that people should, perhaps, self-censor themselves if it isn't helping things. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is, simply, people asking questions for the sake of asking them - and in particular the pseudo-science "what is your favourite pie" type rubbish. In addition this current vouge for "what policy/process/bit of Wikipedia is in your view broken" etc. seems to me to be exceptionally without value. If one finds, on review of a candidate, an edit or series of edits that they would like clarification on then that is exactly when a question should be asked - RFA is "allegedly a discussion; Indeed it would be discourteous to oppose if their is benefit of doubt on an edit without seeking clarification. However it should be perfectly acceptable to ignore frivolous questions, or ones where the response would seem self-evident if the person asking the question looked further.
- tl;dr questions at RFA are a good thing. The people who ask them, however, need to think more about what value they, and the community, will derive from an answer before asking. Pedro : Chat
I strongly oppose any questions that, when answered, would not provide the community with any understanding of the candidate's ability to use the admin tools that they could not get from looking at the candidate's contributions. Timmeh (review me) 22:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- That was exaclty what I said Timmeh - you just managed to prune it to a sensible length! Pedro : Chat 22:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
They actually are optional. If the question asked was completely frivilous, or did not have anything significant to do with the candidate's adminship candidacy, I would be well within my discretion as a bureaucrat to ignore opposes based on "not answering my question". --Deskana, (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed - and rightly so. Pedro : Chat 22:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Though I have only rarely seen candidates who explicitly refuse to answer a question on the grounds that the question is vacuous. Protonk (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- We should encourage them to.--Tznkai (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would certainly be more inclined to vote for someone who deftly and politely refused to answer a bad question than someone who gave a pat answer. I think I have in the past (the only example I can think of is MZMbride's reconfirmation RfA or however you say his name, the guy who isn't MBainz...). Protonk (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- We should encourage them to.--Tznkai (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Echoing what the above folks have said, questions should only be asked if they pertain directly and specifically to the candidate. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I just added too many questions at RfA to PEREN. This is one that comes up ever month or two...---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Some questions are relevant to the candidate, some are really using RFA as a soapbox and some are genuine tests of an admins much needed ability to respond politely to the totally bizarre. I've run twice in the last year with about a dozen questions each time, and I appreciate with even fewer candidates we are now beginning to get even more questions per RFA. But I would much rather have had someone who asks an awkward question and waits for an answer than someone who opposes without giving diffs to show they've thoroughly vetted me and found something worth opposing over. So of all the problems at RFA I think excess questions are the least of our worries. But if anyone out there is thinking of running, my advice is:
- Go through the previous months worth of RFAs, identify the questions that you will probably be asked and make sure you already have an answer in your sandbox before you run.
- Always reread the relevant policy before posting up an answer, especially if you think you know it and have spotted the trick in the question.
- There is no such thing as an optional question.
- Answer the questions in order and if you need 24 hours to answer just say so (most questions will rush in at the beginning).
- When you are ready to transclude your RFA stop and go to bed. Reread it when you log on for a longish session, fix the time and transclude it - things are about to get busy, (I was up till 3am last time).
- ϢereSpielChequers 22:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ask ironholds about questions IMO. :p Protonk (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Nobody's said it yet....
OMG there's NOBODY running for anything right now!!!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Quick, someone desysop me, so I can run again! Oh wait, never mind. I couldn't pass in today's climate. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- {{historical}}, anyone? BencherliteTalk 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- You think you'd never pass .... Pedro : Chat 22:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've never written FAs, for example. Apparently that matters now. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- O tempora o mores! - which would, incidentally, seem ripe for a refernce or two... Pedro : Chat 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've never written FAs, for example. Apparently that matters now. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- You think you'd never pass .... Pedro : Chat 22:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This just means I get the next week off. --Deskana, (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- You know Dan, someone might be reading this, and run for RFA, just to give you something to do.... Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 22:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Steve, wasn't I suppose to nominate you at some point? My email gets a bit heavy but I could have sworn I needed to do that. Maybe we can throw the feeding frenzy a bit of Steve C. .... let's chat. Pedro : Chat 22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Meh, these threads are getting old... :P –Juliancolton | Talk 22:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Like me :) Pedro : Chat 22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- This thread isn't all bad! It helped me notice a stray comma in my signature. --Deskana (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- You only just noticed that? I've noticed it for ages.... Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 23:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah... we weren't gonna mention it, but that's the kind of carelessness that keeps someone from getting admin rights, Desk. -GTBacchus,,,(talk) 23:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC);)
- You only just noticed that? I've noticed it for ages.... Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 23:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- This thread isn't all bad! It helped me notice a stray comma in my signature. --Deskana (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Like me :) Pedro : Chat 22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need this? It's kinda obvious no one is running at the moment... Tavix | Talk 23:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- We need to engage in irrational panic about how the end of the
worldWikipedia is nigh though! Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC).- Exactly, it is our bi-monthly ritual to unwind... and relax. People routinely think this is a sympton of what is wrong, not realizing it happens several times a year.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus!
Why do people feel compelled to create useless joke threads like this over and over again? We get it, it's happened frequently in the past. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, it's all in good spirit. Way too much discussion here is taken too seriously. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- To keep this page going while we wait for more RfAs, perhaps Pedro, Balloonman and Julian can simultaneously run for 'cratship. It will give us something to do in the meanwhile. Majoreditor (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then maybe we'd have multiple passed RFBs in the same week, something that hasn't happened since 2007. Useight (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Interestingly, of 36 successful RfB nominations, there were two occasions where three passed on the same day. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- perhaps Pedro, Balloonman and Julian can simultaneously run for 'cratship. now I see a lot of red with those nominations...---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Then maybe we'd have multiple passed RFBs in the same week, something that hasn't happened since 2007. Useight (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- To keep this page going while we wait for more RfAs, perhaps Pedro, Balloonman and Julian can simultaneously run for 'cratship. It will give us something to do in the meanwhile. Majoreditor (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Shall we start WP:RFS; Wikipedia:Requests for Scroogeship with Wisdom89 as the first nominee? ;) (all in jest Wisdom, all in jest) --Hammersoft (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Boris ask why Wikipedia have no WP:Request for Commissar, offer himself as servant of people. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- In soviet Wikipedia, RFA find you! --Hammersoft (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No one's running? EVERYBODY PANIC!! RfA is gonna die oh noes! :O Wizardman 02:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Given how apparently easy it was for a snake like Ecoleetage / "Pastor" Theo / Wolpoff to get adminship, maybe it should be more difficult, not less, to get there. Meanwhile, what about the reported hundreds of inactive admins? Maybe they could be contacted and asked if they could help out? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't nominate it for WP:MfD yet! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Can we MFD User:Wisdom89? Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- A user MFDing their own page is equivalent to a {{db-user}}, if you do that you will get a speedy result! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, I find this an lol situation: like a star in space, this process has finally reached critical mass and imploded into itself :) More seriously though, this is a self-correcting situation; it will not be long now before a new nom gets added and this will pass us by. It would be an amusing story for the WP:POST though, if someone were of the mind to write it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're equating RFA to a brown dwarf? Sounds reasonable. Somebody flush the toilet please... --Hammersoft (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
OMG THERE'S STILL NOBODY RUNNING!
In somewhat serious manner, this is approaching a record... usually when there is nobody running, that condition is remedied within a few hours. I don't think we've ever gone this long without somebody running.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Omg. and sorry bout the misclick. {{sonominate}} someone. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder what the record is for lack of active RfAs? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- We have never had a full day without a candidate... but I don't know if we've ever had a full 24 hour period without one. A few months ago, somebody did an automated search, and confirmed that there was always at least 1 candidate every single day for something like the past 3 or 4 years.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- As of your above comment, we were officially at 24 hours without a nomination for either RfA or RfB on the page. We're now at 27 hours and counting. History in the making :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- If the day finishes without somebody transcluding an RfA, then that would be worth a mention in Signpost...---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Perhaps we should protect the WP:RFA page to make it so only admins could edit it ;-)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- As of your above comment, we were officially at 24 hours without a nomination for either RfA or RfB on the page. We're now at 27 hours and counting. History in the making :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- We have never had a full day without a candidate... but I don't know if we've ever had a full 24 hour period without one. A few months ago, somebody did an automated search, and confirmed that there was always at least 1 candidate every single day for something like the past 3 or 4 years.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- IIIRC there was a period of about 5 days in Janurary when there wasn't a single nomination.--Patton123 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, that's not true, there was at least one person running every single day in January.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh right, must have imagined a couple of hours as being 5 days :P...--Patton123 (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, you might not have seen one at the end of January... for some reason while it was active, it's been blanked so all that appears is "this page has been courtesy blanked".---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Quick, we must keep the page history counter from dropping below 350kb. Skomorokh 23:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe WP just crossed some kind of "hump." It could be that the hoops that prospective admins have to go through these days just scares the majority of likely candidates off. Since I hardly ever post to this page, let me add another two cents. It isn't about the amount of edits, or where the preponderance of edits take place, but the quality of an editors work, and an ability to intereact in a decent, socially responsible way towards other editors - this should be of greatest importance in nominating/selecting administator candidates. Almost every single admin candidate that I have opposed and who recieved the buttons anyways have been de-opped since. An editors work before their nomination generally is the best indicator of their future success as an administrator. Just one more opinion. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- If I may comment, User:The ed17 has saved the day!! --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 02:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's grounds for an oppose... Oppose user transcluded on the 18th before we went a calendar day without a candidate.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh c'mon. I should be getting an award ... at least a pat on the back. ;-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- actually, it's weird... the time stamp on the history page says you transcluded on the 18th, but every place else the stamps say the 19th... including here---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh c'mon. I should be getting an award ... at least a pat on the back. ;-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's grounds for an oppose... Oppose user transcluded on the 18th before we went a calendar day without a candidate.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
We went from 17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC) to 05:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC) with no serious nominations for adminship. This period of nearly 36 hours with no RfA nominations is longer than the recent one. I don't count this edit as a proper adminship request. Graham87 12:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't consider that to be a legit request either, but I would consider this to be one despite it being slightly malformed it did run and was closed per SNOW. Which means that on 12/31 at 22:03 there was an RfA.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Arrrrrrrgh!
Avast! It be International Talk Like a Pirate Day and ain't no scurvy dogs been a-nominatin' themselves fer ye ol' powers. Have none of ye scallywags the courage to be swashbucklin' o'er the high seas of RfA? Put yerself forward, me hearties, and see if ye find the booty, or if ye're sent to the depths. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well shiver me timbers and poke me other eye out if that ain't a call to duty! Aye shall put me best peg forward and test the seas now, why wait fer me mates to nominate me? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, not enough grog. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- All hope abandon, ye who enter RfA. Ye be lucky if ye make it out alive without being forced to walk the plank. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Boris, when Aye take command of me ship, I'll have ye walkin' the plank fer yer scurvy commentatin'. ;) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- LOL! PmlineditorTalk 10:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yarr, tis be a good idea Cap'n! Arr! SoArr! Let go plunderin! 10:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- LOL! PmlineditorTalk 10:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Boris, when Aye take command of me ship, I'll have ye walkin' the plank fer yer scurvy commentatin'. ;) Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
List of editors who should be considered for adminship
How about a list of editors that deserve consideration for possible adminship?
