No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013
|
|||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Current time: 03:39:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
How many active admins do we have?
I just noticed that at the bottom of the admin toolbox thing, it says we have 1,444 admins. I was wondering how many of those are actually active admins? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Far too many, 687.[1] Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- It depends on your definition of "active". A few months ago I counted the number of admins who logged 20 or more admin actions in the previous month, and only came up with 226. Many people who are "active" by the definition that produced the 687 figure rarely use their admin tools. Hut 8.5 21:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- 226 active users performing administrative actions is far too few for a wiki this large. That's almost ridiculous. TCN7JM 21:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Based on what evidence? What would be a more appropriate number for a wiki this large? Leaky Caldron 22:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Given the long wait times at RfPs and RPP and the not-as-long wait times at places like UAA, probably like 300. TCN7JM 22:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would make one point in response to that: I don't think there needs to be a limit on the admin total. If someone can be trusted with the tools, give him the tools. If he can't be trusted, don't give him the tools. It should be decided that way regardless of how many admins there are. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Given the long wait times at RfPs and RPP and the not-as-long wait times at places like UAA, probably like 300. TCN7JM 22:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- 226 is enough to get the job done, since most RFCs and many other discussions can (and should) be closed by non-admin, and most areas aren't backlogged except copyright, which has been perpetually backlogged for ages. Backlogs come and go, the normal ebb and flow. It isn't optimal in that too few people are doing too many things, however. Diversity is a good thing in admin'ing, particularly in consensus building. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can you explain what you mean by diversity? TCN7JM 22:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Grr...excuse that misinterpretation of your statement. Sorry. TCN7JM 22:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- A statistic I would like to see even moreso is actually, "how many admins performed X% of admin actions". I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of administrative actions were only performed by a handful of admins. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure they would. A few admins perform very large numbers of admin actions, either because they are a bot or they are using an automatic or semi-automatic tool. Hut 8.5 23:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, how active an admin is in "admin'ing" isn't always in the logs. You can work ANI all day, trying to solve problems, and never use the bit. That isn't strictly "admin" only work, but mediation and dispute resolution often falls on us. No logs of that stuff. Same with SPI. I can work 4 hours hard and only block a few people (or none) because most of that time is spent reading diffs, comparing times, etc. Or I can hope over to CSD or RFPP and make 15-20 log entries in an hour. It depends on how the admin spends their time, so logs don't tell the whole story. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- It would be marginally trivial to build up our own version of the academic h-statistic. What is the number k such that k sysops perform k sysop actions per unit time? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure they would. A few admins perform very large numbers of admin actions, either because they are a bot or they are using an automatic or semi-automatic tool. Hut 8.5 23:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- A statistic I would like to see even moreso is actually, "how many admins performed X% of admin actions". I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of administrative actions were only performed by a handful of admins. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Based on what evidence? What would be a more appropriate number for a wiki this large? Leaky Caldron 22:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- 226 active users performing administrative actions is far too few for a wiki this large. That's almost ridiculous. TCN7JM 21:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- It depends on your definition of "active". A few months ago I counted the number of admins who logged 20 or more admin actions in the previous month, and only came up with 226. Many people who are "active" by the definition that produced the 687 figure rarely use their admin tools. Hut 8.5 21:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There's huge backlogs in image deletions. There's sure as heck not "far too many" admins in that area. WP:FFD: 289 posts awaiting closure. WP:PUF: 212 files await review, some dating back to February. Wikipedia:Non-free content review: 64 discussions, some dating back to February. Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files: 384 files need to be examined. Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source: a nine-day backlog. There's plenty more, and only two or three admins trying to keep up with the workload. I was looking after the stuff on the dashboard and WP:PUF, but had to quit for burnout. -- Dianna (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've looked and I've dabbled a bit with image deletions, and I deal with copyright some at my job, but that place is confusing and it is easy to screw up. I've even been honing my skills at Commons, where if I screw up too badly, bi-admin INeverCry will just block me from Commons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Backlogs have substantially grown over the time that I've been an admin; I don't remember seeing this much backlog at RFPP, for example. Which is remarkable as the number of active editors is slowly declining. --Rschen7754 02:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)See, I felt bad, so I went and deleted a bunch of photos, then I ran across this one [2] which I'm thinking could be licensed under CC if the author wanted to, or maybe not, as I'm not sure the country of orgin and if it would have to be considered copyrighted. I went and did a load at RFPP the other day, like 20, and when I got done, another 20 had been added. Treading water. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it's more an issue of area of expertise/interest. The low-hanging fruit is quickly taken care of and areas like FFD an other unsexy arenas are left out in the sun. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- With image deletions, it's a totally thankless job. You never get any feedback at all until you screw something up. At RFPP at least you get to meet people :/ -- Dianna (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could resurrect this or this. Hint, hint. INeverCry 03:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- We thank our image-deleting admins by either banning them (SchuminWeb) or driving them to quit (basically everyone else). We desperately need more admins who understand copyright issues. Maybe we need training classes? --B (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- With image deletions, it's a totally thankless job. You never get any feedback at all until you screw something up. At RFPP at least you get to meet people :/ -- Dianna (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it's more an issue of area of expertise/interest. The low-hanging fruit is quickly taken care of and areas like FFD an other unsexy arenas are left out in the sun. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
B - re "training classes", that might be a good idea. I just spent 30 mins at FFD and only managed to delete one file. I quickly realized there were deeper issues at play, and although I regard myself as an "experienced admin" in the general sense, I'm clearly not properly equipped to deal with the numerous gray areas I quickly ran into. Manning (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, for the most part, the easy ones get cherry picked pretty quickly so the ones remaining are the ones nobody wants. And to make it worse, FFD is a mixture of "crap to delete", "fair use debates", and "licensing debates". And if you close one of the high profile fair use ones, you're basically guaranteeing that half of FFD will be ticked off and it's going to deletion review. ;) --B (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are four tests that I'm aware of to whether we have enough volunteer admins. One is the one that people have discussed above, do we have enough admins to keep the backlogs under control and get most stuff done within hours or days of it needing to be done? A second, and one where geographic/timezone diversity comes in, is do we have enough to give us 24/7 coverage at AIV and for deleting attack pages? The third is do we have enough admins that we can say that we are a self governing society where all sensible clueful regulars are admins. The fourth is do we have enough admins that we can spread the admin work so thinly that any admin who only focusses on admin work is seen as unusual. Those four, or rather two related pairs, would give you radically different numbers of admins, and whilst I'd expect that we can all agree that we want to pass the first two, and at present probably are passing or close to passing both those tests; The latter two, which would require far more admins, are more contentious as there are some who don't want the community to work that way. I'd be interested in hearing from those who don't want us to pass the last two tests as I'm still not clear what their vision of a healthy community looks like. As for the first two, I would prefer that we fixed RFA before we got to the point where we suddenly appoint a whole bunch of poorly considered candidates, and I'll support pretty much any reform that delays or averts that scenario. But pragmatically I can live with the consequences of failing to reform RFA if that is what happens. ϢereSpielChequers 10:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Another irrelevant analysis which bypasses the real issues. As discussed above, a central starting point would be to know what admins are here for. But we don't. Admins don't know. There is no mission statement for admins. Schoolboys and other users utterly unqualified in content matters are appointed for life as "admins", and then unleashed to block and jerk around the principal content builders. There is no constitution on Wikipedia which defines dignities, rights and freedoms contributors can expect, and places boundaries and limitations on the manner in which power over others is exercised. In practice each admin is largely allowed to decide for themselves what they think admins are here for and how they should behave. As a result we have over a thousand loose cannons acting out their own individual fantasies. Formal sanctions are never in practice applied when admins mistreat non admins, though they are applied with great vigour when admins mistreat other admins. Often, no distinction is made between vandals and the principal content builders – all non admins are shoved into the same pit and treated pretty much the same way.
- Your third test, WereSpielChequers, "do we have enough admins that we can say that we are a self governing society where all sensible clueful regulars are admins", is, given the current climate, insulting to non admins. I doubt many current regulars with real clue and capability to build the encyclopaedia would seek to become admins. Perhaps it comes down to what is meant by "clueful". I suspect this term on Wikipedia now has a special meaning, yet another example of admin speak, and someone "with clue" now means someone attuned to admin self interest. The current admin system is going to lurch and stumble in ever increasing monstrous ways until the admin powers are properly defined and reissued on a needs basis, and in a rational way to those who are best equipped to use them. In particular, the discipline and sanctioning of the principal content builders on Wikipedia could possibly be controlled by a specially constituted board, but definitely not as it is now, by a thousand loose cannons including schoolboys and vandal hunters.
- This idea, that things will come right if only the RfA can be fixed is nonsense. It is a mere distraction, a displaced activity that admins try and draw people into to hide the real issue, which is that the system itself must be restructured. Anyone who stands back and looks in a dispassionate way at the current system can see how absurd and dysfunctional it is. No amount tinkering with the mechanics of the RfA, as WereSpielChequers seems to suggest, is going to make the slightest difference. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- As one of the admins who you describe as "over a thousand loose cannons acting out their own individual fantasies" I doubt that we are going to agree on much over this. But I would like you to reconsider a few points.
- Most importantly whilst my aspiration is that all sensible clueful regulars become admins, I don't believe that we are there yet or even that we are heading in the right direction. Of course it would be insulting to non-admins if I thought that was already true, but it isn't insulting to have that as an objective, even if some of the people who I'd hope would become admins are unwilling to run.
- "Formal sanctions are never in practice applied when admins mistreat non admins, though they are applied with great vigour when admins mistreat other admins." Would you accept that to disprove that I only need quote one Arbcom case where an admin was desysopped over mistreating a non-admin?
- "a thousand loose cannons including schoolboys and vandal hunters." Aside from the question as to how many if any of our current admins are actually loose cannons, I'm not sure if we have many schoolboys in the admin corps these days. We certainly had in the past, but if you take schoolboy as being a male aged 16 or less then I doubt we have many in the current admin cadre. Maybe my antennae aren't as well tuned for this as some people, but most of our admins were appointed more than five years ago and anyone appointed in early 2008 would have had to be ten then to be under 16 now. Maybe a couple of people are now going to surprise me, and we may well have some teenagers of 17, but my impression of the greying of the pedia is that we really don't have so many adolescents around nowadays, and in recent years the schoolboys who we do have are not getting through RFA.
- Clueful is quite probably Wikipedia jargon, I can't remember hearing it elsewhere, but that doesn't make it admin jargon, nor define it as admin self interest.