user:S MarshallNot me, not now. Thanks for the vote of confidence, though.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)- user:Kelapsticksee comment below
- user:MichaelQSchmidtHas elected to enter coaching before a possible run. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- user:Bongomatic
- User:Drmies See S Marshall's comment below - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- User:theleftorium if enough time has passed? Thanks, but I won't run until December (or possibly a bit sooner). I'm interested in the vetting-thingy, though. Theleftorium 20:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I hesitate to mention user:FlyingToaster, but they seemed okay to me even in light of the content issue that was raised. No need to attack me if I'm way off on any of these. My endorsement is probably a kiss of death anyway. I'm just making suggestions for discussion and consideration. Do other editors have ideas? I'm pretty self centered so I don't notice much about what other editors are up to. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea CoM, though we might wish to remove editors from the list who might through modesty not wish to be mentioned. I'll have a look through the unsuccessful "nearly there" candidates from last year. Skomorokh 02:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've only bumped into Drmies and Bongomatic in limited fashion but it's been positive for sure and I 100% second that Kelapstick would make a great admin after working with him in weeding out notable and non-notable minor league baseball players.--Giants27(c|s) 02:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting - but just to play devils advocate... Wouldn't this type of listing just get subjected to the same comments and scrutiny as a full RFA? Wouldn't it be hard (impossible) to take someone whose name was on the list here but had a few negative comments and then have them successfully pass an RFA - it seems like people would refer to the pre-nom list comments which would strongly bias their actual RFA !votes. Similarly, if a person listed here received wide pre-nom support from well respected admins and editors wouldn't that almost hand them the mop automatically (a la an Ambassadorship handed down by the president). Not saying it's a bad idea, and we might benefit from some pre-nom discussions... just saying there are some logistics. 7 02:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not really suggesting we get into an in depth discussion and wouldn't want to bias the RFA itself one way or the other. I was just throwing out names for consideration that might be good to nom. I was hoping other editors might be willing to do the vetting and nomming or have other names worth looking into. For some strange reason I'm a bit controversial on the Wiki so I don't think I'm in a good position to actually nom anyone myself, unless they really like uphill battles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting - but just to play devils advocate... Wouldn't this type of listing just get subjected to the same comments and scrutiny as a full RFA? Wouldn't it be hard (impossible) to take someone whose name was on the list here but had a few negative comments and then have them successfully pass an RFA - it seems like people would refer to the pre-nom list comments which would strongly bias their actual RFA !votes. Similarly, if a person listed here received wide pre-nom support from well respected admins and editors wouldn't that almost hand them the mop automatically (a la an Ambassadorship handed down by the president). Not saying it's a bad idea, and we might benefit from some pre-nom discussions... just saying there are some logistics. 7 02:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Note: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kelapstick was only a few months ago; the RfA was succeeding, but he chose to withdraw anyway because he felt he wasn't quite ready. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I know I am late to the party, but since my name was mentioned I thought I should comment. I would run again, but should wait until at least the spring. Things are going to start to get busy for me in the near future and I don't think that I will have enough time to dedicate to Wikipedia as I would like to (in particularly in an administrative function). And Soap is right, still too soon after my first RfA. The vetting idea is interesting, and I haven't seen a name posted above that raises any red flags. --kelapstick (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've only bumped into Drmies and Bongomatic in limited fashion but it's been positive for sure and I 100% second that Kelapstick would make a great admin after working with him in weeding out notable and non-notable minor league baseball players.--Giants27(c|s) 02:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Someother potentially-useful lists are non-admins from WP:WBFAN/WP:GAN (inb4 content doesn't matter to adminship, yes it does), WP:DRV (participation in meta-deletion indicates interest, if not aptitude, in deletion policy), WikiProject co-ordinators (Milhist, Film in particular), clerks from WP:SPI, frequent petitioners at SPI, WP:RFPP, WP:UND. I'm not sure how to usefully extract candidates from recent changes/new page/vandalism patrol, but that would be another avenue. Skomorokh 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've recently been asked to stand again, but I'm still a little bruised from the last time.
I've prompted Drmies to stand on a number of occasions and he has always said in strong terms he prefers to remain as an ordinary editor.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Do editors think these lists are helpful/a good idea? I could come up with half a dozen more, but will desist if they are problematic. Feedback appreciated. Mahalo, Skomorokh 18:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am honored to be even mentioned here. I have much respect for some of the people on this shortlist--I've left a love-note for Giants27 below; K-stick has the right temperament and is just the most pleasant person to work with; S Marshall would be an asset as an admin; and MQS has really, really grown on me (we started off on the wrong foot, back when I was a deletionist--my mistake, no doubt, but if anyone can 'save' an article at AfD in the right way, without bending the rules, it's MQS). I would vote yes on any one of them, and not just cause we're all in a very, very secret cabal.
I've had some unpleasant experiences at recent RfAs and have stayed away from either nominating or commenting, and I am hesitant of starting the process myself. I have been thinking about going through the workshop and will do so in the near future, and possible someone who doesn't really know me can vet me. Right now is not the time since I'm quite busy at work and at home, but a few months from now might work. Thank you all, and thanks to ChildofMidnight for such a well-punctuated start to a useful discussion. Drmies (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed Bongo is on CoM's shortlist as well: he's a bit of a whipper-snapper with less than 10,000 edits, but I believe him to be wise beyond his years--nice to work with, very knowledgeable of policy, and even-handed. Drmies (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would absolutely support User:S Marshall, User:Kelapstick, and User:MichaelQSchmidt. While I have actually NOT agreed with them in say every AfD we both participated in, they both make reasonable arguments (in RfAs as well!) and have done a lot of good work for the project. I would trust these editors as admins. They have the experience, politeness, coolness, and dedication to merit serious consideration. In an actual support "vote", I could easily write a whole paragraph of positives for these editors noting their varied and many positive contributions to our project. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I hadn't noticed Bongo is on CoM's shortlist as well: he's a bit of a whipper-snapper with less than 10,000 edits, but I believe him to be wise beyond his years--nice to work with, very knowledgeable of policy, and even-handed. Drmies (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Recent unsuccessful candidates
This is an arbitrary selection of unsuccessful candidates from September 2008 – February 2009 who might have a shot.
iMatthew (talk · contribs)Candidate withdrew. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 23:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)- Sephiroth storm (talk · contribs) At WP:VETTING - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Mayalld (talk · contribs)not currently active Skomorokh 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC) But may well become active shortly! Mayalld (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Until It Sleeps (talk · contribs)just ran a few weeks ago Soap Talk/ContributionsItsmejudith (talk · contribs)Not the right time, see below, but I've left a message on her talk - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Ecoleetage (talk · contribs) (I kid, I kid)Now seriously...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 12:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- The ed17 (talk · contribs) - WP:Requests for adminship/The_ed17 2, will transclude as soon as MBK004 noms. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 18:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Suntag (talk · contribs)Inactive (Retired?) decltype (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- Undead warrior (talk · contribs)
Dendodge (talk · contribs)just ran a few weeks ago Soap Talk/Contributions- Realist2 (talk · contribs)
- Eastlaw (talk · contribs) Not at this time, see below - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Blanchardb (talk · contribs) - I'd be interested, but I would like the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bridges to the Island of Montreal/archive1 to close before the RfA is initiated. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Adolphus79 (talk · contribs) At WP:VETTING - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wisdom89 (talk · contribs) He's considering it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Gtstricky (talk · contribs) Very low activity recently. decltype (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mvjs (talk · contribs)
- Krm500 (talk · contribs)
- Ironholds (talk · contribs) - I asked on Aug 31, he said he wants a few more months - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Kww (talk · contribs)
Vishnava (talk · contribs)Inactive. decltype (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- Neurolysis (talk · contribs) At WP:VETTING. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Jamesontai (talk · contribs) - If Jameson becomes active enough to pass RfA, I'll be happy to nominate him, we worked in WP:ROBO together, but he has very few recent edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs)
- Plasticup (talk · contribs) Bit inactive, has one edit in the last two months-ish. GARDEN 18:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Synergy (talk · contribs)Syn 00:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Danielfolsom (talk · contribs)has left the building :(SchfiftyThree (talk · contribs){{retired}}- Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs)
- Feel free to strike the admins, inactive and recently-blocked editors from the above list, and to remove yourself if you'd prefer not to be considered. No negative comments about the above-listed editors please. Skomorokh 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Haven't really bumped into many of these. Mvjs (talk · contribs) has slowed down his contributing substantially. iMatthew should possibly run soon? Aaroncrick (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think I have a better chance than most of them. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Neurolysis might be worth considering again. I think it's been a while since their last effort. And I've seen good contribs from Ironholds. If someone failed in the past it means they may have made some mistakes, but if they've stuck with editing, gained experience, and stayed out of trouble I think it's worth considering them. Of course I'd be willing to give Ottava a chance too (depending on what diffs people can dig up :) So who knows. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- IMathew looks okay to me at first blush. Anyway, I just wanted to throw out some names and see if others had any. I think there must be qutie a few good editors who deserve a shot, even if they possess some imperfections that deem them more or less human. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Neurolysis might be worth considering again. I think it's been a while since their last effort. And I've seen good contribs from Ironholds. If someone failed in the past it means they may have made some mistakes, but if they've stuck with editing, gained experience, and stayed out of trouble I think it's worth considering them. Of course I'd be willing to give Ottava a chance too (depending on what diffs people can dig up :) So who knows. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Itsmejudith (talk · contribs) declares on her userpage an intention to run again, and is currently active. Anyone want to privately review? Skomorokh 02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- She had no edits before today for roughly two months, so it's the wrong time, but I'll be happy to help when she's been back for at least a month. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The ones who were rejected, were booted because there was too much known about them. Presumably "Pastor" Theo got in because he was not so well known and was good at convincing everyone he was Mr. Nice Guy. Anyone who "creates drama" (code words for "speaks his mind and won't kiss up") gets a lot of negative votes, for fear they might actually do what admins are supposed to do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of which, I was hoping you'd run again sometime Bugs, do you want any help? - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not interested at this time, but thanks for asking. Meanwhile, (ec) I was going to say that I feel more comfortable with flawed but reasonable "known quantities", and the one on the list I know best and would support is Neurolysis. As a practical matter, he's starting at college and most likely won't have time. Maybe that's the explanation for the hundreds of other supposed admins who don't work here anymore, but it might be worth canvassing them and finding out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Two others I thought of are User:RexxS (not sure if he'd be willing to run) and user:Timmeh (not sure how long it's been since he ran?). ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- What the? IMatthews not an admin? Wow.Abce2|This isnot a test 03:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd put my hand up...but there's that account sharing thing to clear up first I guess. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 03:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I wish I had han- never mind.Abce2|This isnot a test 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, hopefully Pedro will be able to push Steve over the edge ... uhhh errr ummm .. I mean "Assist Steve in deciding to run". :). another couple that I wouldn't mind seeing in that list would be User:Chzz and User:ukexpat. Amory is getting pretty close to time as well. I know Iri got tired of the BS, and decided to focus on content (what a silly thing to do in this project eh?), but I suspect if needed she would pick up her bit again. (although she wouldn't need to run a RfA, just request her bit back from a crat or steward I believe). — Ched : ? 04:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Off the top of my head, has anyone ever considered asking User:CaliforniaAliBaba? I already tried nominating someone for the first time this month, but it didn't work out. There are a few people who I wish I could nominate, but I know they'd fail because they have political or ideological messages on their user pages (won't mention names). I'll think about this more later. Dekimasuよ! 06:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Maybe we can convince ShelfSkewed? Previous suggestion at User talk:ShelfSkewed/Archive 2#Adminship. Dekimasuよ! 06:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I myself was not considering going for adminship again, but if I was asked I probably would oblige. That said, I'm still concerned by the Giano incident. I've not really done anything to advance from that before (maybe the refrainment from such activity is enough, but meh), said words that, quote, "would make a sailor blush", and generally have been a bit more laid back in what was my previously pretty rubbish 'must-not-do-anything-wrong' one man self-censorship parade (admittedly that went to hell with the thing over Giano, but whatever). I would like to consider the thing with Giano resolved, but every time I have tried to apologise (admittedly it was a bit late the first time anyway) there has been something close by that has made it look like I am doing it for my own gain. First time was at my RfA, 'own gain' is self explanatory, although the want for 'gain' is not something that should be wanted in adminship, second time was when FT had her RfA, which, as you can see from my lack of immediate nom, I had absolutely no idea about. I'd not been on IRC for ages, which I guess was the venue that she wanted me to talk to her at, and she ran without my knowledge. I can't remember whether there was a third time I apologised, but if there is, I'm probably apologising too much. I'm sorry for the whole incident -- the truth is that I mistook Giano for a completely different editor with a similar name who pretty much did meet the criteria I specified. It was a slip of the tongue, it wasn't intended to be malicious. I've not been the most active recently, either, but I don't know if that will matter that much to the RfA crowd (not so much in with them nowadays). But yes, I'd be willing to run, but you'll probably have to prod me first. Sorry for this massive wall of text, but I just wanted to get the skeletons out of the way in case anyone did want to prod me into it. — neuro(talk) 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more than a little uncomfortable about discussion of named potential candidates here, and would be much more comfortable if we stuck to discussing potential sources of recruits. Several good ones have been mentioned, in particular unsuccessful candidates who last ran more than three months ago and are still active. I would suggest broadening that from just the last year to further back, but I'd suggest concentrating on candidates who failed on issues like inexperience and lack of policy knowledge. We could also look at people on wp:EDITS. Lastly how about we all take a little break from this forum and revisit those we've opposed a few months ago to see if they are now ready? ϢereSpielChequers 07:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I myself was not considering going for adminship again, but if I was asked I probably would oblige. That said, I'm still concerned by the Giano incident. I've not really done anything to advance from that before (maybe the refrainment from such activity is enough, but meh), said words that, quote, "would make a sailor blush", and generally have been a bit more laid back in what was my previously pretty rubbish 'must-not-do-anything-wrong' one man self-censorship parade (admittedly that went to hell with the thing over Giano, but whatever). I would like to consider the thing with Giano resolved, but every time I have tried to apologise (admittedly it was a bit late the first time anyway) there has been something close by that has made it look like I am doing it for my own gain. First time was at my RfA, 'own gain' is self explanatory, although the want for 'gain' is not something that should be wanted in adminship, second time was when FT had her RfA, which, as you can see from my lack of immediate nom, I had absolutely no idea about. I'd not been on IRC for ages, which I guess was the venue that she wanted me to talk to her at, and she ran without my knowledge. I can't remember whether there was a third time I apologised, but if there is, I'm probably apologising too much. I'm sorry for the whole incident -- the truth is that I mistook Giano for a completely different editor with a similar name who pretty much did meet the criteria I specified. It was a slip of the tongue, it wasn't intended to be malicious. I've not been the most active recently, either, but I don't know if that will matter that much to the RfA crowd (not so much in with them nowadays). But yes, I'd be willing to run, but you'll probably have to prod me first. Sorry for this massive wall of text, but I just wanted to get the skeletons out of the way in case anyone did want to prod me into it. — neuro(talk) 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can I run? Oh pretty please please please with sugar on top and a dancing cute little fairy? Please? lol I have as much chance as an ice sculpture in Dante's inferno. The funny thing is, I've never done anything to damage the project, only help it. But, people don't like me (and I don't care if they do), and RfA is a popularity contest. So, I'd never pass. Maybe that's the absolute proof that RfA is broken :) --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mm, correlation doesn't imply causality. — neuro(talk) 14:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- And lack of smiley faces does not imply lack of humor. Sprinkle smileys as needed :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mm, correlation doesn't imply causality. — neuro(talk) 14:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Err, some of these people have been opposed before, for good cause. Are we sure it's wise to try to choose from people who have already failed an RFA? Friday (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that all or even most of the editors would be smart choices for candidates, but many fine administrators had unsuccessful requests, and this seemed like a good place to start narrowing down the non-admin pool. Have you any suggestions of good places to look for candidates? I'm prepared to do the donkey work if others are prepared to review + nominate. Cheers, Skomorokh 16:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe look at who is doing new page patrol? Might as well save time by giving the competent ones the ability to actually delete the junk, rather than just tagging it. And yeah, some people who have run before are good candidates. I just thought it was odd to see a few obviously inappropriate candidates in that list as well. Friday (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mea culpa for listing anyone obviously inappropriate; I don't follow a great deal of wiki-politics and am only one amongst the blind trying to get an understanding of the RfA elephant. NPP is a good place to look, do you know of any way to get a list of the likely candidates in one fell swoop? Need a less piecemeal approach than sitting watching the logs, at least for this project. Cheers, Skomorokh 16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- IMO, one of the best places to look for potential admin candidates is WP:GAN. The nominators over there surely have enough content work to get by, and the reviewers are usually very competent. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's next on my list, but I don't want to spam the page with these if they're not welcome (see above request for feedback). Cheers, Skomorokh 18:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- IMO, one of the best places to look for potential admin candidates is WP:GAN. The nominators over there surely have enough content work to get by, and the reviewers are usually very competent. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mea culpa for listing anyone obviously inappropriate; I don't follow a great deal of wiki-politics and am only one amongst the blind trying to get an understanding of the RfA elephant. NPP is a good place to look, do you know of any way to get a list of the likely candidates in one fell swoop? Need a less piecemeal approach than sitting watching the logs, at least for this project. Cheers, Skomorokh 16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just to note, I would be honored to run again, should somebody wish to nominate me. :) iMatthew talk at 20:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- A second note, I'm not interested in running for quite a while here. Standard problems (sarcasm, morbid sense of humour, personality) will undermine any chance I have. Ironholds (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Belatedly notified the remaining above-listed editors. Skomorokh 18:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would probably run again if someone else nominated me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- At least one of those, I will likely strongly oppose due to borderline immature bitterness after I opposed last time, i.e. lack of effort to mend fences a la say MuZemike with whom I started out on the wrong foot and nevertheless wound up supporting recently. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I posted this list without asking the editors in question first, which is why I explicitly asked that editors not make negative comments about any prospective candidates. The point of this exercise is to make experienced and clueful nominators aware of potential candidates, not to run a mini-RfA in this section. I'd appreciate it if you withdrew your comment, A Nobody. Skomorokh 18:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly, your inability to be adult about candidates who refuse to kiss the ring is your problem and doesn't need to be broadcast in a forum meant to be free of negative comments w/ regard to specific candidates. Likewise being coy about who you are referring to is hardly a defense. Please consider the possibility that your opinion about who you might oppose isn't wanted right now. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm just going to post a few opinions here since someone put it on my talk page. I'm not very active right at the moment. I deploy in the Navy on February 23rd and I'm still in college as a Pilot. Yeah, I'm really busy lol. Anyway, I had a few qualms about my RfA. I can completely understand why people want an admin to have a FA under their belt, but come on, it's really not needed. In my opinion, an admin should be able to edit this site with confidence and care. I.e., they should not bindly do stuff. I'm putting this in easy terms so I don't confuse myself. (That and I just woke up) I believe that if an editor has been editing for a long time, knows the system, knows how to do good with Wikipedia, then he or she has what it takes. I do not believe a GA or a FA should even be considered at RfA. But hey, it is and I can't really do much about it. I failed 3(?) RfAs and at the moment, I have no wish to re-attempt it. (Fairly stressful event) I may have another go at it after I've been deployed, but that time will come later. Hope you enjoyed my rant :) Now it's back to the vodka bottle and x-box live. Auf Wiedersehen. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I might consider running again for RfA in the future, but right now it is out of the question, because:
- I just started my first term in graduate school and I am under a lot of stress,
- I am dealing with a host of personal and family-related problems, and therefore I will not be as active in the near-term future,
- Too many people consider RfA a forum for trolling and general incivility, and I really don't feel like being subjected to that.
The two people who disrupted my RfA have both been blocked indefinitely. This should tell you something about their motives. I may have let my Italian temper get the better of me, but I don't think that I said or did anything which could be construed as a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Likewise, I don't much care for the elitist, "last one in closes the door behind him" attitude which far too many of the admins involved in the RfA process display. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 02:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh sure, I'd be happy to accept an RFA if someone nominates me. I just don't think I stand a chance. That said, I haven't been following RFA for a while, so maybe I would. I just have a LOT of baggage with me. :) ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 14:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Purely for transparency, here is my discussion with Skomorokh, comments on the topic, and acceptance... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Quite busy at work at the moment and likely to be editing only sporadically for a while longer. Thanks for the thought, Dank and Skomorokh. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Highly active editors
This is an arbitrarily-selected list of editors who put themselves forward as WP:HACKS sometime in the past 18 months. Such editors exhibit keenness to help out and/or unused time on their hands, which are exploitable for our purposes:
ComputerGuy (talk · contribs)No thanks (for now...) –CG 16:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)- Bob the Wikipedian (talk · contribs) - I accept, see below Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Javert (talk · contribs)recently turned down an offer, wants to wait a bit - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- Techman224 (talk · contribs) - I accept, see below Techman224Talk 01:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) An RFA would be, shall we say, vigorous. Tony, I'd recommend taking advantage of the new WP:VETTING page if you want to pursue this. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Dylan620 (talk · contribs)Would like to become one, but I'll wait until December. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- Ebyabe (talk · contribs)
Gary King (talk · contribs)- was asked and responded "maybe soon..." in May 2009 Frank | talk 17:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Declined on my talkpage; not enough time. → ROUX ₪ 14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Giants27 (talk · contribs)See below. Cheers,--Giants27(c|s) 01:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)- Irunongames (talk · contribs)I would love to be a admin but I do not think I have what it takes yet, because I do not know really how to be a admin. Irunongames • play 20:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Killervogel5 (talk · contribs)– not at this time. Very focused on content edits right now and, honestly, don't feel qualified to handle the tools. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- Ktr101 (talk · contribs)
- Truco (talk · contribs)
Unionhawk (talk · contribs)See below. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 18:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs)Recently turned down an offer, not interested in adminship. Maedin\talk 17:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- Vantine84 (talk · contribs)
- LouriePieterse (talk · contribs)Note: Ran in June 2009, closed as unsuccessful.MacMedtalkstalk 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Aditya (talk · contribs)Will run in October, not just now. Cheers, ƒ(Δ)² 09:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Alexius08 (talk · contribs)Maybe in January 2010. I'm busy IRL. Alexius08 (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Chenzw (talk · contribs)Not at this time. Chenzw Talk 07:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)- Matthew hk (talk · contribs)
- Joseph Solis in Australia (talk · contribs)
Promethean (talk · contribs)Although a good option, not very active with only a few edits since July. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- Deon (talk · contribs)
- Cameron (talk · contribs)
- Candlewicke (talk · contribs) User was asked in August by Dylan620, and said that they'd wait until December. Jafeluv (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Cyclonenim (talk · contribs)See below. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- GregorB (talk · contribs)
Lucasbfr (talk · contribs)Is user:Luk, CU/ADMIN- Rjwilmsi (talk · contribs)
- Sunderland06 (talk · contribs)
Please help out by removing admins, blocked editors and those who might not appreciate being listed or are already listed in the previous subsection, and striking inactive, retired or non-power crazed editors with an explanation. If you see someone you're surprised to find is not an administrator, or you think ought to be one, please consider vetting and nominating. Cheers, Skomorokh 16:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's an impressive list. Thanks for working it up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mere copypasta :) The legwork will be in the nominations. Skomorokh 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Per WSC above, I think it'd be courteous to notify these
hackseditors that they are being discussed here. decltype (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- Sure; could someone with the automated tools for the task do the honours? Skomorokh 17:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I will not be running for the foreseeable future due to my own concerns regarding my suitability, preparedness and time commitments. Mostly per this. Thanks for the consideration, however. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- While I would personally be honored to serve Wikipedia as an admin, per this discussion it would be best if I waited until the end of the year; I'm personally planning to run the gauntlet in late December. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hmm... right now? probably not; I want to let my Editor Review go through, for one, two, I quite frankly need to get around to reading up on policy, and three, I'd also want to ask King of Hearts (my Admin Coach) as well. The only one of those that could take a long time is the editor review part.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm honored to be mentioned, however last month I got an admin coach (King of Hearts) and I'll wait until he nominates me or considers me ready to run.--Giants27(c|s) 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- From what I've seen of you at AfD (and your arguments for shooting down one or two of my nominations, haha) I would support you. I'm not a diff digger (does this exist already? can I take credit for that?) but I think you have the proper temperament and dedication to the project. I'll await the judgment of and nomination by King of Hearts, for whom I have great respect. Drmies (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm honored to be mentioned, however last month I got an admin coach (King of Hearts) and I'll wait until he nominates me or considers me ready to run.--Giants27(c|s) 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hmm... right now? probably not; I want to let my Editor Review go through, for one, two, I quite frankly need to get around to reading up on policy, and three, I'd also want to ask King of Hearts (my Admin Coach) as well. The only one of those that could take a long time is the editor review part.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- While I would personally be honored to serve Wikipedia as an admin, per this discussion it would be best if I waited until the end of the year; I'm personally planning to run the gauntlet in late December. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The first thing I thought of when I got the message was, "Oh great, I need a life badly." I ran last month for administratorship, but that sunk because of two things that have been put behind me. I could probably run, but it's been a month and a half. I know the ropes, but two missteps helped to kill it. Juliancolton is my coach, but that hasn't really gone anywhere since he is so busy. If anyone would like to take on helping me that would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'll run if others think that I have a clear shot at doing so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the thought and confidence that comes with the presentation of my name as a possible administrator; however, I will have to decline a run at that time. Staxringold, an administrator with whom I have had quite a lot of contact in the past several weeks, indicated that he also believed I deserved a nomination, but I feel that, at this time, I'm not yet qualified to handle the tools. I put a lot of emphasis on the responsibility that comes with administratorship (administration?), and as such, I don't feel that I've put forth the necessary time and effort to meet what would be my own personal goals before applying for such a position. I am highly focused on a specific set of content edits right now, what with some upcoming featured lists and topics and so forth, and I don't feel that going through an RfA is the best course of action for me right now. I am in the midst of an editor review, and any editor who wishes to comment on my work is welcomed to do so at his/her leisure. At this time, though, I will not be undertaking a run at the mop. I have expressed my thanks to Staxringold, and do express my thanks to those here who believed me qualified. Though I have made statements in the past that I did not wish to run for the position, I may possibly consider it in the future, and will notify appropriate parties if and when that time arrives. Thanks for your time and support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not doubt my ability to exercise careful and just use of the tools endowed with adminship. While I do accept this pseudo-nomination (and I say that with care to point out that I was only haphazardly selected for my participation in WP:HAU), I consider it prideful to nominate myself; if indeed someone trusts me then they may nominate me. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:Arrrrrrrgh!!!, I will nominate myself now. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 02:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to run for adminship, but I'm not conferrable about nominating myself. I would like it if someone (or several people) nominate me for adminship. There is a concern that I have though about how strict RFA has been now, because it seems it's been getting stricter every year (by the amount of RFA's passing being less and less) for just the small things. However, since the number of active admins are decreasing, and less people are getting through RFA, the ratio isn't equalizing and we are losing administrators we need more active administrators, so I like to try to pass RFA and see for myself. Anyone who wants to nominate me can talk to see on my talk page. Thanks for listing me here. Techman224Talk 01:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the consideration. I wasn't sure about this, but figured "Nothing ventured". I'd feel more comfortable if someone else could nominate me, though, to help me through the process. If I somehow made it, and it doesn't work out, I can always return to my normal activities, doncha know. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for nominating me. I really do want to be an admin, maybe the youngest admin (currently, I'm 12), but I feel I'm not fully aware of all areas of the wiki (especially the slow-loading and dangerous XfDs), so I may deny any nominations until I feel ready. –CG 16:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
DYK reviewers
This is an arbitrarily-culled list of some of the most prolific contributors to T:TDYK. DYK may not be thought of highly in content terms as other peer review processes, but it does tend to produce non-controversial, diligent, content-focused administrators.