- "Often, no distinction is made between vandals and the principal content builders" you rather lost me there. In practice vandalism only accounts typically get four warnings and are then blocked indefinitely. That's just routine, when a principal content builder gets blocked indefinitely it is never routine and rarely uncontentious. I'd accept that some of the blocks of our principal content builders have been unwise and even in some cases unjustified. But any admin blocking a principal content contributor knows that it is liable to be controversial and require debate at the drama boards, especially if it is the sort of indefinite block that a serial vandal would get. ϢereSpielChequers 00:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- As one of the admins who you describe as "over a thousand loose cannons acting out their own individual fantasies" I doubt that we are going to agree on much over this. But I would like you to reconsider a few points.
- If you accept (a) there is no equivalent of a mission statement governing what admins are here for and how they should behave (see above), (b) there is no centralised body ensuring that admins conform to their mission – there can't be because there is no mission (that is, there is no centralised control directing the admin guns), and (c) that individual admins must therefore decide largely for themselves what they are here for and how they are going to behave (that is, individual admins are loose guns, firing independently and not under directed fire control), then since you are an individual admin it follows you are a loose cannon acting out your own individual fantasy of what you think an admin should be. You could call it a vision if you prefer. There is nothing pejorative about this. It is just an objective description of how it is. You could change the situation by pushing for a mission statement which defines the function of admins and sets out their code of conduct. You could push also for a disciplinary body to ensure admins conform to their mission. Then you wouldn't be a loose cannon acting out your personal admin fantasy. Replying point by point:
- You clearly seem to think that admins are beings of light, and that the goal of being an user on Wikipedia is to be an admin. I must tell you that working quietly and unseen in the many recesses of Wikipedia are many highly competent content builders. I have come across quite a few. Collectively, these content builders are the real powerhouse building Wikipedia. Most of them have not the slightest interest in being an "admin". For what its worth, neither have I. The only reason I participate on these boards is to try and get a better deal for content builders. Why is it not good enough to be competent at content building? It is a crazed notion that content builders are of less value than admins. Currently there is no dignity in being a content builder on Wikipedia, and I suspect that this climate is a core reason why we have lost so many of the best content builders. There are even admins who smirk with satisfaction how "no one is indispensable". The whole notion of "admin" needs to be fundamentally reworked, and this absurd process of progressively elevating admins over the rest of the community needs to brought abruptly down to earth.
- You say "Would you accept that to disprove that I only need quote one Arbcom case where an admin was desysopped over mistreating a non-admin". Yes, of course I would accept that. I'm trying to find just one example. If you can find an example, then I will modify the statement (the thrust will still be the same).
- On the issue of schoolboys, how does it follow that a schoolboy appointed ten years ago is going to mysteriously acquire the necessary gravitas and worldly knowledge to adjudicate fairly in the discipline of mature long contributing content builders? Hint: It doesn't follow.
- Admins are using the term "clueful" or "has clue" a lot these days. Usually in the context of being something that admins have and the rest of us don't have.
- "Often, no distinction is made between vandals and the principal content builders". Yes, often a distinction is made, but often it isn't. The drama boards ring with demands from both the peanut gallery and admins that competent content builder who have contributed for years receive no more leeway than anyone else. Admins even write essays on it. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have any hard evidence to prove this, but I seem to recall that back around 2005 it was considered rather weird for a long-standing editor (with more than 3 months and a thousand edits) to *not* want to be an admin, whether they primarily focused on content or not. I can only think of a couple of regular editors from that time period who chose not to be admins. Hence the creation of Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts in August 2005. The phenomenon of "admins vs content editors" seems to have started with the actions that led to this arbitration case and another related case. Graham87 05:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- "We don't have a lot of time on this earth! We weren't meant to spend it this way! Human beings were not meant to sit in little cubicles staring at computer screens all day, filling out useless forms and listening to eight different bosses drone on about mission statements!" Seriously, what is all this talk about mission statements? As if a mission statement would be the cure-all for Wikipedia. Please remember that we're all volunteers here. None of us are obligated to do anything. Admins and non-admins alike are here to do whatever it is they're interested in doing, no one's activities or behavior is governed by anything other than the full set of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Everyone on Wikipedia is a "loose cannon", independently deciding what they want to do at all times. If you like creating content, then create content. If you like fighting vandalism, fight vandalism. If you like deleting articles that don't belong here, then do so. All such activities are equally useful (and this is obviously a non-exhaustive list), because Wikipedia would be worse off if no one was doing one of those activities. To put content builders up on a platform and demand special treatment for them versus other editors is, in my opinion, equally wrong and arrogant as putting admins on a platform and giving them special treatment. To be fair, admins are occasionally given a small degree of extra leeway, if only because they routinely have to put up with a lot more shit on average, often from people like Epipelagic. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 14:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I receive a lot of shit and personal attacks from admins, and I rarely respond in kind. Most individual admins are fine. However the admin system is not fine and needs restructuring. I understand you prefer to leave things alone, but maintaining things as they are is not in the long term interest of Wikipedia. I did not suggest "a mission statement would be the cure-all for Wikipedia". That's something you made up. Some sort of mission statement is one of a number of steps that needs to be taken. It's not even the most important step, but nonetheless admins should know what admins are meant to achieve on Wikipedia and there should be general agreement on that. We both agree we don't have a lot of time on this earth. So let's cut through the unproductive squabbling that goes on and on all round Wikipedia because the admin system is broken. We can defuse most problems very quickly if admins are prepared to put their personal fears to one side, since most of the solutions are obvious. Then we can have a decent system everyone, admins and non admins alike, can have some pride in. I'm not against a decent admin system. That's precisely what I'm for. Yes I do put content building up on a platform. Absolutely. For an elaboration of that, see my reply below to Ed.--Epipelagic (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Since when have 'content builders' and 'administrators' been homogenous and mutually exclusive groups? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure who your comment is addressed to, Ed. Certainly 'content builders' and 'administrators' are neither homogenous nor mutually exclusive groups. Many administrators are also content builders and some administrators are fine content builders. When I use the term 'content builder' it is in the extended sense of any activities resulting in better content or better access to content on Wikipedia, including copyediting, removing vandalism, building navigation templates, deleting inappropriate material, uploading images, removing copy violations, formatting fixes made with a bot, and admin activities blocking vandals. Activities like these, as well as others, are all part of 'content building'. I use the term 'content building' because that's where the focus should be. But there is currently a sharp divide between admins and content builders who are not admins. When I refer to content builders in the context of the admin system, I am referring to content builders who are not admins. If I have an underlying agenda in this thread it would be to get acceptance that the core purpose of admins on Wikipedia is to facilitate content building. And for that, there needs to be some sort of mission statement for admins. If that is accepted, then all admins will be content builders, and we will all be on the same page. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think that strikes at the root of the issue. The entire concept of someone "being an admin" because they have the bit, instead of being "an editor with admin tool access", cultivates and reinforces an attitude of distinct groups. Administrator permissions should not be used to define the identity of an editor. WSC's solution, and the way Wikipedia used to be, was to combat this attitude by handing out the permission freely to any rational editor who isn't here to screw things up. This strategy is implicit in our UI as well, admin account signatures don't look any different by default, and it's difficult for an uninitiated user to figure out who does or doesn't have admin access.
- I've always thought that one potential solution would be to stop giving editors admin access on their main account. If they pass RfA, they should create a new account to get the flag (with a systematic name to avoid confusion, like "The ed17-admin"), which should only be used for admin type stuff. This solution is not likely to make either camp completely happy, since it is an admission that the "no big deal" dilution strategy that WSC advocates is a lost cause, and at the same time, increases the visibility when an editor is acting as "an administrator". But it would help destroy the perception that the "big deal" camp has that "admins" are some kind of feted elite, since the editor's actions under their normal account would be explicitly done as a regular editor, not as "an admin", and therefore carry no extra weight. Gigs (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's an interesting suggestion, and it might work for those who make clear distinctions between hours spent doing admin stuff and hours spent doing other things. But I, and I suspect many others, simply don't operate that way. When I go through Cat:SPEEDY and check an article tagged for speedy deletion I may delete it, or I may decline the speedy and perhaps categorise it. Declining a speedy deletion tag probably doesn't count as an admin action because anyone can decline a speedy other than the person who wrote the article. Categorising it and copy editing it certainly isn't an admin action. Othertimes I just use the tools when I come across something that needs them. So for me it would mean that for most of my admin actions I would be logging out and logging back into my admin account doing the action then logging out and logging back into my non admin account. That's a lot of faff, and I could see myself not bothering to fix the odd typo or add some categories, or even go for a password that was several digits shorter. I suspect that having such extra accounts would add to our faff and complexity without much benefit - it might even encourage some admins to focus more on their admin actions, and it would take us further from my ideal of adminship being widely spread out in the community. ϢereSpielChequers 20:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- "We don't have a lot of time on this earth! We weren't meant to spend it this way! Human beings were not meant to sit in little cubicles staring at computer screens all day, filling out useless forms and listening to eight different bosses drone on about mission statements!" Seriously, what is all this talk about mission statements? As if a mission statement would be the cure-all for Wikipedia. Please remember that we're all volunteers here. None of us are obligated to do anything. Admins and non-admins alike are here to do whatever it is they're interested in doing, no one's activities or behavior is governed by anything other than the full set of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Everyone on Wikipedia is a "loose cannon", independently deciding what they want to do at all times. If you like creating content, then create content. If you like fighting vandalism, fight vandalism. If you like deleting articles that don't belong here, then do so. All such activities are equally useful (and this is obviously a non-exhaustive list), because Wikipedia would be worse off if no one was doing one of those activities. To put content builders up on a platform and demand special treatment for them versus other editors is, in my opinion, equally wrong and arrogant as putting admins on a platform and giving them special treatment. To be fair, admins are occasionally given a small degree of extra leeway, if only because they routinely have to put up with a lot more shit on average, often from people like Epipelagic. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 14:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you accept (a) there is no equivalent of a mission statement governing what admins are here for and how they should behave (see above), (b) there is no centralised body ensuring that admins conform to their mission – there can't be because there is no mission (that is, there is no centralised control directing the admin guns), and (c) that individual admins must therefore decide largely for themselves what they are here for and how they are going to behave (that is, individual admins are loose guns, firing independently and not under directed fire control), then since you are an individual admin it follows you are a loose cannon acting out your own individual fantasy of what you think an admin should be. You could call it a vision if you prefer. There is nothing pejorative about this. It is just an objective description of how it is. You could change the situation by pushing for a mission statement which defines the function of admins and sets out their code of conduct. You could push also for a disciplinary body to ensure admins conform to their mission. Then you wouldn't be a loose cannon acting out your personal admin fantasy. Replying point by point:
Unfortunately a lot of admins have an us and them mentality on here. Not all of course but many feel like they are above the content editors and feel as though the community has entitled them to do whatever they want. It shouldn't be like that of course but since we have built a culture of admins being above the rules and above reproach we have done it to ourselves. Most people with the admin tools don't even use them but its the same 20-30 of the 650 admins who wield their tools like a club and feel like its their personal responsibility to block every content editor until the site is free of these radicals. We need to go back to the mentality that adminship is no big deal or even better break up the toolset completely into modules so that people can just apply for the ones they need rather than being given a whole toolbox when all they need is a screwdriver. Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Simply solution would be to have some administrative tools given to trusted editors - perhaps a new user access level with tools for simply maintains tasks given. I personally have no interest in dealing with behavior issues (thus n0t interested in admin-ship) - but would be more then willing to help with normal day to day maintenance issues. Need to spread-out the behind the scenes work like locked page moves, consensus deletions ect.. with admins abilities like blocking people, edit history suppression etc... Moxy (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are a raft of good solutions. But nothing can happen currently because the admin system is under the control of the admins themselves. They have a stranglehold on their own governance, and there is no way they will voluntarily release that grip. The best thing that could possibly happen would be for the system to fall apart from its own rottenness. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Epipelagic, so why not fix this rotten system? Your posts suggest that you believe you speak for a majority of content creators on this project who object to what they see as the project's governance by admins. Non-admins far outnumber admins. So change the system. We do things by consensus. Create a mission statement for admins and get a clear majority to approve it. Create a mechanism to remove admins you believe are abusive and get a clear majority to approve it. Your posts on this page show a lot of anger directed towards admins, but if you are correct and your views are indeed in the majority (any so called "consensus" to the contrary being admin-created and not truly representative of what other editors want) you have the power to change it. WJBscribe (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Alas that's not how it works... surely you must know that. Very few content builders participate on these boards now. Why should they. Most content builders who stumble upon these boards quickly learn they are not a safe place for a content builder, and they don't come back. And it has been clear for years that their views don't count unless they praise the current admin system. Any views expressed by a content builder on these boards which are challenging to the admin system are usually drowned by the first line of defence, the admin retinues. These are inhabitants of the drama boards that hope to become admins, or if they have lost hope of that, persist anyway because they love the drama. The last thing they want to see is something that might put restraint on admins or reduce drama. If their input fails, a couple of admins will appear, often somewhat threatening. The content builder is told that constructive criticism of the admin system is a personal attack on administrators. Even if the builder has worked for years on Wikipedia, some admin will helpfully point out WP:NPA. If intimidation fails, other different tactics are used, such as two or three admins responding in tandem, mechanically saying no, no, no... to every suggestion until the content builder gives up. In extreme cases, relays of admins emerge from the wings, and encircle the apostate until he gives up. I know the pattern well, since I have been subjected to it many times.