Shubinator (talk · contribs)Not just yet; in the near future. Shubinator (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)- Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs)
- Agne27 (talk · contribs)
Bruce1ee (talk · contribs)Thank you, but at this stage, no thank you. I'm not ready to undertake the responsibilities of an admin. --Bruce1eetalk 07:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Boston (talk · contribs)Not terribly active at the moment. Skomorokh 17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- Alansohn (talk · contribs)
- Hassocks5489 (talk · contribs)
Yomangani (talk · contribs)Currently inactive. Skomorokh 17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Camptown (talk · contribs)Currently inactive. Skomorokh 17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Johnbod (talk · contribs)No, but thanks. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)RyanCross (talk · contribs)Currently inactive. Skomorokh 17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Dahn (talk · contribs)Not at the moment (see below). Shubinator (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs)Not interested at this time (see below). Shubinator (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)- IvoShandor (talk · contribs)
97198 (talk · contribs)Thanks, but not interested at this time. —97198 (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)- Materialscientist (talk · contribs)
- Olaf Davis (talk · contribs)
- Mjroots (talk · contribs) Thanks, Yes, I am interested.
Smee (talk · contribs)Currently inactive. Skomorokh 17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs)Thanks, but lack experience in some areas. Maybe later. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Wetman (talk · contribs)Thank you, but I'd burn out quickly.Wetman (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Lampman (talk · contribs)Nah, wouldn't work. Lampman (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Ravichandar84 (talk · contribs)Thanks a lot! But these days I don't frequent Wikipedia as much and I fear I may not be able to be able to remain as active as I might be required to. Once again thanks.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 03:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Anlace (talk · contribs)Currently inactive. Skomorokh 17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- Benea (talk · contribs)
- Oceanh (talk · contribs)
P.K.Niyogi (talk · contribs)Currently inactive. Skomorokh 17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- Soman (talk · contribs) I would be willing to run if there are people willing to back up such a candidature. --Soman (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Manxruler (talk · contribs)Politely declined. decltype (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Cunard (talk · contribs)Has declined nom offers in the past, doesn't wish to be an admin. JamieS93 18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)- Kablammo (talk · contribs)
- Rlendog (talk · contribs)
- Aboutmovies (talk · contribs)
As above, please help out by removing admins, blocked editors and those who might not appreciate being listed or are already listed in the previous subsection, and striking inactive, retired or uninterested editors with an explanation. If you see someone you're surprised to find is not an administrator, or you think ought to be one, please consider vetting and nominating. Mahalo, Skomorokh 17:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is it me or does anyone else think it is odd that the list is "arbitrarily-culled" just before my name would appear? Even Kablammo is listed. Blah! Ottava Rima (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, Ocean appears below me. Blah! Skomorokh! You did that on purpose! Brat! :P Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing personal intended, perhaps I am saving all the exciting nominations for myself ;) Skomorokh 17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure sure, you'd probably nom me then be the first oppose. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- doe-eyed look* who, me? Skomorokh 18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure sure, you'd probably nom me then be the first oppose. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing personal intended, perhaps I am saving all the exciting nominations for myself ;) Skomorokh 17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have now manually notified all of these. Please do not post any more :) decltype (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for consideration, however not interested in becoming an administrator at this time.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the (potential) nomination, it honors me. However, I am unsure I can take on this responsibility and live up to it, at least not at the moment - I would consider it counterproductive for an elected admin not to be able to respond swiftly to queries or perform necessary administrative/routine tasks over purely voluntary editorial ones, and I am unsure that I could ever answer to that natural demand with the promptitude expected from me. I have also noticed that owning admin tools, particularly in subject areas where I edit, tends to attract wikidrama, and I want to spare myself that. But I see many name proposals on this page that would be great additions to the admin community, and to all of those who wish to race I say best of luck. Dahn (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for considering me. As it happens, I received decltype note about this thread a couple of days after Jac16888 convinced me that I should let him nominate me. But, as I told him on my talk page, I will be away most of the next week and I am not sure how much internet access I will have to respond promptly to RfA questions. Therefore, I would like to hold off a week before proceeding. Rlendog (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- At a minimum I would support User:Alansohn who has made many brilliant contributions to our project. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the mention and the talkpage note. I'm at least potentially interested, possibly some time in the near future... but I too am travelling this week and may have scant internet access. I'll think about it more thoroughly when I get hold of a steady connection. 62.51.156.23 (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The "no negative comments" stipulation, and an alternative
I know that this is a very well intended stipulation, because it avoids drama here. And the rule "withhold criticism" works for brainstorming, so why not here?
I think this stipulation makes the exercise pointless. The problem has been that RfA has been perceived by many as too toxic, and not looking at the stumbling stones is a step in the wrong direction; we will only end up with even more nominations of candidates that are doomed to fail. While brainstorming is fun, it is not appropriate for this situation: It is based on combining and improving ideas, and we simply can not say: Let's take the left editor X, prune and graft the right hand of editor Y, and improve the whole with the frontal lobe of editor Z. People are the way they are, and we can't change them. Some people have issues that thwart their chances of being elected - some even failed elections fairly recently. We can talk positively all we want here, but that won't make the problems go away.
Here's an alternative: If an experienced editor N thinks another editor C might be a good candidate, let's proceed as follows:
- N posts the name here, with no obligation for C.
- Other editors reply to N privately by e-mail, especially if they believe C would not be a good candidate or if they want to co-nominate C.
- N evaluates the replies, and if the feedback looks good, then
- N asks C if C wants to run
- N nominates C
- If the feedback identifies a problem, then N can discuss it with C, and help C become a better candidate. When N thinks C improved appropriately, N can post C's name again, mentioning that the earlier concern has been addressed.
I believe that process will improve the quality or our candidates, increase the chance for RfAs to pass, while giving some of our most prolific editors some honest feedback, mediated by an experienced editor, that helps them improve. — Sebastian 20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a very interesting idea, but I have one objection: It ruins the (at least perceived) transparency of the process. decltype (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wellll... by the time it gets to actual RFA, it's as transparent as always. Sure, there's a less-transparent thing in front of that, but this kind of thing already goes on all the time. And, at the end of the day, we need to get people to become more interested in getting the right answer than in worrying about how the process of getting there worked. Friday (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- The point of the above exercise is not to brainstorm possibly good candidates, and talk them up so that someone nominates them; it's to bring to the attention of prospective clueful nominators candidates they might otherwise have overlooked or not been aware of, for private review. That aside, your proposal sounds like a good idea, Sebastian, and I encourage you to implement it. Skomorokh 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see. I'm tempted to take out the part about brainstorming; that paragraph was too long, anyway. Or better yet, how about if I copy the relevant part of this section to a new section, named something like "Pre-nominations"? Would that count as "implementing", or do I have to come up with a candidate, too? To be honest, I didn't have anyone in mind. — Sebastian 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Go right ahead, I'll chip in with a pre-nomination or two to get the ball rolling. I'd recommend adding a warning against public review. Skomorokh 20:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see. I'm tempted to take out the part about brainstorming; that paragraph was too long, anyway. Or better yet, how about if I copy the relevant part of this section to a new section, named something like "Pre-nominations"? Would that count as "implementing", or do I have to come up with a candidate, too? To be honest, I didn't have anyone in mind. — Sebastian 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "warning against public review", but I'll just post it as it is, and I allow you to change it as appropriate. — Sebastian 20:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
On first blush, this is actually an excellent idea. Why not create Wikipedia/Requests for adminship/Vetting? You could even have strategically placed include/noinclude tags and formatting so that a brief list of the people being vetted could appear at the top of WT:RFA, without all the explanatory stuff. And I think what Skomorokh is saying is, make sure it's clear that this is not a mini-RFA on the talk page; the whole point is the potentially disheartening stuff is said in private. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I created the page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vetting. Please have a look at it. I like the idea of promoting this on top of RFA, but, given the way it is currently implemented, I think that would be too much text. Maybe, instead, we could just have a link that encourages people to add Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vetting to their watchlist. I think I'll also write a little announcement at the Village Pump. — Sebastian 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think we can discuss further details at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Vetting. — Sebastian 22:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Some, who will remain anonymous, have asked me and in some cases multiple times if I would run via email, but as I said at User:A_Nobody/RfA#Those_who_would_be_willing_to_support_me_in_an_RfA, I would only run for adminship if I believe I had a realistic chance of it passing, i.e. if over 100 editors urged me to do so and also not until 6 February 2010 at the earliest. In the meantime, I will help out in whatever other ways I can. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Candidates needing review/nominators
This is a list of editors who have responded positively to the suggestion of running, but may need (private) review or a clueful and experienced third-party as nominator.
Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) commentRFA withdrawn- Neurolysis (talk · contribs) comment vetting
- Techman224 (talk · contribs) comment vetting
- Ebyabe (talk · contribs) comment
- Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs) comment
- Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs) comment
- Adolphus79 (talk · contribs) comment vetting
- Benea (talk · contribs) comment
- Timmeh (talk · contribs) comment
- Soman (talk · contribs) comment
I will propose to these editors that they try the vetting process. No public comments on these editors, bitte. Skomorokh 16:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to give this new process a go, there are some niggling issues I want feedback on first. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 19:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Great! Is there someone you know who you'd like to handle the feedback? Pedro or Ched perhaps? If not, I'd be happy to. Regards, Skomorokh 19:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- A fresh pair of eyes is probably best, you could do it I guess, I'd prefer if it was done in my userspace though, simply for transparency reasons. Thanks. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 20:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, well if you don't mind it being in public, there's no need for an intermediary. Skomorokh 20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You will never get consensus to reform RFA or to grant probationary/coaching/test drive adminship
Adminship is "no big deal." But opening up adminship to anyone who is interested would be a big deal for the project. Right now the community handles the sensitive, if mundane, issues of deleting, blocking, and protecting with almost a jury or mob rule system, presided over by executory figures who nonetheless lack independent decision making power. Of course "it's not a vote" (semantic, the term vote has connotations, some of which do apply), in fact despite the moniker I hold it is less bureaucratic than a typical democracy, and yet it works because of the scale and the venue. A chaotic human system on a relatively small scale naturally sometimes has hiccups, but like other beautiful self-regulating systems human and otherwise (natural selection for example) it all works out in the end.
Leave RfA alone because it merely represents the will of the community. There is no crisis of admins nor will there be; as we should have all learned since December 07, even the clearest trends don't extrapolate forever (and this was hardly a clear-cut one). Otherwise the world wouldn't be very realistic or interesting. Yes, in the past 2 years, the amount of active admins declined 10%. But this data point lacks context. For example, the stock market dropped a lot more than 10% and recovered a lot more than 10% during the recession. Additionally, these numbers really ought to be cross-referenced with data like the number of active users, edits, or admin actions as Chillum so astutely graphed above. It also fails to take into account that before declining 10%, the number of admins has soared since 2004 for example when I became one, and all growth bubbles slow down or burst eventually (though usually start bubbling again after a while).
In the end the most important indicator is that the encyclopedia is alive and well, the admin queue moves briskly and the backlogs are as backlogged as they ever were. Wikipedia is busy and growing, and there is no shortage of labor nor will there be anytime soon. Andre (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Leave RfA alone because it merely represents the will of the community. If you truly believe this, you clearly did not read this talk page. Law type! snype? 06:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:NOMORE? I can certainly believe that the subset of people who read this page could come to a different conclusion from that of the community as a whole. Presumably, as has been mentioned, any possible changes here will be headed to the village pump. Dekimasuよ! 07:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Andre, self regulating systems most certainly dont work out in the end! Nature is cruel and prodigious beyond measure and countless species have become exstinct. Switching to human systems, the great crash of the 20th century occurred at time when the "leave it alone" or lazzie fair attitude was dominant, and economic chaos dragged on for a decade, ending only with WWII. The 2008 crash was reversed quickly because of massive government intervention and use of Keynesian stimulus – a managed response undertook as leaders understood they couldnt expect the market to fix itself. Crucially , the response had been prepared in advance before the need for it became obvious to all. If it hadn’t, the current recession would have been considerably more severe. Getting back to RFA, the current design reflects the communities will as it was some years back – things have changed since then, and we’re find out if the community wants the rules governing RFA updated when we take this to the Village pump. That is if the current recruitment campaign doesnt turn out to be enough to turn things around. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:NOMORE? I can certainly believe that the subset of people who read this page could come to a different conclusion from that of the community as a whole. Presumably, as has been mentioned, any possible changes here will be headed to the village pump. Dekimasuよ! 07:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Adminship is "no big deal"? (Andre 06:32, 18 September 2009) - only an admin could say that! I've seen outrageous blocks, and incivility from an admin that would get a non-admin an immediate block. From a non-admin's point of view, the first question at RfA is "Am I absolutely sure I can trust this person?" - if not absolutely sure, oppose. There problem is that there is no effective way for non-"officials" to get admins suspended or de-sysopped. Sure, the case can be taken to ArbCom, but that takes too long. The remedy must be as quick and severe as the harm done by the admin who is at fault - e.g if an admin makes bad block, the admin should be suspended within a day and remain suspended until the case is resolved. You may not like it, but until that happens "voters" at RfA will want to pick over candidates' histories to see if there's anything that causes them concern. --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think we have that one on the agenda for the day after the Cubs win the World Series. Or is it when we return from Harold Stassen's Inaugural Ball?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe Dougstech was right after all. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
We're making some basic mistakes with RfA ... that is, we're actively throwing up barriers that hinder good RfA candidates: we don't recruit, we don't train, and we don't give them feedback they can use. WP:ER and failed RfAs are held up as the standard for providing useful feedback ... but that's wrong, ER feedback is completely unrepresentative of what people encounter at RfA, and a big, scary, failed process is what you do if you're trying to discourage people, not encourage them. Also, it's useful to try to do something hard every now and then, it invites people to put in more thought than the minimum, it tells us where people's heads are, and it gives us tougher conflict-resolution problems to solve. Also, even though some change in RfA itself has always failed in the past and probably will fail this time, the discussion has spun off a variety of useful ideas. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- In all seriousness, the day will come when RfA is put up for MfD, or something similar will happen to it. RfA reform can't and won't happen. Since it can't heal itself and change with the changing times, it's doomed to fail. It's just a matter of time. I don't think that time is yet, but it's coming. A little (revolution), now and then, is a good thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
RFA is perfectly fine, there is nothing wrong with it apart from the community's standards atm. All this fuss about us not getting enough admins will heal itself. It willc ontinue to get worse for a while from now, then people will start to think we need more admins and go easier on RFA. This will make more candidates pass and in turn attract more candidates. Eventually after a high year or two (2010-2011?) we'll end up back like this again with apprent low numers of admins. It's a cycle. It's like Peak Oil, except never ending. It's Peak Admin.--Patton123 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well the problem there is that we haven't discovered any new reserves of editors since we began Wikipedia. The only reserve we have is the human population. We need to start recruiting martians! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Patton, I admire your optimism but sadly don't share it. We are now 18 months into the drought with no prospect of change, and nothing in the history of RFA to indicate that such a prolonged drought will ultimately correct itself. I fear we are more likely to get into a negative feedback loop.
- Fewer admins spending more of their time doing admin stuff and correspondingly less of their time doing general editing stuff as ordinary members of the community.
- More and more of the speedy deletions being done by those who can flick through and clear the whole backlog in the time others might spend declining and saving a couple of speedy nominations.
- Non-admins getting more and more pissed off with admins as a different separate caste who don't do enough non-admin stuff to be part of the wider community.
- Adminship becoming a less and less attractive chore both for the existing admins who we want to retain and the prospective admins who we want to recruit.
- I remain convinced that whilst RFA is broken Wikipedia isn't, and so as long as we keep demolishing arguments against change, eventually the community will agree to fix the problem. ϢereSpielChequers 16:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- My opinion is that people keep focusing on solutions that are ultimately not very helpful.
- Trial adminship is too easily gamed, making it of questionable usefulness, and more likely a waste of time.
- De-adminship processes are bound to be far too drama-laden, as people would most likely divide into camps and make increasingly ridiculous accusations.
- Reconfirmation proposals are often just a rewording of de-admin proposals, setting up for the same drama.
- In general, this community has generally become extremely resistant to change to begin with, and the recurring flawed proposals are just too easily shot down. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- The reason it supposedly "doesn't work" is because we're so bad at picking admins, opposing great candidates becaase they said to delete and article we thought should have been kept and stuff like that. It's not like that would effect their admin ability because they'd still have to take part in the AfD rather than jsut delete the article. The only good way to choose admins where that won't happen is to have someone pick new admins with absolutely no input fromt he comminity. Barring that this works well.--Patton123 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- My opinion is that people keep focusing on solutions that are ultimately not very helpful.
Random thought (probably suggested and rejected before, but prompted by comments above): what about making RFA more of a two-step procedure? The first step would be a friendlier "qualification" stage, the gist of which would be answering in a friendly way the question "am I ready? what else do I have to do/learn?" Only if the answer at the first step is "OK, probably ready" proceed to full RFA. As with anything there would be advantages and disadvantages; the key difficulty would be designing the first step so it works as intended and doesn't turn into the second. I'm totally open on what the design would be, but the first passing idea is needing a certain number of support votes to proceed (neutral/opposes would be ignored though obviously the candidate might choose to withdraw). Thoughts? Rd232 talk 16:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- That has been proposed and rejected before... which is why my variation is a little different. It may fail, but I think it is a variation that has some merit.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- All (well almost all) proposals have some merit. The problem is none of them have enough merit. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- By some merit, I mean that I think it is enough of a different take on an old theme, that it is worth exploring. If somebody were to propose a two part approval process "Apply now, reapply in 3 months" it would be too similar to what has gone before. I think, and I KNOW I'm biased, that my proposal has some new twists that make it worth exploring.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
A challenge
We've been going on for days now about the lack of admins. I now challenge everyone to go out and find a suitable candidate. Let's see if we can promote 5 more admins by the month's end. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. ;) I do have a few editors in mind, although I might not nominate. According to Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship, though, we should be promoting another 7 admins or so by the end of the month. JamieS93 18:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a good idea to encourage nominations just to meet a number goal someone just came up with. That didn't work for planned economies, and it doesn't address the problem that people avoid RfA because if its reputation as a toxic place. For an alternative, please see #The "no negative comments" stipulation, and an alternative. — Sebastian 20:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, but if there's some good candidates, and I know they're out there, now wouldn't be a bad time to consider nominating. My "should" comment was purely a numerical observation. FYI, I was curious as to who our most active (successful) RfA nominators are, and some 2009 data is located here. JamieS93 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I realize I'm late to the party, but what is the evidence that we lack admins? (Probably easiest just to point me to earlier discussions). That's not to say we shouldn't encourage people whom we think would be good candidates. And we certainly lack admins with specific skill sets (for example, Arbitration enforcement and effective oversight of chronic trouble spots). But do we really have a global lack of admins? MastCell Talk 21:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just a thought, but if we're here fretting about admins, whos working on the backlogs?Abce2|This isnot a test 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- @MastCell: See the amount of admin backlog, that's why all these editors are frantically trying to find candidates.
- @Abce2: That's the irony of all of this.--Giants27(c|s) 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- What backlogs? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- See Category:Administrative backlog.--Giants27(c|s) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- As I said, what backlogs? The only thing there that appears backlogged is the temporary wikipedians pages. We've discussed this above, and it's recognized this is a minor area and could readily be performed by a bot. So, what backlogs? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see more than the temp pages in that category. FFD, PUF, and DYK, to name a few. Shubinator (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- FFD; 39 backlog, and 22 of that is the most recent one (just coming due). PUF; 24 backlog. DYK; maybe I don't understand, but I don't see how DYK is or needs to be an admin queue. None of these are serious backlogs. Just minor ones. Post a message to WP:AN and I'm sure these little queues would be cleaned up post haste. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just a thought, but if we're here fretting about admins, whos working on the backlogs?Abce2|This isnot a test 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I realize I'm late to the party, but what is the evidence that we lack admins? (Probably easiest just to point me to earlier discussions). That's not to say we shouldn't encourage people whom we think would be good candidates. And we certainly lack admins with specific skill sets (for example, Arbitration enforcement and effective oversight of chronic trouble spots). But do we really have a global lack of admins? MastCell Talk 21:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, but if there's some good candidates, and I know they're out there, now wouldn't be a bad time to consider nominating. My "should" comment was purely a numerical observation. FYI, I was curious as to who our most active (successful) RfA nominators are, and some 2009 data is located here. JamieS93 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a good idea to encourage nominations just to meet a number goal someone just came up with. That didn't work for planned economies, and it doesn't address the problem that people avoid RfA because if its reputation as a toxic place. For an alternative, please see #The "no negative comments" stipulation, and an alternative. — Sebastian 20:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I am too busy at the moment, but if you haven't found any candidates in two months, I will volunteer ;-) --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm available if anyone's looking for someone to nominate. :) Timmeh (review me) 00:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
An observation about the state of administrator promotion
There has been a lot of talk on here about how administrator promotion is being dropped to harder and harder levels, and how admins in the job have too much work to do. I've just come back on Wikipedia after a long wikibreak, and wouldn't mind being given the tools, although they wouldn't be much use (I have reported 2 (and a 3rd that was reported before me) people to AIV, who were subsequently blocked, and added one db-author in the few days I've been back. Hardly the work of an active admin. Anyway, my point is this: why are people who would not do too much work, the odd block or delete there, but in general trusted members of the community, not from what I can ascertain generally given the tools? Adminship is no big deal, as I am constantly reminded. Surely a group of another 10000 admins that hardly ever use the tools, say once per day, lessen the load on the hardworking ones by 10000 edits? -- Casmith_789 (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, the argument has always been frowned upon by many regulars but it's a common and longstanding nonenonetheless.--92.251.128.244 (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I love this type of admin... I'd rather we have more part time admins and specialist admins. I have zero problem with a person who only uses the buttons sporatically. I don't use them often, but I have them for the few times that I find the need.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you are trusted by the community and go through RfA, you'll pass. The problem is, people won't trust you if they haven't viewed your capabilities. So if you merely submit 3 AIVs, they may be right, but there aren't enough to judge whether you're making the right calls in hard decisions. That fourth submission could be bad, and if you had the tools, you might have blocked a good-faith, productive editor. If you want the tools, put in some work and prove you're capable of using them properly. If you do, and don't make too many mistakes, you will earn community trust and respect, and you'll probably pass given no one with socks hates you. In theory. My two pence... Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 21:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm sure the admins here are perfectly capable, and my couple of reports have been done quickly and efficiently. I'm not sure I want to put in the kind of effort required to pass an RfA :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's because so many voters are really, really foolish. And their votes count the same as the sensible ones. The argument that we should demand a certain level of participation is really ridiculous with volunteers, yet it persists. People just don't think about it rationally. Friday (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Many organizations require that their volunteers commit to a level of participation in order to fill certain jobs, or demonstrate trustworthiness through tests or evaluations. No one can make volunteeers volunteer, but if they do so then it's reasonable to set participation or trustworthiness standards for jobs that require them. Will Beback talk 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, if you agree to man the suicide hotline from 3-5, you better do it at that time. But Wikipedia doesn't work like this. There's no central organization- people can pop in, do something useful for 5 minutes, and then go away for a month, and this works fine. If someone wants to do something useful with the tool only occasionally, and they're competent, there's no reason not to give them the tools. Yet this "insufficient need for the tools" basis for opposition persists, despite there being no rational basis for it. Friday (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- In this case, I think that the implied requirement is for sufficient past activity (at any hour) to establish the trustworthiness of the editor. Reviewing thousands of edits may not be the ideal way of judging an applicant's suitability for adminship, but since we have no other test or credentialling standard it seems like the best we've got. That said, the idea that a candidate needs to commit to a future level of participation seems unnecessary. Will Beback talk 22:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, if you agree to man the suicide hotline from 3-5, you better do it at that time. But Wikipedia doesn't work like this. There's no central organization- people can pop in, do something useful for 5 minutes, and then go away for a month, and this works fine. If someone wants to do something useful with the tool only occasionally, and they're competent, there's no reason not to give them the tools. Yet this "insufficient need for the tools" basis for opposition persists, despite there being no rational basis for it. Friday (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Many organizations require that their volunteers commit to a level of participation in order to fill certain jobs, or demonstrate trustworthiness through tests or evaluations. No one can make volunteeers volunteer, but if they do so then it's reasonable to set participation or trustworthiness standards for jobs that require them. Will Beback talk 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- That logic only applies to a certain extent, though. As I said above, a certain level of experience in tool areas such as AIV, CSD, AfD etc. is necessary because we need to know the potential candidate has the reasoning necessary to use the tools correctly when they get them. If someone only has a few edits at AIV and wishes to work there as an admin, they should not be given the mop until they have more edits there. Trust is essential, we don't need any backwards admins. Believe it or not, damage can be caused by rogue admins because they can scare off good users, thus why adminship is at least partially a big deal. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 22:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since this topic has been raised... were I ever to become an admin, I would be one of the sporadic ones. But here's the thing—and I'm sure this has been discussed a hundred times before—I would only use certain tools, but there is only one type of adminship, and it involves all the tools. Because there are several different 'powers' in adminship, many users, when considering candidates, take the approach of Cyclonenim and others: they will want to see your efforts in all areas that might be affected by the tools. Given that the tools come as a package, this is quite understandable. But, while some editors may have the temperament to be admins, they aren't going to go to the effort of developing those skills in ways that distract them from their preferred tasks—and indeed may lead them to involvement in tasks for which their skills are not a good match—just to qualify to use a mop. I don't know that potential good admins who are not very active, or are only active in some areas, would ever develop the profile of experience that would get them through RfA. Which brings me to my last point. Cyclonenim uses the phrase "If you want the tools, put in some work and prove you're capable of using them properly". The mistake here is to think that good potential admins necessarily really "want" the tools. Adminship isn't a reward or prize. Some editors—I count myself here—would be good at using the tools in some areas, but we don't want all of them, wouldn't use all of them, and certainly wouldn't want the grief of RfA, just in order to get to occasionally share the burden of keeping WP's cogs turning smoothly. I hope I'll be an admin here eventually (actually, given my real-life, perhaps i'd be better as a bureaucrat:-)), but those are some of my concerns about the way it is structured, and how potential candidates may regard the process. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whilst I do think you raise some compelling arguments for the splitting of tools, I think your point about people "wanting" the tools is irrelevant. Whether you want them or not, you still need to prove you'll use them well. Whether or not you've stumbled across potential adminship by someone nominating you, or whether you've decided to run yourself, it's still essential you have the necessary experience (I'm not asking bucket loads, I'm asking for enough to prove you'll use them sensibly) for each tool. In an ideal world, we'd split the tools and anyone who wanted them and was trusted would immediately be given them, but this is not the case and I highly doubt it ever will be. If you say you want to work in deletion only and that's the only tool you'll use, it still doesn't stop the fact you'll have access to the block buttons. I'm afraid in this imperfect world, your word isn't enough, I need proof through experience. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 22:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- You see if people are competent in their own areas they'll almost certainly be competent admins. And if the make a bad decision or whatever it can easily be undone, and an admin getting a bollocking is a far better way for them to learn how to do things well than failing RFA over some slight mistake and never have a hope of passing again. Besides, "no need for tools" means they trust them but they see no need. If they didn't trust thecanidate they would say it.--22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Are you trying to suggest to me that someone who spends all their time discussing AfDs would be equally competent at AIV? They're different areas, they use different policies. I need evidence of a well-rounded administrator if they're getting all the tools. Easily undone? If you block a good-faith user who then runs away from the encyclopaedia and no longer contributes, that can't be easily undone and does a lot of damage. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 23:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- You see if people are competent in their own areas they'll almost certainly be competent admins. And if the make a bad decision or whatever it can easily be undone, and an admin getting a bollocking is a far better way for them to learn how to do things well than failing RFA over some slight mistake and never have a hope of passing again. Besides, "no need for tools" means they trust them but they see no need. If they didn't trust thecanidate they would say it.--22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I must agree with hamiltonstone. If I were an admin (ha, ha--look, I made joke!), it would be sporadic--and that is a model we should seek. Concentrating the power--and let us not kid ourselves; admins have more power than the plebes--in a few hands is a bad idea. → ROUX ₪ 04:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whilst I do think you raise some compelling arguments for the splitting of tools, I think your point about people "wanting" the tools is irrelevant. Whether you want them or not, you still need to prove you'll use them well. Whether or not you've stumbled across potential adminship by someone nominating you, or whether you've decided to run yourself, it's still essential you have the necessary experience (I'm not asking bucket loads, I'm asking for enough to prove you'll use them sensibly) for each tool. In an ideal world, we'd split the tools and anyone who wanted them and was trusted would immediately be given them, but this is not the case and I highly doubt it ever will be. If you say you want to work in deletion only and that's the only tool you'll use, it still doesn't stop the fact you'll have access to the block buttons. I'm afraid in this imperfect world, your word isn't enough, I need proof through experience. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 22:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Some very interesting points about experience in administrative areas highlighted: work at AIV, CSD, AfD, use of block button. I'd add to that RPP as a "nice to have". Administrative (janitorial) jobs, yet there are many "Not enough (audited) content work opposes" at RFA. That said, a recent RFA springs to mind where the now admin was a proficient vandal-fighter with a number of automated edits did succeed, so perhaps all is not lot lost for people like me who are not natural writers. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Why?
After reading the above, it just makes me wonder - Do we always have to have an open rfa? I see many editors making an effort to nominate users just to have several open rfas. There is no doubt that rfa is one of the most drama-ridden processes we have here on Wikipedia. Although there is a serious dearth of sysops, I think it's a good thing that we periodically have no rfas - This project needs more content, not drama. When non-admin users feel they are ready to take up the mop and bucket, they will naturally be inclined to ask for a nomination or nominate themselves; adminship is never a responsibility that should be shoved upon others. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, and if we spend the next month giving everyone who isn't prepping for RFA the stink-eye, that will be obnoxious. I see this as more like a celebration; we all need a little push sometimes to get out of our shells and join the party. - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
What about the admins-to-edits and admins-to-editors ratios?
At first the threads about the decreasing number of admins and admin actions worried me, but now I'm not so sure, because I found a plot (which I won't try to reproduce) showing that the numbers of editors and edits peaked in 2007 and have been decreasing since. What really matters, assuming a constant quality-of-average-edit, is the ratio of admin actions to edits, and it isn't clear to me that this has been changing significantly. For the record, based on my own experience I think it would be good to have more admins, but I'm not sure whether the decrease should be seen as a crisis or just a decrease in the "sexyness" of Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- As it has been demonstrated above, there's no real reason to panic yet. Statistically speaking, there is a net loss of administrators, but we are not sure on the actual impact of that. @harej 03:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I'm going to continue to panic. I love admins. The more the better. If the number decline gets any worse we may have to close their IRC chatrooms and disable their e-mail so as to keep their focus on the most urgent of on wiki affairs. Desperate times call for desperate measures. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- You know, that old saw is getting tired. Its not that I disagree that such problem admins exist, I just disagree with the contention that their problematic attributes have anything to do with their bit. What exactly makes people believe that shutting down IRC and e-mail and so forth would actually get anyone to concentrate on anything else? People work following their own values and priorities, not just what happens to be around.--Tznkai (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I'm going to continue to panic. I love admins. The more the better. If the number decline gets any worse we may have to close their IRC chatrooms and disable their e-mail so as to keep their focus on the most urgent of on wiki affairs. Desperate times call for desperate measures. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why I'm glad you asked. Lately, since I've been able to devote a bit more time to the project, I have also become more aware of a sense that more and more of the actual "nuts and bolts" of the policy decisions are made "off-wiki" as it were. Of course there has always been the cliques of editors who are willing to "gang up" on particular issues. I don't expect total transparency in every aspect of policy on WP, particularly where say, foundation issues are concerned...but surely when basic concepts like AfD, and RfA's are being discussed off wiki. The term "Star Chamber" gets bandied about so much that it looses some of its impact. This concept goes directly to heart of the matter, so having said that, I shall leave this with you as is.Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters. Almost all of the articles that people would want to read have been written, so what's left is polishing, fixing occasional errors and juvenile vandalism, maybe filling out the complete list of 15th century Italian clerics or whatever. Not very exciting. So people start or perpetuate internecine squabbles to get their mojo working. Having more admins or fewer admins wouldn't change that picture. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't disagree with you more SBHB. There are lots of very notable subjects that don't have any articles at all and I'm regularly surprised by how poorly written and inadequate other ones on major subjects are. There is a massive amount of article work to be done. Effective dispute resolution to cut down on the frustrations and endless squabling might help, even if I can't unilaterally close, or at least open up, the private admin communication channels to encourage fairness, transparency and accountability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- There's a reason only 0.09% of our articles are featured. Only 3 million more to go, and by the time they're all featured ther ewill be even more articles.--Patton123 (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters. Almost all of the articles that people would want to read have been written, so what's left is polishing, fixing occasional errors and juvenile vandalism, maybe filling out the complete list of 15th century Italian clerics or whatever. Not very exciting. So people start or perpetuate internecine squabbles to get their mojo working. Having more admins or fewer admins wouldn't change that picture. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- ChildofMidnight, oversight is very urgent, which is almost always coordinated via email (sometimes IRC, as well). These 2 ways of instant communication are what editors use to help Wikipedia. Regardless, WP has no direct control over IRC or email, as they're independent from each other. The foundation cannot "shut down" a channel, and, as for email, no one can disable another's account like that. Trying to put an end to outside communication would greatly harm Wikipedia and discourage collaboration. Also, many of the most important things would never get done without mailing lists. hmwith☮ 14:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I thought we were meant to be collegial and collaborative on Wikipedia? Instead I see that the rein of censorship and intimidation has encouraged the popularity of external venues for policy discussion and collaboration all of which creates real problems as far as accountability and transparency are concerned. But I concede that disabling IRC and e-mail isn't going to happen and might not be the end all be all. It was just a crazy idea I had, totally impractical. :) A coup of some sort with a temporary period of martial law in order to restore order on the other hand... ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Candidates section updated by SoxBot [RESOLVED]
Might be my computer (Win XP running on an elderly triceratops with latest version of Firefox) but a comment in the third line doesn't seem to be wrapping and is skewing the page [1]. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not Firefox, XP, or your dead three-horned computer. I am having the same problem on Vista across multiple browsers. I'll see if I can pinpoint the cause. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The ed17 2 didn't have a nomination statement so I added one. Gary King (talk) 06:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've revised User:X!/RfX Report so that it is capable of wrapping long cells such as that one to the next line. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's just a temporary fix since the page is recreated every time it gets updated, FYI. Gary King (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is that the bot rescripts the entire page? Hmm. I'd better put in a request to the bot owner then. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've found the code needing changed and put in a request on X!'s talk page. Unfortunately, he's on WikiBreak until he can rediscover the excitement of Wikipedia. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've emailed him, just in case he doesn't check his talk page due to the Wikibreak. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 11:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- X! has updated the code as requested. We're good now. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've emailed him, just in case he doesn't check his talk page due to the Wikibreak. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 11:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've found the code needing changed and put in a request on X!'s talk page. Unfortunately, he's on WikiBreak until he can rediscover the excitement of Wikipedia. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is that the bot rescripts the entire page? Hmm. I'd better put in a request to the bot owner then. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's just a temporary fix since the page is recreated every time it gets updated, FYI. Gary King (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've revised User:X!/RfX Report so that it is capable of wrapping long cells such as that one to the next line. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The ed17 2 didn't have a nomination statement so I added one. Gary King (talk) 06:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Wrapping up, moving on
The discussion on pros and cons of "admin-lite" was considerably better than previous discussions, on all sides; we're confused on a much higher plane now :) I think it's safe to say that there's no consensus on a single proposal to proceed with at this time, but there hasn't been significant objection to the idea of unbundling one or more admin tools (yet). OTOH, I've got an objection: if you unbundle some buttons, many editors will see those buttons as desirable and divert time into getting them, leaving less time for critical tasks like deletion tagging. If any other buttons get unbundled, my guess is it will be a net negative if we don't unbundle the delete button, too. Two immediate problems there: User:MGodwin and others don't want non-admins to see deleted pages, and that's one of the most dangerous tools to unbundle. I initially thought those were stoppers, but I've asked some CSD people for advice and I'm getting good feedback. I don't want to divert attention from the recruitment drive above, so I'll start writing up what I'm finding out on my talk page if anyone (including Hammer, and anyone in opposition) wants to put their two cents in. There are some technical problems that might turn out to be stoppers, and I don't want to waste people's time if that's the case. - Dank (push to talk) 10:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Technical question: Is it possible to unbundle the "delete" button without giving the ability to see deleted pages, or vice versa? Would it be possible (for example) to create a class of XfD-closers who can delete pages if there's a consensus, but not see the deleted material; or a class of DRV-reviewers who can see deleted material, but not perform deletions themselves?