- When policy issues arise and votes are taken, most participants who turn up are admins and drama board regulars. A handful of dissenting votes from passing content builders are easily swamped. Admins need vote only to the point where they have ensured change that doesn't further entrench admin powers won't happen. Even if a general referendum were to be held for all content builders, it wouldn't mean much as things stand. Most content builders these days are not informed on what the issues are. All they know is that it's a good idea to stay well away from the admin boards. So they do. And the more they stay away the less they know of what goes down here. It's a viscous circle, and I don't know how to break it.
- However, I persist anyway, even though nothing ever changes (I'm well aware that's a definition of insanity). I persist because the issue really matters, and does huge unnecessary damage to Wikipedia. I may write an essay which sets out some alternative ways the admin system could be structured, and some possible ways of easing the transition from the current system to the new one. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think there are systemic problems, but it's not the simplistic us-and-them that you make it out to be. Meta-project types like myself follow a certain unwritten protocol for interactions that may not be understood by a content creator who has tried to avoid dipping into administrative drama as much as possible. This can lead to warnings that might seem like suppression of "content creator input". To the extent that a subculture with unwritten norms has formed around the meta-administration of the encyclopedia, I agree with you. The last half of your comment is much closer to the truth than your earlier simplistic characterization. Gigs (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it seems over "simplistic" to you then please counter with more down to earth specifics, rather than vague generalities and other worldly abstractions. I have no idea what you are trying to say. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think there are systemic problems, but it's not the simplistic us-and-them that you make it out to be. Meta-project types like myself follow a certain unwritten protocol for interactions that may not be understood by a content creator who has tried to avoid dipping into administrative drama as much as possible. This can lead to warnings that might seem like suppression of "content creator input". To the extent that a subculture with unwritten norms has formed around the meta-administration of the encyclopedia, I agree with you. The last half of your comment is much closer to the truth than your earlier simplistic characterization. Gigs (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Epipelagic, so why not fix this rotten system? Your posts suggest that you believe you speak for a majority of content creators on this project who object to what they see as the project's governance by admins. Non-admins far outnumber admins. So change the system. We do things by consensus. Create a mission statement for admins and get a clear majority to approve it. Create a mechanism to remove admins you believe are abusive and get a clear majority to approve it. Your posts on this page show a lot of anger directed towards admins, but if you are correct and your views are indeed in the majority (any so called "consensus" to the contrary being admin-created and not truly representative of what other editors want) you have the power to change it. WJBscribe (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are a raft of good solutions. But nothing can happen currently because the admin system is under the control of the admins themselves. They have a stranglehold on their own governance, and there is no way they will voluntarily release that grip. The best thing that could possibly happen would be for the system to fall apart from its own rottenness. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I initially looked at this discussion because of the topic header. Somehow, though, it was hijacked into what has become the ubiquitous discussion du jour (okay many jours), admins vs. non-admins, content editors vs. admins, the rotten system, etc. I will now ignore the discussion as I do with all of these discussions and go back to being a disgusting active admin. Oh, as an aside, the image deletion business. I don't get involved because it exhausts me just to think about figuring it all out, assuming that's even possible considering how byzantine Wikipedia's image deletion process is. I have never understood why Commons makes it so simple and Wikipedia makes it so hard. It's probably the fault of the admins. :-) You may now return to your regular channels.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's sad to hear. Most other admins are not disgusting, but manage to be decent admins regardless of system shortcomings. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Most admins don't do much adminning because most admins are not sociopaths, and thus properly equipped to deal with, well, the above invective directed at them on a daily basis. Anyway, I'd suggest that the number of active admins in any given part of Wikipedia process is in the single digits. CAT:EP has about a half-dozen (of which I'm one on the occasions that I actually remember to visit it), whereas TfD as a whole has only very slightly more than one on average (if we ever lose Plastikspork then TfD will grind to a halt). Most admins do more content work than adminning; conversely, most of the sort that insist on a dichotomy between admins and content contributors seem to do very little of anything other than agitate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is a problem with the often undeserved invective addressed at admins, but that's a separate issue, and given the way human minds work not altogether fixable. Still, a lot of that invective would go away if we had an admin system that behaved in a more decent and just way towards content builders. What is fixable is the unnecessarily demoralisation of content builders on Wikipedia. Why do you personalise constructive criticism of the admin system and classify it as "invective addressed at admins"? And why do you pretend content builders are not being unnecessarily demoralised? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of the invective would go away if you, personally, would cease it. The only pretence here is on behalf of the "content builders" cult, of which you are a prime agitator. The demoralisation in question is of your own making to your own ends. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes of course... I just made it all up. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it's pointless responding to comments as irrelevant as yours Cunningham, since they so completely miss the mark. But as a point on reality checking, critics of the admin system have often contributed far more solid content than most of the sort of admins who try to deny users the right to critique the admin system. And from the rest of what you say, you either have not read what has been said above, or you did not comprehend what was said above. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- [citation needed]. And as to your "point on reality checking", the only proven fact is that editors in the "content creation" cult are responsible for far more discussion of how much more productive they are. When it comes to hard figures, or naming names, these people have a remarkable ability to change the subject. (As to addressing me, you'll use "Chris" or "thumperward" in future.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess it's pointless responding to comments as irrelevant as yours Cunningham, since they so completely miss the mark. But as a point on reality checking, critics of the admin system have often contributed far more solid content than most of the sort of admins who try to deny users the right to critique the admin system. And from the rest of what you say, you either have not read what has been said above, or you did not comprehend what was said above. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes of course... I just made it all up. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of the invective would go away if you, personally, would cease it. The only pretence here is on behalf of the "content builders" cult, of which you are a prime agitator. The demoralisation in question is of your own making to your own ends. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is a problem with the often undeserved invective addressed at admins, but that's a separate issue, and given the way human minds work not altogether fixable. Still, a lot of that invective would go away if we had an admin system that behaved in a more decent and just way towards content builders. What is fixable is the unnecessarily demoralisation of content builders on Wikipedia. Why do you personalise constructive criticism of the admin system and classify it as "invective addressed at admins"? And why do you pretend content builders are not being unnecessarily demoralised? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Most content builders who stumble upon these boards quickly learn they are not a safe place for a content builder, and they don't come back.