Unbundling the ability to block strikes me as essential for any such sub-admin janitorial position.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Normally we would expect someone to be able to undo what they did, so someone with delete, should be able to undelete, or restore. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- If necessary, can the rest of the tools be given out without the deletion stuff? If it came down to being able to coach people who just want to work at AIV, or page protection, can we unbundle those? I haven't read the perennial proposals in a while so there might be good reasons why this hasn't been done already. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed with Graeme. Update: User:SoWhy has given me some good reasons it would probably be too difficult to train people who couldn't otherwise pass RFA how to handle a deletion button; unless I get some new data, I'm not going to pursue that. The usual reasons for not unbundling are variations on the reason I gave, namely: either you're unbundling the userrights that don't account for a lot of admin work, but then people will spend time trying to get those buttons and be diverted from the stuff that admins actually need help with, or else you're unbundling the hard stuff ... deletion, blocking, protection ... which go together to some extent, and by the time the community is ready to trust someone with those, they're ready to trust them at RFA. I still like the idea of trying to find out some way to significantly help admins with their workload, and hand that out as some kind of userright, that has a lot of other benefits. Another idea, don't yell at me if this is dumb because I just thought of it: how about if we take away the right of all editors to tag any page for CSD, and make that a special userright that we hand out at PERM? It wouldn't "disenfranchise" anyone from being able to nominate pages for deletion; they could do that under any of the 7-day deletion processes. It would just be a way of saying that CSD tagging is hard, and it wastes a lot of admin time when we have to stop and explain why something isn't CSD, and it alienates good contributors to have their pages mistagged. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can definitely see the appeal of that at times *grin*, but unfortunately the well-tagged pages will just get pushed into the prod/AfD system. I don't think that's as serious a problem as some people claim, but my fear is it will encourage people to create pages like "Jenny is pretty and I hope she notices me" or "Our band will be a big hit once we learn an instrument" because those will be less likely to be speedily tagged. Although if it was handed out and taken away as easily as rollbacker, that might work... --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, you're saying that people would create pages that fall just outside the CSD criteria in the hopes of surviving AfD? I don't see pages like that a lot. Also, the usual objection to turning anything into a userright is that you reduce the pool of people who can do the work, so less work gets done ... but I'm pretty sure more CSD tagging would get done, because this button would be seen as a useful step on the road to RFA (and rightly so, this is one of the main things that trips people up at RFA, it would be so much better to deal with these issues in a less unpleasant forum, before the RFA). In particular, we'd have "licensed" CSD taggers trolling PROD and AfD looking for pages that qualify for CSD so they could tag them. But I don't want to go too much in depth into the CSD issues until this moves to WT:CSD, because I think a lot of people who watchlist CSD would get a little grumpy if this CSD issue were in effect "decided" at WT:RFA before they have a chance to rake it over the coals. How about the issues of reducing admin work and providing a more pleasant, intermediate step on the way to RFA? A confession: half the reason I enjoy doing userspace CSD work is that almost all of the tagging is done by experienced taggers. For most CSD work, half my time is spent on the 10% of the pages that were mistagged, making sure everyone understood what was going on and why, and more time is spent responding to comments left on article talk pages that get deleted. "Licensing" CSD taggers (making it a userright) would be a huge timesaving for me. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I asked FT about this by email, she says that was what she was saying and she does see it. I'm hoping that people with the CSD button will patrol AfD and catch these. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry if I misunderstood your email -- I don't think they'll create pages that might survive AfD, just create them that will survive the 7 days until an AfD closes. But as I said in the email, if Licensed Taggers(tm) doesn't wind up decreasing the good tags very much, I don't think this will be a problem for the 'pedia.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I asked FT about this by email, she says that was what she was saying and she does see it. I'm hoping that people with the CSD button will patrol AfD and catch these. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, you're saying that people would create pages that fall just outside the CSD criteria in the hopes of surviving AfD? I don't see pages like that a lot. Also, the usual objection to turning anything into a userright is that you reduce the pool of people who can do the work, so less work gets done ... but I'm pretty sure more CSD tagging would get done, because this button would be seen as a useful step on the road to RFA (and rightly so, this is one of the main things that trips people up at RFA, it would be so much better to deal with these issues in a less unpleasant forum, before the RFA). In particular, we'd have "licensed" CSD taggers trolling PROD and AfD looking for pages that qualify for CSD so they could tag them. But I don't want to go too much in depth into the CSD issues until this moves to WT:CSD, because I think a lot of people who watchlist CSD would get a little grumpy if this CSD issue were in effect "decided" at WT:RFA before they have a chance to rake it over the coals. How about the issues of reducing admin work and providing a more pleasant, intermediate step on the way to RFA? A confession: half the reason I enjoy doing userspace CSD work is that almost all of the tagging is done by experienced taggers. For most CSD work, half my time is spent on the 10% of the pages that were mistagged, making sure everyone understood what was going on and why, and more time is spent responding to comments left on article talk pages that get deleted. "Licensing" CSD taggers (making it a userright) would be a huge timesaving for me. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can definitely see the appeal of that at times *grin*, but unfortunately the well-tagged pages will just get pushed into the prod/AfD system. I don't think that's as serious a problem as some people claim, but my fear is it will encourage people to create pages like "Jenny is pretty and I hope she notices me" or "Our band will be a big hit once we learn an instrument" because those will be less likely to be speedily tagged. Although if it was handed out and taken away as easily as rollbacker, that might work... --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed with Graeme. Update: User:SoWhy has given me some good reasons it would probably be too difficult to train people who couldn't otherwise pass RFA how to handle a deletion button; unless I get some new data, I'm not going to pursue that. The usual reasons for not unbundling are variations on the reason I gave, namely: either you're unbundling the userrights that don't account for a lot of admin work, but then people will spend time trying to get those buttons and be diverted from the stuff that admins actually need help with, or else you're unbundling the hard stuff ... deletion, blocking, protection ... which go together to some extent, and by the time the community is ready to trust someone with those, they're ready to trust them at RFA. I still like the idea of trying to find out some way to significantly help admins with their workload, and hand that out as some kind of userright, that has a lot of other benefits. Another idea, don't yell at me if this is dumb because I just thought of it: how about if we take away the right of all editors to tag any page for CSD, and make that a special userright that we hand out at PERM? It wouldn't "disenfranchise" anyone from being able to nominate pages for deletion; they could do that under any of the 7-day deletion processes. It would just be a way of saying that CSD tagging is hard, and it wastes a lot of admin time when we have to stop and explain why something isn't CSD, and it alienates good contributors to have their pages mistagged. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Tagging for speedy is merely a case of adding a template, and I don't see how ordinary editors could be prevented from using a template. Nor do I see a clear benefit to the encyclopaedia in doing so. I like the fact that any idiot can tag for speedy; it puts an onus on the deleting admin to pay attention.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I can't agree with any of those points, S Marshall (which surprises me because I usually agree with you). Ordinary editors could be prevented by a filter triggered when someone tries to add a CSD tag. The benefit would be in saving 50% of the time that admins are currently spending on CSD work, which is a major part of the admin workload. What would put a bigger onus (giggle) on deleting admins would be if the taggers were competent and bold enough to challenge the admins. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Tagging can be prevented if Deletion Queue is implemented. Ruslik_Zero 18:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something Dank, how does that make sense? If we say only 50% of CSDs are correct, then 50% of the time sysops press "delete" and 50% of the time they press "undo" and write a quick summary. If we needed WP:PERM to get CSD "rights," then alllll the crap that needs to be deleted but isn't found by a CSDer will get AfDed or PRODed, right? In which case the result will be the same (sysop pressed delete) or worse (sysop removes tag after 7 days of discussion). AfD doesn't need an additional 200 "Call 867-5309 for a good time" or "Talk:Why are some ants red but some are balck" entries. Not to mention that a large portion of current CSD tags will go unnoticed for longer (I'm thinking of libelous attack and copyvio pages in particular). ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- As someone who tends to specialize in the CSD areas that get a lot of bad tags, it's not a case of just pressing undo and writing a quick summary. At least, it isn't with me. With any CSD, bad tag or not, I read the entire article, talk page, and edit summaries. I also do any relevant gsearches to see if the issues can be easily solved through editing. Then if I decline the speedy I remove the tag, write an edit summary that reflects why, and add any maintenance tags needed. Most of the time I then pop over to the taggers page and write (or template, if it's simple enough) the tagger an explanation of why I disagreed with them, along with what their options are if they disagree with me and links to relevant policies. Also about half the time I pop over to the article creator's page and tell them what the article is up against and generally what improvements are needed, such as better sources. I absolutely agree that AfD doesn't need to get flooded with crap, but bad tags scare away new editors AND waste a lot of admin time. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Totally agree, and it's the same with me, although it's hard to match FT's diligence at CSD. The bad tags take much longer to make right than the good tags take to process, so drastically reducing the bad tags would be an enormous time savings. I find, for instance, that tags by IP's are valid CSDs less than 5% of the time. Also, many admins are hesitant to work in an area where everyone has a different theory of exactly what you should do, and getting presented with questionable tags day in and day out makes some uncomfortable ... including me, I confess. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- And it does not have to take an Admin to save an article from speedy delete tagging, any editor including anons can edit and remove and improve. Perhaps we have to encourage the WP:ARS to get in there and do it, or the WP:Article incubator team to rescue more stuff. Anyway if there was no request for speedy delete tagging option open, there would have to be some other venue to ask for deletes, which would still have to be patrolled. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone can remove? Do you mean remove the CSD tag? I understood it that editors were supposed to add hangon, discuss on talkpage and improve the article, before an administrator makes a decision. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone but the author can decline a speedy by removing the CSD tag, only the author needs to go through the {{Hangon}} route. In practice I get the impression that usually only admins and authors remove speedy tags, perhaps some of those potential admins who are following this page would care to try their hands at such article rescue? ϢereSpielChequers 13:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone can remove? Do you mean remove the CSD tag? I understood it that editors were supposed to add hangon, discuss on talkpage and improve the article, before an administrator makes a decision. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyway
Despite this mess, I've asked Looie496 and Franamax, any comments? ceranthor 13:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone mentioned this (I've been very busy lately), but you can comb through WP:ADCO/RFC for people at least willing to go through RfA in the future. Some aren't ready, but others might be. Malinaccier (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure there is a problem. We've had a clutch of excellent candidates this week.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- The primary reason I am running is because someone recommended members of WP:HAU try running since there is recent evidence of the lack of nominees. I have other reasons, of course, but without this awakening, my self-nomination would have been delayed possibly a few more years. I would not be surprised if the others running were inspired (or nominated) for similar reasons. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly, or possibly not. I don't think it's the case for The Ed17, who is a repeat nominee who did good work since his last RfA and is now running to general applause. Glad to see you participating here, Bob, if you are familiarizing yourself with these pages, you should hit the ground running!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- In response to Wehwalt, yes there is still a problem. Until the drought of the last 18 months we were on average appointing an admin a day. We currently have five candidates in the Green which is the best its been for weeks. But this spike in activity has taken a lot of work to achieve and is still a little below the 2006/2007 average. ϢereSpielChequers 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Error in report
This is not right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- User:Backslash Forwardslash beat me to it. It was set for the year 29 instead of 2009, which the bot equated with 2029. [2] Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Y2K anyone? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
My hypothetical situation
I tried a little experiment asking four candidates to respond to a hypothetical complaint on AN/I, and it seems to have gone well. Since all the candidates have now answered, I thought it would be appropriate to discuss my intent, my view on how we should vote on RfAs, and my views on the specific problem. I've posted it below for ease:
A hypothetical: A post on ANI catches your attention. An IP editor (IP 555.555.555.1) claims that he is part of Sarah Palin's family, and that redlinked user:neutral editor is a democratic staffer vandalizing the article. A check of the history shows these two were edit warring over whether or not to include the line "Sarah Palin quit from the position of governor, giving her a world wide reputation as a quitter"(several cites to blogs and op eds) in the lede of the article. 555.555.555.1 has been reverting with the edit summary "rv:trolling vandal libeler" and user:neutral editor has not used edit summaries at all. In addition, three other users have commented on the ANI thread like so:
- Alaskan's can't write, ignore him.--User:A
- Block 555.555.555.1, WP:COI. --User:B
- Block both of the fuckers. --User:C
No one else has responded to the thread in 48 hours. What do you do?
The purpose of this hypothetical situation was to present a complicated and fairly realistic situation in dispute resolution. This is a situation where administrators regularly do the most good, and the most harm, in large part because they are expected by the community and outsiders to deal with the situation. While I appreciate the desires to reward content contribution, vandal fighters, and so on, the critical administrative task is in this sort of problem solving, and I believe an admin candidate should rise or fall on how we think they will handle these situations, even if they state they are not interested in them, because eventually, they will come to you. In addition, administrators require good judgment, and the intellectual and personality traits that allow them to see nuances and pitfalls with little or no help from "the community." The hypothetical accordingly dealt with balancing competing concerns and a nearly useless peanut gallery. As with all such problems, I consider there to be no right answers, just wrong answers and better answers.
In this case, I have presented a biography of living person problem (and attendant reliable sources problem entangled with edit warring a possible misuse of legal terminology, poor use of edit summaries, significant incivility including a naked personal attack, supposed conflict of interest, and the difficulty in establishing real life identities. All of this was coupled with a stale report. As is often the case, one of the parties acting most egregiously had a valid point. I looked for answers that examined as much of the problem as possible, appropriately prioritized the BLP issue, and dealt with poor conduct by not only the two conflicting parties, but also the problems represented by users A. (inappropriate use of humor) B. (ultimately unhelpful response) and C (unnecessary and distracting vulgarity and attacks). The best answers are ones that dealt with conduct in such a way that directed the situation towards good content.