I'm pretty sure that what actually happens is non-admins (I refuse to use this false distinction of "content builders") flee because the admin noticeboards are full of the most godawful headache-inducing crap that has everything to do with petty squabbling and screechy personal vendettas being carried out, but very little to do with actually improving the encyclopedia. — Scott • talk 14:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- There does seem to be a "complain about admins corp" to go along with the "admin corp." The world is zen that way. But a number of complainers have such an obvious chip on their shoulder, it is little wonder that they also complain about being ineffective. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- AfD has more than a dozen active admins at any instance of time, this is why it is never backlogged.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's also worth noting that sometimes admins start and stop heavy admin work at random. Normally I do a lot of the really nasty admin work around here—a lot of AE and dealing with major content disputes and the contentious RfCs they tend to produce—but I've done barely admin work for the last 4+ months, and most of what I have done is directly related to my content work. Yet my activity level on Wikipedia isn't any different; it's just extremely hyperfocused for the time being. Measurements of the number of active admins in the immediate last month should be taken with a grain of salt because people sometimes take a break from admin work, or even editing, for extended periods of time. It doesn't mean they won't come back—if I ever do finish my undertaking I'll throw myself back into the thick of things, for instance—it just means you're not getting them right now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- If anyone's interested I've posted the list of admins with over 20 actions in the last month here. Hut 8.5 15:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Very interesting - thanks. It appears to clearly demonstrate who does the work around here, at least for loggable admin actions. Echoing Blade's sentiments, ironically, I don't even feature on that list due to one of the reasons that some are reluctant to accept as valid: for a couple of months RL has really got in the way, or more aptly put, WP was getting in the way of RL. Reading between the lines of that list I see some poignant extrapolations: Recent, and fairly recently appointed admins who are demonstrating their initial enthusiasm (didn't we all?); Admins on that short list whom I have never heard of - probably those who go for low hanging fruit at the various deletion categories/areas and who avoid the drama boards and decision-making places but whose work is indispensable, and the absentees from the list, who like me, are well known throughout the community (for better or for worse) who currently just don't have the time, but who nevertheless peruse their watchlists, keep an eye on their talk pages, and still chime in on issues that are within their specific areas of interest. I do seem to detect some undertones in recent comments that once elected, admins are expected to remain busy for life - how absurd - there are a hundred reasons why the activities of some diminish. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting to me, too. I see my level of actions is well up there, and that's at the expense of my other contributions. It's because I've started doing article deletions again recently, after a long gap when I was so daunted by the amount of flak I was getting. Much of this comes from would-be contributors who don't have English as their first language, haven't read or don't understand the guidelines, and can't see why they shouldn't upload their own CVs, advertise their own shops, or write articles about members of their families. Worse than this, however, is the flak I get from other contributors who think I should have written the said people a book explaining in detail why I deleted their articles. Have you seen the backlog of new articles awaiting patrolling? No wonder I don't have time to write any myself. So come on, pile in and tell me what a lousy job I'm doing! Deb (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Question
I am curious, of the active admins on English Wikipedia, I noticed that some (not all) openly list their political alignment. Therefore, of those that do, what political alignment has the largest plurality? Has a census of such a thing ever been taken for Admins, editors in general?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't noticed that myself. Honestly, with very few exceptions, I have no knowledge of the political affiliation of most people here. Then again, I've never gone out of my way to look and see, or ask. Wikipedia is a terrible forum for political discussion, and that is beyond the scope of the mission anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm aware of one administrator whose political views are probably more to the right than the average American. There's no proper data on this, but I would be fairly sure that the average administrator and the average editor both have political views slightly to the left of the average American. However, I find it very unlikely that this affects administrator behaviour or editor behaviour to a significant degree. I get annoyed with people violating BLP regarding politicians I loathe, just as easily as I get annoyed with people violating BLP regarding politicians for whom I might vote. I'm sure others - with a few exceptions whom I won't name - likewise take Wikipedia policy and the encyclopedia itself, more seriously than their political loyalties. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- More worrying are the users whose only activity appears to be to vote at RfAs and who oppose the candidates for their religious belief or lack of it. I don't think political alignment or creed is any business of ours unless some systemic bias can be proven. That said, I would guard against any witch hunts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are a number of people whose only significant contributions here are to vote at RfA. I'm not sure how that is building an encyclopedia if that is virtually all someone does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- And that is precisely the reason why some of the major Wikipedias operate a qualification system for their RfA voters. This was one of the suggestions that has been repeatedly made for the en.Wiki, but where we have hardly any clearly defined official minimum criteria for RfA candidates, it would be odd to impose one for the !voters. Aye, there's the rub - because obviously inappropriate candidacies won't pass anyway.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be unreasonable even if there are none for candidates, but I don't know how we could tailor a criteria for voters that would cover all the bases, be fair, be simple, and be accepted. I'm much less optimistic about change happening at RfA than I was a year ago when I was a new admin. Maybe some of the naivete has worn off, or a maybe a little cynicism has crept in (in spite of my best efforts). People love to bitch about RfA almost as much as they love instantly opposing any change to the system. As a community, we are neurotic when it comes to anything "admin" at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The neurosis, as far as I can make out, comes mainly from wannabe admins or other users who have already queered their pitch. Those who are not admins (yet) really don't appreciate what a big deal being one isn't. It's only natural that there is an occasional bad apple in the barrel - enough have been defrocked to prove the point - but the general paranoia about adminship is frankly ludicrous; unless of course we take into account the paranoia candidates have about the flak they will receive once they get the bit and use it ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be unreasonable even if there are none for candidates, but I don't know how we could tailor a criteria for voters that would cover all the bases, be fair, be simple, and be accepted. I'm much less optimistic about change happening at RfA than I was a year ago when I was a new admin. Maybe some of the naivete has worn off, or a maybe a little cynicism has crept in (in spite of my best efforts). People love to bitch about RfA almost as much as they love instantly opposing any change to the system. As a community, we are neurotic when it comes to anything "admin" at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- And that is precisely the reason why some of the major Wikipedias operate a qualification system for their RfA voters. This was one of the suggestions that has been repeatedly made for the en.Wiki, but where we have hardly any clearly defined official minimum criteria for RfA candidates, it would be odd to impose one for the !voters. Aye, there's the rub - because obviously inappropriate candidacies won't pass anyway.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are a number of people whose only significant contributions here are to vote at RfA. I'm not sure how that is building an encyclopedia if that is virtually all someone does. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- More worrying are the users whose only activity appears to be to vote at RfAs and who oppose the candidates for their religious belief or lack of it. I don't think political alignment or creed is any business of ours unless some systemic bias can be proven. That said, I would guard against any witch hunts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
As someone who twice had the pleasure of the entire Article Rescue Squad serendipitously happening to all independently visit RfA on a week when I was running, I certainly know that the bloc vote is frustrating, but IMO there are very few cliques on Wikipedia these days that have sufficient power to singlehandedly torpedo an RfA that would otherwise be successful. As to the original question regarding political affiliation, I don't imagine that it differs considerably between the average admin and the average regular contributor, and it's pretty well known what our usual editing demographic consists of. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- When I asked the question, and looking at the responses I have come to agree with the conclusion that there has not yet been an effort to see what the political alignment of admins are. So I went through the active admin list (it took a while) and went through and noted all the self-stated political affiliations of the active admins. Here are the results (most to lease):
Self-stated political label | Admins | Total |
---|---|---|
Political compass Left/Libertarian | Amire80, AniMate, Antandrus, Ericorbit, Kingturtle, Malik Shabazz, Necrothesp, Orderinchaos, Salix alba | 9 |
Obama supporter | Acalamari, Buckshot06, Dravecky, Esanchez7587, JaGa | 5 |
Democrat | AntonioMartin, Bearian, Daniel Case, Gamaliel | 4 |
Libertarian | Arthur Rubin, EncMstr, Huntster, Timwi | 4 |
Conservative | B, Mike Cline, Nyttend | 3 |
Republican | Acdixon, Bob the Wikipedian, Willking1979 | 3 |
Green politics | Nightstallion, Rannpháirtí anaithnid | 2 |
Liberal | Ericorbit, Mike Cline | 2 |
Political Compass Right/Libertarian | Arthur Rubin, Horologium | 2 |
British Columbia New Democratic Party | OlEnglish | 1 |
Flying Spaghetti Marxist | Shirt58 | 1 |
George W. Bush opposer | Orangemike | 1 |
Labour Party | Arwel Parry | 1 |
Liberal democrat | Penwhale | 1 |
Liberal Party of Australia | Ianblair23 | 1 |
Liberal Party | Sjakkalle | 1 |
Meretz-Yachad | Number 57 | 1 |
Minarchist Libertarian | Satori Son | 1 |
Modern Whig Party | The Bushranger | 1 |
New Democratic Party | Orderinchaos | 1 |
Political compass Neutral/Libertarian | The Bushranger | 1 |
Progressive | JaGa | 1 |
Puerto Rican Independence Party | Marine 69-71 | 1 |
Socialist | GiantSnowman | 1 |
Social Democratic Party of Germany | SoWhy | 1 |
Social Liberalism | Nightstallion | 1 |
Working Families Party | Daniel Case | 1 |
Yisrael Beiteinu | Ynhockey | 1 |
- Now this is only the political alignment of those admins who declare them on their userpages, and anyone is free to hold any political alignment that they wish to.
- That being said based on this data there appears to be a left supermajority among active admins.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not seeing the basis for the conclusion because of 1) selection bias 2) sampling bias 3) confirmation bias and 4) cognitive bias. The ones who declare says nothing about the ones who do not, and the ones who do not declare, could be apolitical. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm with Alan here. There are 1446 admins. You're listing 40 who have previously self-identified, as opposed to being asked. That's not close to being a representative sample - this would be akin to measuring the ethnic diversity of a town by counting the number of "country" stickers (TT, PL) that people have stuck on their cars (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Of the few names on that list, there are many I've never heard of. Personally, I don't think it matters a hoot. Nobody knows my political leaning - and I'm not sure I know it myself, even after being a politically aware cosmopolitan for five decades. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not seeing the basis for the conclusion because of 1) selection bias 2) sampling bias 3) confirmation bias and 4) cognitive bias. The ones who declare says nothing about the ones who do not, and the ones who do not declare, could be apolitical. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not an oldtimer. But somebody should point out that there was a nasty spat over userboxes in 2005–2006; the issues raised then about classifying editors by convictions are relevant here, although the focus back then was apparently more on religious than political. The links at the top of this page lead to the debate, and this page describes the solution the community implemented so that we could continue to have userboxes; however, this is the background to the preference for userboxes of the form "is interested in foo" or "is a bar or is interested in barism" and—I presume—for the avoidance of political and religious userboxes by many editors, in particular admins. It's a bit of a dangerous question to ask, and there are good reasons for the lack of data. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, is the implication here that administrators' political views could impede their ability to stick to NPOV? And if not, then what is the point of the original question? — Scott • talk 16:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- What raises the more than occasional eyebrow are those who are only on Wikipedia to vote at RfA and who oppose for lack of religious conviction - the very kind of trollish voting that keeps candidates away from the process. I can't recall any oppose votes for political leaning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's happened on rare occasions. See oppose #11 here. Skinwalker (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- A more full census would create a more accurate determination of the political alignment of active admins. I never said that the political self-identification of an individual will influence an the ability of an individual to act neutrally when acting in the admin roll.
- That being said, as I said, the article space needs to be neutral, but as I have seen in many discussions before, the discussions that lead to whether content is included or excluded, what sources are considered reliable or not reliable have (not necessarily by admins) been effected.
- In the end Admins who engage in dispute resolution, and other such areas, need to be neutral arbiters. IMHO having a balance of all POVs in a discussion lead to better (if sometimes more difficult to reach) consensuses.