Hopefully, this was illuminating to people besides myself, and if there is no objection, I'd like to start making such hypothetical problems a regular features of RfAs.--Tznkai (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Great idea, and I fully agree with your thinking here. Just for the heck of it, I've decided to provide my own answer (without having looked at the current candidates' responses). I already passed, so what have I got to lose? :)
- As there are several issues at hand here, I would take it bit-by-bit. First, I would address the edit warring issue; presumably the edit warring was several days ago since the ANI thread was so stale, so page protection does not seem necessary. I would then respectfully request that the anon confirm their identity via OTRS, as this is crucial to understanding the dispute. If it is confirmed that 555.555.555.1 is indeed part of Sarah Palin's family, I would leave an in-depth explanation of the situation on their talk page, and give them some ideas for moving forward, and a polite warning for COI editing as they were without doubt contributing with good intentions. Barring official confirmation, I would invoke AGF to assume they are who they say. I would then review the contributions of Neutral editor (talk · contribs) and determine if any further action is necessary. Judging by your description, one can assume this user is a SPA with a mission to push a point of view; if this is the case, a block may be in order. I would then review the article in question to determine what, if any, editorial actions need to be taken to bring the page in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Of course, blogs are usually not reliable sources for controversial information, so the offending sentence would have to be removed. Once the main issues are resolved, it would be necessary to warn A (talk · contribs) and C (talk · contribs) for incivility. Lastly, I would leave a detailed recap of my actions on the ANI thread.
- Again, excellent idea. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Great idea to bring up these kinds of questions at RFA, and any full answer like the one Julian gave would be great. However, as a voter, I would also be quite happy with an answer such as: "I would of course deal with the BLP issue [along the lines that Julian suggests] since every editor has an obligation to deal with BLP issues when they see them, but I would also make a statement asking for someone else to handle the potential block who knows more about civility blocking issues than I do." I don't need every admin to know (or pretend to know) everything, only the most important things, such as BLP. It's more important to me that candidates show that they know how to do some admin chore that needs doing, and that they're dedicated, trustworthy and civil. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- That is perfectly fair. In fact, I fully encourage people to take even insufficient answers to hypos and support anyway if they believe the candidate will learn quickly. The benefit of hypothetical is the lack of simple yes know answers give multiple voters relevant information to make their decision.--Tznkai (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Great idea to bring up these kinds of questions at RFA, and any full answer like the one Julian gave would be great. However, as a voter, I would also be quite happy with an answer such as: "I would of course deal with the BLP issue [along the lines that Julian suggests] since every editor has an obligation to deal with BLP issues when they see them, but I would also make a statement asking for someone else to handle the potential block who knows more about civility blocking issues than I do." I don't need every admin to know (or pretend to know) everything, only the most important things, such as BLP. It's more important to me that candidates show that they know how to do some admin chore that needs doing, and that they're dedicated, trustworthy and civil. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I often find these questions really hard to use as a gauge of a candidate's suitability for adminship. My own editing (and admin-ing) style is such that if I don't have a certain level of interest in a subject, I'm simply going to move along and find something that I have a higher interest level in. As a real-world example, I often skip deleting musical artists and groups because it's not always easy to determine notability. In fact, after >3100 deletions (with only one CSD overturned, and I still think it doesn't belong), I still watch-list articles rather than delete or even tag, just to see how others are adjudicating them. (In the not-too-distant past, it was much harder to get a stub in about a specific episode of a television show, for example, than it is today. Ditto for local roads; it seems mere mention in a newspaper is enough to belay CSD, at least. That's all fine, but my point is that it changes over time.)
I'm not suggesting such a question be dumped, but I caution against attaching too much significance to its answer. I think what we want most of all in this project - admin or otherwise - are people who demonstrate that they can find the right answer when they need to, not people who pretend they already know all the right answers. It's really hard to do that in this context, because the real-world answer we might choose is "no action", and that might be a perfectly legitimate response. RfA too often doesn't make allowance for that, instead labeling it as a sign of lack of experience, making a candidate unworthy. Frank | talk 19:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for involving me in the experiment. I did notice the same question had been posed to other candidates but did not base my answer on their replies. I don't think User:A was uncivil and would have just ignored User:B's comment. I don't see the need for any action against either of them. User:C on the other hand would warrant a warning. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
One word of caution I would have is that if these sorts of questions are to be used effectively, they are going to need to be refreshed and substantially altered frequently because they are very easy for the types of candidates we don't want passing (power-hungry MMORPGists) to learn the answer to and parrot it back. Skomorokh 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- This sort of thing is a risk, but I think a smaller risk with open ended questions than the typical q&a involved in. As things progress, I would like to have a large number of available hypos balancing different concerns available so every candidate gets a new one, but for right now, poor old me can only write so much so quickly. I wouldn't mind getting a lot of input and/or help on creating them however.--Tznkai (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, to deal with Frank's very legitimate concern, I think "do nothing" "ask for help" and similar responses can be excellent ones if well supported and would vote appropriately, although I am aware that many would look dimly on it. Would be admins need to get used to the idea of making a decision and explaining their thinking, even at the risk of disagreement. My hope that is that I can create questions that weigh in favor of the thoughtful admin, whatever their answer. In the end, we can't run scared from unreasonable voters, and we have to make sure that good information is out there for those who want it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was surprised at one of Juliancolton's points, and the lack of any comment on it, leaving the impression it was correct. I'm a big fan of AGF—one of the better policies here, but I don't interpret AGF as saying I have to take someone's word about who they claim to be. I read it as more related to motivation of actions—that we ought to attempt, even strain to interpret the actions in the best possible light. Maybe that revert was in error. Maybe the editor really thinks that edit improves the text, etc. But when it comes to assertions about oneself, especially ones that assert some expertise or special knowledge about a situation, I thought we were supposed to be more skeptical. Not combative, but more along the lines of "until and unless you use OTRS, we are going to assume you are just another editor, just like the rest of us, which means you need RS to add something, or good reason to revert something." Am I offbase here?--SPhilbrickT 21:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think you can easily do both. Assuming that 555.555.555.1 in the hypo above was a relative of Sarah Palin doesn't mean you have to let their behavior go, it just adds information as you try to understand and solve the situation. The assumption of good faith is not , and never has been a suicide pact - for example, does not go as far as potential copyright infringement.--Tznkai (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- In this example it doesn't matter if the person is a relative or not - they want to remove something they see as libel. Removing stuff for BLP is fine, unless there's good sources for it to go into the article. Letting them know about otrs, and mgodwin, is probably helpful. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was surprised at one of Juliancolton's points, and the lack of any comment on it, leaving the impression it was correct. I'm a big fan of AGF—one of the better policies here, but I don't interpret AGF as saying I have to take someone's word about who they claim to be. I read it as more related to motivation of actions—that we ought to attempt, even strain to interpret the actions in the best possible light. Maybe that revert was in error. Maybe the editor really thinks that edit improves the text, etc. But when it comes to assertions about oneself, especially ones that assert some expertise or special knowledge about a situation, I thought we were supposed to be more skeptical. Not combative, but more along the lines of "until and unless you use OTRS, we are going to assume you are just another editor, just like the rest of us, which means you need RS to add something, or good reason to revert something." Am I offbase here?--SPhilbrickT 21:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, to deal with Frank's very legitimate concern, I think "do nothing" "ask for help" and similar responses can be excellent ones if well supported and would vote appropriately, although I am aware that many would look dimly on it. Would be admins need to get used to the idea of making a decision and explaining their thinking, even at the risk of disagreement. My hope that is that I can create questions that weigh in favor of the thoughtful admin, whatever their answer. In the end, we can't run scared from unreasonable voters, and we have to make sure that good information is out there for those who want it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, the first thing I thought of was "Hey, that's not a valid IP address." Aside from that, though, be aware that with hypothetical questions you'll get subjective answers. Obviously you could decide how much stock to put in the candidate's response, but I'm betting it will vary a lot, both in content and length. Other the other hand, though, subjective answers are (usually) far better and give much better insight than the near cookie-cutter answers to questions like the infamous block vs. ban. I prefer questions like this, but I'd also recommend a caveat of asking it selectively. If the candidate does not mention ANI in their answer to Q1, you might get an answer of "I have no intention of working at ANI." Useight (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Subjective answers give a lot more insight - and I personally couldn't care less about discussions on blocks versus bans, I think its a little bit of self indulgent process wonkery that smells too much of ideology and not enough of practicality. As to the specific issue of "I have no intention to work at ANI" my answer to that is going to be "too bad." Promises given at RfA are unenforceable, and when you sign up for the tools, you get the whole package. I expect DR skills out of every person handed the bit, and if they defer every request in the future, thats fine, but I operate under the assumption they are likely to end up in the thick of it.--Tznkai (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Useight...that was exactly my first thought, too, but I didn't want to look smart-allecky. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 01:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Concerning the IP address, you might be amused by 555 (telephone number). Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Subjective answers give a lot more insight - and I personally couldn't care less about discussions on blocks versus bans, I think its a little bit of self indulgent process wonkery that smells too much of ideology and not enough of practicality. As to the specific issue of "I have no intention to work at ANI" my answer to that is going to be "too bad." Promises given at RfA are unenforceable, and when you sign up for the tools, you get the whole package. I expect DR skills out of every person handed the bit, and if they defer every request in the future, thats fine, but I operate under the assumption they are likely to end up in the thick of it.--Tznkai (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, the first thing I thought of was "Hey, that's not a valid IP address." Aside from that, though, be aware that with hypothetical questions you'll get subjective answers. Obviously you could decide how much stock to put in the candidate's response, but I'm betting it will vary a lot, both in content and length. Other the other hand, though, subjective answers are (usually) far better and give much better insight than the near cookie-cutter answers to questions like the infamous block vs. ban. I prefer questions like this, but I'd also recommend a caveat of asking it selectively. If the candidate does not mention ANI in their answer to Q1, you might get an answer of "I have no intention of working at ANI." Useight (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Block the edit warriors indefinitely, with an assignment to read the policies about personal attacks and reliable sources, and to write a short paragraph summarizing what they read. If they get it, consider unblocking. If not, they stay blocked until they get it. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
New backlog
There are 5,600 images in Category:Wikipedia media renaming requests that have been flagged for renaming and MediaWiki lets only admins perform a rename, so I'm sure our vast admin corp will quickly respond to the backlog, now that image renaming is enabled. MBisanz talk 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh and that is also the list of images for which the person requesting rename did not provide a suggested new name, so no, a bot cannot be used. MBisanz talk 23:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- That... is a very large number. Why exactly IS this admin only?--Tznkai (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Potential for abuse, perhaps? Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- My guess is because image redirects are less-clean then file redirects, for example, a double redirect on an article hurts nothing, but a double redirect on an image after moving can break NFCC and end up getting a non-free image bot deleted. Also, there are various WP:BEANS aspects of the image system that makes it less robust than the paging system (suffice it to say I have managed to obliterate images by moving them too quickly last time it was enabled). MBisanz talk 23:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- As I explained here, an editor does not need to be an admin to work on this category.--Rockfang (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think you should just announce it to the wide admin audience that file renaming was re-enabled. I think most, like me, are willing to help but did not know this. Regards SoWhy 13:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also: Non-admins can assist by checking the requests and proposing better file names using
{{rename media|newname.jpg}}
. Regards SoWhy 13:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)- Admins who don't want to chance breaking something can also do that. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also: Non-admins can assist by checking the requests and proposing better file names using
- I think you should just announce it to the wide admin audience that file renaming was re-enabled. I think most, like me, are willing to help but did not know this. Regards SoWhy 13:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just moved an image to File:Skylark front cover.jpg, and now it seems to be broken... :( Rd232 talk 13:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- And now it's OK. Weirdness. Rd232 talk 13:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's the cache, sometimes it needs a few minutes to catch up. Don't worry. :-) Regards SoWhy 14:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with SoWhy, just be on the look out for errors, last time they enabled it I managed to break a file about once ever sixty moves. I haven't had a chance to stress test it, but hope to be able to later this week. MBisanz talk 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I just did about 25, and everything seems to be working properly. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Additional questions
I've just answered Q11 (c) which was added some time after I had answered all the other questions. Would it not be a good idea if there was a general understanding that a candidate should be notified that an additional question had been posed after the initial flurry of questions had been answered? Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be courteous to notify the candidate, although it's not entirely necessary. Keeping an eye on your request shows more competence than assuming it's finished and leaving it be for the rest of the week. Since I didn't want to clog up my watchlist, I've been watching my own request like a hawk with the help of an RSS feed. Go to the history page and subscribe to the feed there. You should be updated every time that page is modified. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think that nervous paranoia is the generally assumed behavior, so it usually gets taken care off on its own. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ha, the nervousness was my first reaction, but after about the first four supports I realized I stood a good enough chance I had no reason to be nervous. Now I've been reading the results as they come in simply because they make me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think that nervous paranoia is the generally assumed behavior, so it usually gets taken care off on its own. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)