- In the end it's a question of curiosity, everyone can take from it what they want.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- I feel it's a curiosity we should not indulge. If admin candidates are going to push political/religious/whatever POVs, this is going to be revealed more reliably by their contributions than by their carefully crafted RfA answers. How a person votes in elections, or who he prays to on what day of the week, doesn't indicate a risk of POV pushing. Delving into people's political leanings at RfA is less likely to reveal anything interesting about the candidate than it is to attract real POV-pushers to come along and support/oppose people on the basis of the !voters' leanings. --Stfg (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also, it's entirely possible that people of minority (on Wikipedia) political persuasions will be less likely to self-declare, making a small imbalance appear larger. I think all this survey would produce is a set of talking points that don't represent how Wikipedia actually works. - Dank (push to talk) 11:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I feel it's a curiosity we should not indulge. If admin candidates are going to push political/religious/whatever POVs, this is going to be revealed more reliably by their contributions than by their carefully crafted RfA answers. How a person votes in elections, or who he prays to on what day of the week, doesn't indicate a risk of POV pushing. Delving into people's political leanings at RfA is less likely to reveal anything interesting about the candidate than it is to attract real POV-pushers to come along and support/oppose people on the basis of the !voters' leanings. --Stfg (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's happened on rare occasions. See oppose #11 here. Skinwalker (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Should " Rouge Admin" be on the list of political alignments? Their page defines what they do in a nonpolitical way. But I don't think a conservative or Republican would use this box. Kauffner (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
As the sole "Socialist" Admin, I have to say that the table above is flawed as it does not differentiate between political mo)vements, parties, ideologies etc. As a consequence, and in the spirit of openness, I would actually place myself in 5 of the above categories (Obama supporter, Green politics, George W. Bush opposer, Labour Party, Socialist). I would also say that displaying political/social beliefs of Admins and potential Admins should be encouraged, in the same way that we encourage editors with a COI on articles about themselves / their employers etc. to be open about it, as it gives the wider community vital knowledge. Of course I/we have a POV on certain areas of Wikipeia, but that does not mean I/we will edit in violation of NPOV. GiantSnowman 12:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Seems to have worked so far, because, if asked what I know about your interests and beliefs, the only thing that springs to mind without checking, would be "seems to have a strong interest in football". (And I'm relatively observant of the problematic editing that political biases sometimes cause.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can I add myself to despotic fascism or is that kind of frowned upon? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 06:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung, could you provide a few examples in which candidates have been opposed based on lack of religious beliefs? Thanks in advance, Keepscases (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I would like to know about that as well, or when candidates have been opposed based on their political views?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- To start, [3][4]. I'm sure I could find more but those are just ones i remember off the top of my head. Wizardman 23:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- It couldn't be more clear that those opposes are based not on the candidate's apparent atheism, but on thir choice to display intentionally nasty and confrontational userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- To start, [3][4]. I'm sure I could find more but those are just ones i remember off the top of my head. Wizardman 23:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
RfX report on individual RfX?
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I would suggest that we consider transcluding User:TParis/RfX Report on individual RfX. I guess the main reason for doing this would be ease of navigation from one RfX to the next. It's certainly not a major issue, but I figured I might as well mention it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 18:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- The correct link is User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report.—cyberpower ChatOffline 12:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I really don't have anything against the idea. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, but I suppose I could be convinced otherwise if discussion took place here. I don't have any really strong feelings on the matter. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Eh, personally, I would prefer that we didn't. Each RfX is, for the most part, completely unrelated to all the others, so there's not much reason to include it. On the main RfA page, sure, since it's effectively a status update of all the active subpages, but on the individual RfXs themselves, it's just a distraction. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I really could go either way, especially since I've no real trouble navigating between RFA's—it's not much trouble at all to punch "WT:RFA" into the search bar to see the report. I don't see any inherent harm, though, but I could see how it might make the page format a bit more convoluted. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Request to Unprotect Page for Follow-Through of Instructions
I would like to request this page made unprotected for the purposes of following through with the Instructions ("To Nominate Yourself") for nominating RfA. The part of the instructions I am referring to appear as:
9. Copy the following code: 'Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME'
10. Go to the following page: Edit this page (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&action=edit), and paste the above code you copied at the top of the RfA list.
This request is for the sole purpose of completing the given instructions for nominating RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nominate)
HowardCM (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm unsure if I completely understand you, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nominate has never been protected. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- He's self-nominating but can't complete the nomination because WP:RFA itself is semi-protected. I've added the nomination to the RFA page, though I don't expect it to be there for very long... --ElHef (Meep?) 14:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume SPP of that page is intentional? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Going of the top of my head, I don't think we have any formal requirements, hence we could theoretically be posting it there, silly as it obviously is. Given the user's only contributions are to this page, I am inclined however to suggest that we not do so. Snowolf How can I help? 14:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm gonna take a wild guess and assume SPP of that page is intentional? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- He's self-nominating but can't complete the nomination because WP:RFA itself is semi-protected. I've added the nomination to the RFA page, though I don't expect it to be there for very long... --ElHef (Meep?) 14:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I was bold and reverted the addition of the RfA. See also User_talk:ElHef#Why_on_earth...3F. Theopolisme (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh my, what's happened here?
I've been around for the last 5-ish years... Admittedly I've come and gone more than a couple times over the last several years, and I've probably been away for a long while. I've been around for a few days recently - and I haven't seen a single RFA up! This used to be an extremely uncommon occurrence... Just curious what's happened to this place? SQLQuery me! 07:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing. It's exactly as you left it; we froze the entire project. :-) More seriously, if you'd been around, you'd be grateful for the lack of RfAs. One less drama in the ever-growing list.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly the RFA process has been floundering for a long time. fewer and fewer admins are elected every year and more and more work is done by fewer and fewer of them. These days we generally desysop more admins due to inactivity than we promote. But then when we have an experienced editor run for it they are shot down. Its generally only the candidates that don't get involved in the day to day activities of the project and keep their heads down that get promoted. Kumioko (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- SQL, why not stand yourself? GiantSnowman 13:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SQL happened in 2007, about three months after SQL's initial registration. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- D'oh! GiantSnowman 13:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- That would never happen today which perhaps is another sign our system doesn't work. As far as I can tell relatively few editors who were elected with our gentler RFA process back then have been kicked out for abusing the tools. Further proof that the fear of experienced editors abusing the tools is more of a myth than an actual problem. The actual problem lies in the admin for life mentality, the extremely difficult process for removing the tools after abuse and the tendency for the power to go to editor turned admins heads. Kumioko (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- If there was a disscussion about why oranges grow on tress and why carrots do not, you would turn it into a discussion about administrator abuse. Why don't you create a subpage in your user space (if you don't already have one) setting forth your views on the subject? Then you could just provide a link to that page in all of your responses. Think of all the keystrokes it would save.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Silence doesn't help solve the problem. You may not agree and you may be tired of hearing it but it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist nor does it make the problem just go away. That's what got us here in the first place, too many editors including me keeping their big nose out of admins business and now they are driving people off the site with alarming efficiency. The only reason I'm still here is because I can't take a hint. Kumioko (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- If there was a disscussion about why oranges grow on tress and why carrots do not, you would turn it into a discussion about administrator abuse. Why don't you create a subpage in your user space (if you don't already have one) setting forth your views on the subject? Then you could just provide a link to that page in all of your responses. Think of all the keystrokes it would save.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- That would never happen today which perhaps is another sign our system doesn't work. As far as I can tell relatively few editors who were elected with our gentler RFA process back then have been kicked out for abusing the tools. Further proof that the fear of experienced editors abusing the tools is more of a myth than an actual problem. The actual problem lies in the admin for life mentality, the extremely difficult process for removing the tools after abuse and the tendency for the power to go to editor turned admins heads. Kumioko (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- D'oh! GiantSnowman 13:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SQL happened in 2007, about three months after SQL's initial registration. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- SQL, why not stand yourself? GiantSnowman 13:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly the RFA process has been floundering for a long time. fewer and fewer admins are elected every year and more and more work is done by fewer and fewer of them. These days we generally desysop more admins due to inactivity than we promote. But then when we have an experienced editor run for it they are shot down. Its generally only the candidates that don't get involved in the day to day activities of the project and keep their heads down that get promoted. Kumioko (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes SQL, RfA is definitely not what it used to be. Once upon a time there'd be eight or so listed all at once, and a good chunk of them would be passing with flying colours. Today, there might as well be tumbleweed rolling across the screen. Kurtis (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's hardly surprising self respecting editors mostly avoid being associated with that disarray we call our admin system. It is not so much a functioning admin system as a bizairre entertainment system, presenting puzzling and wondrous performers called admins, some behaving as though they have escaped from the pages of Alice in Wonderland. Wikipedia has been deeply injured by the contempt some admins show to content builders. I thought once there might be hope, but it seems the Wikimedia Foundation is reinforcing this view that content builders are disposable. The crazed system cannot change from within, so why would any editor with the real interests of Wikipedia at heart put themselves forward in an RfA? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, all the way down to the comments about the WMF reinforcing this backwards and broken system. Kumioko (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Should we all quit, then?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good heavens no! As an act it superbly rivals Monty Python. It fails only as an administrative structure. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Besides that pretty much everyone knows that RFA is broken. The problem is the community is incapable of passing any changes that would fix it so were stuck with it. I for one hope the WMF steps in and does something. We may still not like it but something needs to be done and we have shown we can't do it. I wish we could, but that's not the case. Kumioko (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It also means that the majority of current admins could not be admins by today's criteria/process. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think that is absolutely true as well. Kumioko (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have been saying that for years. The community de-adminship Rfc in 2010 (WP:CDA) clearly showed that these very "legacy admins" who could not face an Rfa today will band together to fight any changes that are perceived as a threat to their lifetime adminship. Until Jimbo and the WMF acknowledge there is a serious problem and take corrective action to fix adminship issues, including de-adminship and Rfa, nothing is likely to change. Jusdafax 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt they'll do anything meaningful unfortunately. They'll probably just do what they've always done and blame it on the interface and insist it needs to be more like Facebook, twitter or some other stupid thing. Pretty buttons and Graphical User Interfaces aren't the problem. Its the attitude and the environment. If we can fix that, people will come back and want to edit again. But as long as the ship is steared by Beavis and Butthead they'll go play on Facebook or build up their characters on World of Warcraft instead. Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have to disagree with your characterization of WMF and Jimbo. These are people with a lot of work to do and for the most part they are doing a pretty good job, as shown by the continued popularity of the website. But there is considerable inertia at the WMF when it comes to the editing community and the way the pecking order is set up, the fear being that major change could make things worse, not better. They keep doing editor studies, but are afraid of imposing a top-down solution. And I have to agree that the precedent of a top-down solution, once established, could itself lead to a Wiki-dictatorship which would be much much worse than the semi-disfunctional state we are in today. Jusdafax 19:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt they'll do anything meaningful unfortunately. They'll probably just do what they've always done and blame it on the interface and insist it needs to be more like Facebook, twitter or some other stupid thing. Pretty buttons and Graphical User Interfaces aren't the problem. Its the attitude and the environment. If we can fix that, people will come back and want to edit again. But as long as the ship is steared by Beavis and Butthead they'll go play on Facebook or build up their characters on World of Warcraft instead. Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have been saying that for years. The community de-adminship Rfc in 2010 (WP:CDA) clearly showed that these very "legacy admins" who could not face an Rfa today will band together to fight any changes that are perceived as a threat to their lifetime adminship. Until Jimbo and the WMF acknowledge there is a serious problem and take corrective action to fix adminship issues, including de-adminship and Rfa, nothing is likely to change. Jusdafax 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think that is absolutely true as well. Kumioko (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It also means that the majority of current admins could not be admins by today's criteria/process. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Besides that pretty much everyone knows that RFA is broken. The problem is the community is incapable of passing any changes that would fix it so were stuck with it. I for one hope the WMF steps in and does something. We may still not like it but something needs to be done and we have shown we can't do it. I wish we could, but that's not the case. Kumioko (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good heavens no! As an act it superbly rivals Monty Python. It fails only as an administrative structure. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- RfA is, of course, exactly what it was when it was creating a new admin a day or so. It converts the same fraction of new users into admins that it did then, there's just far fewer new users to convert. WilyD 09:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your fallacy has the soothing effect of sounding true; but it is no less of a fallacy for being eloquent. --My76Strat (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you'd care to explain why it is not true? WormTT(talk) 09:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- It would be better letting you explain, I tend to get over verbose.--My76Strat (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is true that the number of new editors has fallen somewhat, more relevantly for RFA the number of editors doing their 1000th edit or contributing 100 edits a month has fallen compared to 2006/2008. But the fall in the number of new editors is minor compared to the fall in the number of successful RFAs. You only need to compare the community in 2004 to today to see that the decline in our flow of new editors is insufficient to explain the decline or even to be the major factor in it. Then when you look at 2003 the comparison is stark - a smaller community was appointing many times as many admins. Part of the problem here has been the combination of changing standards and reduced retention. As we've shifted away from actually checking candidate's edits and increasingly to questions and measuring their tenure and edit count so the de facto minimum tenure and edit count has risen to a level that too few editors are reaching. This has several problems, we are losing people before they become admins, we are not appointing enough admins to maintain admin numbers, and we are probably not screening candidates as effectively as we used to. Losing candidates before they become admins is of course only a problem if becoming an admin is something that encourages people to stay, but I think we have fairly strong evidence for that. Not appointing sufficient admins will only become an urgent problem when we start getting big gaps at AIV. But if I'm right in thinking that a !vote based on edit count, tenure and an open book exam is less useful than a !vote cast after an hour of checking a candidate's edits, then there is a risk that we are appointing people after less effective scrutiny than in the past. ϢereSpielChequers 11:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think there are a couple of things that make straight % comparisons irrelevant. 1st, we have a lot more articles now, over 4 million, more than double what we had in 2008, second the amount of Admin work has expanded dramatically (new namespaces, vastly more content protected, increased vandalism, less people attracted to performing the task) as well we the problems you point out. Peple can say they don't trust me and others all they want but the fact is its 99% hyperbole. Few RFA's pass without some opposes and somem RFA's barely passed, yet a lot of those folks are still admins and the vast majority of "problems" or "fears" identified in the RFA's turned out to be nonsense. I also don't really think we aren't screening the candidates as well anymore, my fear is that we are overscreening them. The problem I see occurring is that if the person dared work in any admin areas previously to getting the tools then they have a strong chance of not getting them because they will have made too many editors mad. So what we end up with these days are those editors who generally vote along with the crowd to increase their AFD and other venue percentages, don't get into the middle of discussions like ANI (which need more eyes than the usual cast of characters), etc. Kumioko (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you'd care to explain why it is not true? WormTT(talk) 09:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your fallacy has the soothing effect of sounding true; but it is no less of a fallacy for being eloquent. --My76Strat (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's hardly surprising self respecting editors mostly avoid being associated with that disarray we call our admin system. It is not so much a functioning admin system as a bizairre entertainment system, presenting puzzling and wondrous performers called admins, some behaving as though they have escaped from the pages of Alice in Wonderland. Wikipedia has been deeply injured by the contempt some admins show to content builders. I thought once there might be hope, but it seems the Wikimedia Foundation is reinforcing this view that content builders are disposable. The crazed system cannot change from within, so why would any editor with the real interests of Wikipedia at heart put themselves forward in an RfA? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
outdent RfA graph from a year ago. Updated RfA data is here. Cheers. 64.40.54.58 (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- This comparison I made last November may also be of interest. It shows that while the number of active editors has been gradually decreasing for the last five years, the rate of successful adminship candidacies has dropped precipitously. — Scott • talk 09:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It boils down to this: fewer people are willing to stand.
There's a whole discussion about why that is. Is it the dropoff of new, active editors? Is it the increasingly poisonous atmosphere at RFA, with volunteers unwilling to endure the ritual hazing, the close scrutiny of matters that may be relevant or deeply irrelevant to their candidacy, or the marathon of personal remarks made by the socially inept or terminally tactless? Is the dropoff of new, active editors caused by speedy deletion and block-happy sysops on their insane power trips, or is it that the hapless new sysops are bombarded by an endless stream of marketers, POV-pushers and vandals? Are we in the process of electing a ruling class that sees content creation as someone else's job, or are the sysops mostly prolific creators of high-quality encyclopaedic content? Is it that the sysop duties take valuable volunteering time away from content writing? The lack of data prevents meaningful discussion.
Wikipedia clearly needs a thorough overhaul of its system of government, which should involve replacing RFA with an intelligent process for selecting admins, fusing some of the smaller discussion processes together, de-cliquing the audited content processes, giving users strong incentives to participate in reference-checking and copyright-cleanup processes, and deleting AN/I.
The perfect way to solve all these problems is, of course, to make me, personally, Dictator of Wikipedia and pay me a fat annual salary to do it. Failing that, we need to break the entrenched deadlocks in RFA reform as an essential first step.—S Marshall T/C 11:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Breaking entrenched deadlocks is exactly what I want to do, by using hard numbers to find out where--if anywhere--there are shortages of admin action. There's a section below designed to identify the areas we should be looking at. — The Potato Hose 05:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wanna join my experiment (below)? North8000 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm just a dumb tuber, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what this experiment is. Can you please lay it out? — The Potato Hose 05:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
A different approach
Considering all the discussions of RFA woes, the failed attempts to RFC change, and the very real dynamics of the process overall, I have contemplated an approach to change that hasn't been discussed (to my knowledge) which seems reasonably feasible to me. If an RFC gained consensus to lower the threshold for success to perhaps 70% with bureaucratic discretion to perhaps 65%, I believe it would have the effect of correcting the imbalance that we currently see at RFA. I don't see this as accepting a lower caliber administrator, but rather leveling the field that is currently too vulnerable to special interest clicks. Is there any merit in pursuing this kind of change? My76Strat (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
RFB discussions to serve as a model |
---|
|
- Better still to lower the threshold for success to perhaps 30% with bureaucratic discretion to perhaps 15%. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I've thought about it a lot and I'm convinced that the best 3/4 solution would be to define the criteria/ qualities required, and force all responses to be (only) ratings on those criteria, along with dialog/info supporting those ratings. This would take a whole lot of the crap and bad defacto criteria out of the system. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It would be difficult to "force all responses to be (only) ratings on those criteria" without doing censorship, but a possible variant of this approach is to define the criteria/qualities required, as you suggest, replace the Support/Oppose/Neutral sections with a single Opinions section, and allow the Crats to decide whether the opinions point to a pass or a fail, unfettered by thresholds. This would allow the community to continue researching the candidates, while greatly reducing the incentive for irrelevant comments, petty score-settling and general bitching. I also wish that we could agree to unbundle at least the user-supervision roles from the more gnomish ones. There have been at least two recent RfAs where issues related to interactions with other users prevented candidates getting tools that would have enabled them to them to do even more wonderful work, just because we didn't want them to have other tools that they didn't actually want anyway. That's a crying shame. --Stfg (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to censor, I meant that that "meeting criteria" was the format for responses. Sort of like a GA review. There is no place for entry of "the article fails because the author once did something that I didn't like". For example, if the candidate has actively made an effort to help make articles neutral, they will certainly fail RFA due to the latter. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unbundling tools/roles would also be a good move. It takes a very very special person to properly handle tough closes and blocks and locks in difficult situations. When discussions on changes to the admin role or RFA process happen, we must recognize that current admins have a COI, being already a member of the now-exclusive group, being 99.99% immune to review (the .01% being the unavoidably obvious most eggregious cases) and already having all of the tools. I think that this is a part of what has prevented changes. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I also agree that unbundling would be the optimum solution and many others feel this way as well. Unfortunately this has been brought up many times and it has repeatedly failed because too many have a vested interest in keeping the system the way it is. Unfortunately I think the only way this is going to get fixed is if we put some pressure on the WMF to fix it. As I mentioned before it may not be the perfect solution and we may not like it (in fact its likely) but at this point its the only hope for any change at all. If the community cannot come to a consensus on making some meaningful change of the RFA process when virtually everyone agrees its a problem, then its time for the democracy of it to end and someone will need to make a decision. There are several things that can be unbundled with little to no impact (API High limit (allows more than 25, 000 articles to be pulled into AWB), view deleted content, view maintenance reports that are currently protected (such as unwatched pages), allow editing of protected template, Mediawiki pages or Module namespace (these could and probably should be different permissions), etc. Kumioko (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer the idea of upbundling the truly contentious stuff to crats rather than just unbundling. But there are some changes to the sets of tools that would be useful. However I'd challenge the hyperbole of 99.99% being immune to review. Historically we have run at close to 1% deadminship per annum if you include resigning under a cloud. Now not all of those deadminships were the right ones, and having an effective system to remove bad admins doesn't help you in cases where no one thinks that admin quite bad enough to start a process against them. But if we've desysopped a lot more than 1% of admins over the years then 0.01% is out by orders of magnitude. especially if the great majority of active admins are uncontentious users of the tools. ϢereSpielChequers 13:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- The truth is that most admins don't use the tools at all. There are about 650 admins but its the same 30 or so that do 90% of the admin work. Then you factor in that a big chunk of those 650 haven't editing in months (and that number is climbing), then factor in that we have more admin work (CCI, Vandalism, edits to protected content, more content being protected, etc.) the end is that fewer admins means higher stress for the ones that do use the tools. Its no wonder they start getting callous and power hungry. What we need to do is load balance the work. There are quite a few of us that would do it if we could, but we can't so frankly I don't bother with most of it. I can't edit though protected content so why bother even looking for problems with it. I have to wait upwards of a week just to get an edit to a protected template. Then I get told I can't be trusted and have to explain to some of the admins how to do the change because they don't know. Then I have to ask for someone to do a list compare in AWB of the WikiProject US articles because I can't pull in groups of more than 25, 000. Then when I am reviewing an arbcom case I have to ask for someone to make deleted content visible so I can see it. The list goes on. So in the end I/we get the attitude well my edits aren't wanted or needed so we just leave. Sometimes we come back, often we don't. Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- You make a good case as to why we need more admins. Though as a member of the long tail I would say don't ignore the other 620 of us. A small number of admins do 90% of admin actions, but some actions take more time than others, and some admin actions don't get logged as such. The rest of us do a useful amount of work, and someone who may be lightly active one month can be more active at another time. ϢereSpielChequers 14:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- The truth is that most admins don't use the tools at all. There are about 650 admins but its the same 30 or so that do 90% of the admin work. Then you factor in that a big chunk of those 650 haven't editing in months (and that number is climbing), then factor in that we have more admin work (CCI, Vandalism, edits to protected content, more content being protected, etc.) the end is that fewer admins means higher stress for the ones that do use the tools. Its no wonder they start getting callous and power hungry. What we need to do is load balance the work. There are quite a few of us that would do it if we could, but we can't so frankly I don't bother with most of it. I can't edit though protected content so why bother even looking for problems with it. I have to wait upwards of a week just to get an edit to a protected template. Then I get told I can't be trusted and have to explain to some of the admins how to do the change because they don't know. Then I have to ask for someone to do a list compare in AWB of the WikiProject US articles because I can't pull in groups of more than 25, 000. Then when I am reviewing an arbcom case I have to ask for someone to make deleted content visible so I can see it. The list goes on. So in the end I/we get the attitude well my edits aren't wanted or needed so we just leave. Sometimes we come back, often we don't. Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer the idea of upbundling the truly contentious stuff to crats rather than just unbundling. But there are some changes to the sets of tools that would be useful. However I'd challenge the hyperbole of 99.99% being immune to review. Historically we have run at close to 1% deadminship per annum if you include resigning under a cloud. Now not all of those deadminships were the right ones, and having an effective system to remove bad admins doesn't help you in cases where no one thinks that admin quite bad enough to start a process against them. But if we've desysopped a lot more than 1% of admins over the years then 0.01% is out by orders of magnitude. especially if the great majority of active admins are uncontentious users of the tools. ϢereSpielChequers 13:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the Wikipedia system isn't a democracy, it's a more complex and fuzzy system that works about 90% of the time and fails about 10% of the time. Larger scale and more complex situations generally fall into the "10%" and this situation is both. The other way that could work would be for 5-10 people to draft something that sounds reasonably good and agree ahead of time to all stick with and promote whatever they come up with. This would use a flaw in the system (that a small group of active wiki-savvy people working in unison can pretty much do anything in Wikipedia) to the advantage of Wikipedia. Wanna test my theory? North8000 (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest I'll support even a bad idea at this point. Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, we need at least a few more people. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are plenty out there. Dank just spent months doing RFC's to change the RFA process. He might be a good place to start. Kumioko (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why would we want a situation in which a minority of people can cause something to happen? Minorities can prevent things, but that's a lot better than them causing them. Perhaps we could cut the minimum for bureaucrat's discretion down to 50%+1 support? It seems that most RFAs get a few supports, and we don't want a blatantly NOTNOW case (e.g. registered last week, or blocked recently for copyvios) to get through, but the borderline cases are just about always past 50%. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Nyttend, it's nothing new/radical. That's how most things are determined in Wikipedia. But the direct answer is: because this has a good chance of working and nothing else has. Finally, why not join the party? North8000 (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Where in Wikipedia do we permit minorities to make the decisions? We routinely permit them to prevent decisions, e.g. when someone gets 55% support at RFA and is judged not to have passed, and that's fine. I'm questioning the idea of saying that there's actively consensus to do something that receives majority opposition. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It happens all the time when the developers implement a change none of us want (like killing the Orange Bar of Doom or forcing us to use the new notication piece of crap they can't get to work). It happens all the time when admins vote on various things. The rest of the community is often ignored or excluded completely. Kumioko (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Where in Wikipedia do we permit minorities to make the decisions? We routinely permit them to prevent decisions, e.g. when someone gets 55% support at RFA and is judged not to have passed, and that's fine. I'm questioning the idea of saying that there's actively consensus to do something that receives majority opposition. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why tinker so pointlessly with things the way they are? We already have a vast body of admins, far in excess of what is actually needed. It's just that most of the admins are not and never were really qualified to do the jobs they have been given the rights to do. And to aggravate things, we have appointed them for life. It is the structure of the system itself that needs changing. Such as giving every individual admin in this vast body the independent authority to block any content builder they chose, even though the majority of admins have little experience with content building. Or such as having, as we do at present, a huge group of these life appointees who do little or nothing of administrative value, like doddery old members of the House of Lords, yet can appear out of the woodwork at unpredictable moments and insult some content builder they don't like, knowing they can do so with immunity. Or the dozen or so other seriously dysfunctional aspects of the current admin structure that incumbundant admins resolutley refuse, as a group, to acknowledge. We don't need yet more admins reinforcing the way we already do things. That is not a solution but an intensified problem. Pumping up the existing system with yet more admins will just make the current mess a bigger mess. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC) (On second thoughts, perhaps that is the best way to go. Then we would finally have to do something sensible --Epipelagic (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC))
- Why does it matter whether or not we "need" more sysops? When did becoming a sysop become more about needing the tools and less about being proven to be trustworthy with them? TCN7JM 21:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- TCN7JM pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. It should be a matter of trust, not need. With regards to some major change proposal, I guess it's worth a try, but I've got no confidence that it would have a chance. AutomaticStrikeout ? 21:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's never been about being "proven to be trustworthy". That's just another admin myth, like the idea that there is a "community consensus" on RfAs. Some admins seem to preen themselves because they have been "proven to be trustworthy", but all they mean is that they once passed an RfA. Passing an RfA means getting general acceptance from admins, admin wannabes and other habituates of the drama boards. Very few outright content builders seem to come near these boards, and certainly not in numbers that can influence outcomes. The closing decision is invariably made, yet again, by an admin. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was speaking of how it should be, not how it is. If it was always a matter of trust and nothing more, RfA wouldn't be what it is today. AutomaticStrikeout ? 21:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's never been about being "proven to be trustworthy". That's just another admin myth, like the idea that there is a "community consensus" on RfAs. Some admins seem to preen themselves because they have been "proven to be trustworthy", but all they mean is that they once passed an RfA. Passing an RfA means getting general acceptance from admins, admin wannabes and other habituates of the drama boards. Very few outright content builders seem to come near these boards, and certainly not in numbers that can influence outcomes. The closing decision is invariably made, yet again, by an admin. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- TCN7JM pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. It should be a matter of trust, not need. With regards to some major change proposal, I guess it's worth a try, but I've got no confidence that it would have a chance. AutomaticStrikeout ? 21:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why does it matter whether or not we "need" more sysops? When did becoming a sysop become more about needing the tools and less about being proven to be trustworthy with them? TCN7JM 21:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are plenty out there. Dank just spent months doing RFC's to change the RFA process. He might be a good place to start. Kumioko (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, we need at least a few more people. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest I'll support even a bad idea at this point. Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- The current system is, of course, functional to some measure. The mere fact that a system exists at all means that it must function to some degree. Instead of dropping the acceptance level at RfAs to 30% or 50% as suggested above, here is much more straightforward and drama free approach, and an approach which will have outcomes even more favourable than our existing practices. Let us have a lottery every two days, where all registered editors who are not admins are entered by default. The successful entrant, selected by some random process, will then be crowned as admin for life, and can celebrate the success by randomly insulting and blocking an able content builder who is not an admin. This process will select by chance, from time to time, an admin who actually does have clue, and will work hard trying to make the project succeed. Admin moral will be at an all time high. The rest of the incumbents can have fun jerking round the content builders who aren't admins, knowing that they have security of tenure and immunity from sanctions so long as they do nothing that might weaken existing admin powers. No different from the present system really, but merely ensuring through sheer numbers that the necessary admin work actually gets done, and again ensuring through sheers numbers, that a significant proportion of Wikipedia users have fun, even if the effects on the non admins are rather, well, unfortunate. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- At this point, it's becoming impossible to take anything you say seriously. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But how is the present system any less crazy? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you're just going to bash the system and some of the admins you believe have done wrong, then it is best not to comment unless you propose a measure to fix it. TCN7JM 22:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Stating how things are is not "bashing" the system. If you had followed earlier threads, you would know I have set out detailed measures to fix the system. But none of these measures have anything to do with what you are proposing, which is just to give us more of the same old dysfunctional system. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- A random lottery is not going to fix the system and you know it. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Stating how things are is not "bashing" the system. If you had followed earlier threads, you would know I have set out detailed measures to fix the system. But none of these measures have anything to do with what you are proposing, which is just to give us more of the same old dysfunctional system. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you're just going to bash the system and some of the admins you believe have done wrong, then it is best not to comment unless you propose a measure to fix it. TCN7JM 22:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But how is the present system any less crazy? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- At this point, it's becoming impossible to take anything you say seriously. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I also agree that unbundling would be the optimum solution and many others feel this way as well. Unfortunately this has been brought up many times and it has repeatedly failed because too many have a vested interest in keeping the system the way it is. Unfortunately I think the only way this is going to get fixed is if we put some pressure on the WMF to fix it. As I mentioned before it may not be the perfect solution and we may not like it (in fact its likely) but at this point its the only hope for any change at all. If the community cannot come to a consensus on making some meaningful change of the RFA process when virtually everyone agrees its a problem, then its time for the democracy of it to end and someone will need to make a decision. There are several things that can be unbundled with little to no impact (API High limit (allows more than 25, 000 articles to be pulled into AWB), view deleted content, view maintenance reports that are currently protected (such as unwatched pages), allow editing of protected template, Mediawiki pages or Module namespace (these could and probably should be different permissions), etc. Kumioko (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unbundling tools/roles would also be a good move. It takes a very very special person to properly handle tough closes and blocks and locks in difficult situations. When discussions on changes to the admin role or RFA process happen, we must recognize that current admins have a COI, being already a member of the now-exclusive group, being 99.99% immune to review (the .01% being the unavoidably obvious most eggregious cases) and already having all of the tools. I think that this is a part of what has prevented changes. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to censor, I meant that that "meeting criteria" was the format for responses. Sort of like a GA review. There is no place for entry of "the article fails because the author once did something that I didn't like". For example, if the candidate has actively made an effort to help make articles neutral, they will certainly fail RFA due to the latter. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with so much of what is being said above. And I've see other good ideas fail. I've tried WMF pressure, and will again I'm sure, but I was hoping some discussion would relate to the question I raised in good faith. I believe if all we were changing through an RFC was the success threshold, and that change was reasonable, we could see an RFC gain consensus. My belief is that doing it correctly and getting it done could correct the imbalance that has trended RFA for the past 3 years or more. There are some great editors like Kumioko and good ones like me who will never be able to generate +80% support; which is fine with me. If some of these became admins because consensus, or a WMF directive, caused a reduced threshold that made RFA success more viable, we would see much of the RFA fix that so many says that we need. I promise you I could list 10 of my opposes prior to transcluding it, and probably be right; to include that Ironholds would probably append his opposition within the first 5 minutes after transcluding it. But of course that is a battleground mentality so you better not say such a thing. And you better not address an oppose vote, even if it's untrue, because that draws more pile on opposition. The discussion about an inappropriate RFA question at the Bureaucrats noticeboard is pathetic bullshit because every single person who has commented there knows that the most inappropriate RFA questions are always raised by someone in the opposing section; nothing asked as an additional question has ever come close; and you are allowed to answer them. But the real bad ones; that tank a candidates chances are veiled as an oppose comment; and these you better not address. So I've rambled once again, said my piece—expecting nothing to change; and most of my angst is because I can't even ask a question about RFA, and see it considered. But I do expect to garner a fair share of criticism for things I said in this post. Especially the bad faith I displayed in mentioning Ironholds. Hey, I got to do something to get attention around here. Oh yeah, if you get a chance perhaps answer my original question in this thread. My76Strat (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I support the 50%+1 support idea mentioned above. TCN7JM 22:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'd also support lowering the threshold. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Then, taking it to its logical conclusion, why aren't you both supporting my proposal above? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Stop disrupting the thread, please. Thank you. TCN7JM 22:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- TCN7JM, please stop disrupting the thread every time Epipelagic makes a comment. Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- In what way is TCN7JM disrupting the thread? AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- You should be asking "In what way was Epipelagic disrupting the thread?" ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- By suggesting that we use a lottery to select admins. By suggesting that the admin promoted threshold be 30 percent. By acting like these are good ideas. That's how. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'll answer the question instead of asking it. All the user is doing is bashing the system and obviously bashing some sysops who have passed with the current system, all the while not being serious in proposing a way to fix it and making fun of ASO and me for answering Strat's question. If that's not disruptive, then what is? TCN7JM 22:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- By suggesting that we use a lottery to select admins. By suggesting that the admin promoted threshold be 30 percent. By acting like these are good ideas. That's how. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- You should be asking "In what way was Epipelagic disrupting the thread?" ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- In what way is TCN7JM disrupting the thread? AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- TCN7JM, please stop disrupting the thread every time Epipelagic makes a comment. Thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It's very simple. Yes, the present RfA system is flawed and since the people are unlikely to change, the process probably needs to change. However, your proposed solutions are absolutely ridiculous (and, I certainly hope, not serious) and I therefore oppose them. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Then stop proposing equally ridiculous solutions yourselves, and propose something that improves things instead of merely making a bigger mess. At least my offering was tongue in cheek. How can you possibly be serious about yours? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not making proposals. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- [5] --Epipelagic (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's not making a proposal, that's just supporting one made by someone else. TCN7JM 22:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. Is it really that complicated? Sheesh. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, let us look forward to the future when you two get what you want and become admins. Certainly making it easier to pass RfAs, as you have both proposed, might work for both of you. So good luck. But my concern is with the overall health of Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- If your concern is the overall health of Wikipedia, then I'd suggest you stop making comments that widen the gap between the admins and the self-titled "content creators". AutomaticStrikeout ? 23:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you're proposing that the only reason I'm trying to lower the threshold is because I wish to become a sysop in the future, than you are incorrect. I, too, am concerned with the system. By the time I run, whenever that is, the threshold may be lower, or it may not be, and !voter opinions may change, or they may not. But simply suggesting that ASO and I are only commenting because we eventually wish to become sysops is just wrong. TCN7JM 23:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, let us look forward to the future when you two get what you want and become admins. Certainly making it easier to pass RfAs, as you have both proposed, might work for both of you. So good luck. But my concern is with the overall health of Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. Is it really that complicated? Sheesh. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's not making a proposal, that's just supporting one made by someone else. TCN7JM 22:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- [5] --Epipelagic (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not making proposals. AutomaticStrikeout ? 22:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Then stop proposing equally ridiculous solutions yourselves, and propose something that improves things instead of merely making a bigger mess. At least my offering was tongue in cheek. How can you possibly be serious about yours? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Stop disrupting the thread, please. Thank you. TCN7JM 22:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Then, taking it to its logical conclusion, why aren't you both supporting my proposal above? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I have this page on my watchlist because I'd like to see when people go for RfA, meaning I've been seeing all this talk go by. It's getting really ugly, and that's making me a very sad potato. — The Potato Hose 22:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Cheer up Potato, there's a lot of love on this page; and passion. Sometimes remarks are long, sometimes they're candid; and too often they're misunderstood. I disrupted this thread; no one else. Creating the thread was a form of disruption, and the misunderstandings relate to my lack of clarity in asking the question. I've considered Epipelagic's initial reply to an adequate depth, and I can see the value of his tongue in cheek approach. I wouldn't support it of course, but I have supported automatic admin appointments based on a simple qualifying criteria like reaching some magic number on Scottywong's tool. Nothing so drastic will ever happen so every time it's rehashed it is a poor use of time. But a realistic reduction is possible, we've seen it happen regarding Bureaucrat appointments, and it can repair the damage of the RFA imbalance. If the idea sucks, say so, if you like it, say so, or if you have an idea in compromise, say that as well. Much less animosity will develop if a provoking comment is left to stand alone; in my opinion.--My76Strat (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
@Nyttend, answering your question, you changed the wording from "make something happen" to "make the decisions?" Either way, 4 wiki-savvy people willing to work hard and in unison can determine the result of about 99% of wiki-decisionmaking processes, including, for example, all wp:an's and wp:ani's. For better or for worse, usually for worse. But this time it could be for the better if they come up with a plan that looks reasonably good. North8000 (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- An AN/ANI thread is one thing. A RfC on a major change is entirely different. AutomaticStrikeout ? 23:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is a lot of ambivalence in all discussions about adminship. I would point out however that lowering the bar may make the worst fears of the anti-admin users come true. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The most promising aspect of this approach is that it has been done for RfB and we can use their RfC as a model. I'll get the link unless someone post the link before me. --My76Strat (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, boy. I've a couple of thoughts after reading through this entire discussion (yes, I happen to have had a good bit of free time today, but that's beside the point). Whether or not anyone reads them is of no matter to me; I just feel compelled to at least say something. First off, assuming AutomaticStrikeout and TCN7JM are commenting here to further their own personal interests is very likely untrue and the assumption of such flies in the face of WP:AGF. Second, I'm unaware of some admin conspiracy (I'm an admin, myself) to subvert the content creators and I assume we all know that we're dealing with a very small percentage of sysops in speaking of such. And, finally, is it not rather sad that the very drama that needs to be removed from RFA has slipped into this thread in some of the above exchanges? Let's all step back, take a deep breath, realize that we're all here (I assume) for the betterment of Wikipedia, and then reassess the situation from a refreshed perspective and begin discussing potential (and serious) courses of action that can be taken. I'm not singling anyone out; I'm just trying to put things into perspective so we, as a community, can talk about solutions. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- No progress will be made towards solving admin system problems (which you seem to think aren't really there) by admins and admin wannabes coming together to support each other and misrepresenting the views of the rest of the community. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Tyrol5 never said anything about sysop system problems. He is talking about solutions. If the "rest of the community" wants to comment, they will. If they do not comment, then it is assumed that they are neutral or have no comments on the subject. Even if it is only "admins and admin wannabes" (I kindly ask that you not call me a wannabe, by the way) that comment, they represent the community in that particular RfC unless others comment. TCN7JM 02:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Quite. You've certainly mastered the style, so you will make a good admin under the current system. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify my previous comment, there absolutely are problems with our current system (and I've historically been in favor of RFA reform and would most certainly be open to other solutions as well), and these problems invariably lead to drama. I just don't think the drama here will solve anything. So I reiterate, let's step back, take a breather and talk solutions. Tyrol5 [Talk] 03:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Quite. You've certainly mastered the style, so you will make a good admin under the current system. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Tyrol5 never said anything about sysop system problems. He is talking about solutions. If the "rest of the community" wants to comment, they will. If they do not comment, then it is assumed that they are neutral or have no comments on the subject. Even if it is only "admins and admin wannabes" (I kindly ask that you not call me a wannabe, by the way) that comment, they represent the community in that particular RfC unless others comment. TCN7JM 02:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- No progress will be made towards solving admin system problems (which you seem to think aren't really there) by admins and admin wannabes coming together to support each other and misrepresenting the views of the rest of the community. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Is an RFC the best approach?
I don't mean to derail these discussion before they begin but I see RFC mentioned several times above and wanted to discuss this further. There have been no less than 5 (probably several more than that) RFC's regarding RFA not to mention the nearly countless number of discussions here, AN, the Village pump, on Jimbo's page and elsewhere outlining potentional RFA reform. I'm not confident that yet another RFC is going to do the trick. IMO, the best course of action at this point would be to get it as a topic for discussion by the WMF and the Board of trustees. I would like to think that we can make the decision ourselves but we clearly can't so its time to pass the ball. I think we need to draft up something RFC like outlining the problems with RFA, the repeated failures of the community to correct it and asking the WMF and or the board of trustees to take the matter for consideration. I admit that I am a critic of unnecessary WMF involvement but in this case its clear to me and should be to others as well that we will never solve this without some outside help and direction. The time for democracy on the matter has ended and changes need to be done to the system/process. Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have urged WMF to solve this by expeditious leadership numerous times. In my opinion the best we could ever hope to achieve is to meet in the middle. Considering this suggestion for example, If we asked WMF to consider lowering the threshold for success as a practical means of mitigating the current imbalance, they would not do a thing because we practically asked them to do the entire thing. On the other hand, if we could at minimum show that we discussed the practical merits, calculated the corresponding effect of a reduction by recognized principles of mathematical modeling, and developed a corresponding set of numbers that did not exceed the needs of the project or unnecessarily increase its liability as underwriter, they might agree and direct its implementation. But yes, I practically loath the current cycle because it takes months just to take a single step backwards instead of two, and you're nothing but a damn fool around here until you realize that only a damn fool tries to take a step forward. So here we are again. --My76Strat (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- WMF seems to be very data-driven when it comes to new initiatives. Perhaps the first step is to actually quantify how many admins we are 'missing' and work from there. We'd need some solid data on admin-related backlogs (deletions, protections, closes, etc) correlated with number of active admins. The data would need to be historical to show trends over time. In addition, crunching numbers on active admins vs how many admin actions each one takes would be very useful; showing that Backlog X has been growing slowly over time and only two admins even handle Backlog X would show areas for improvement. (Would also show where to recruit admins from, in terms of specialized interest and knowledge).
- Crunching the numbers before making recommendations is the right way round to do things; prove there is a problem to be fixed first. Totally not my area of expertise, but I can make everyone some nice snacks while the brains do the math. — The Potato Hose 19:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think you both have some good points although I think that pretty much everyone from the WMF on down already know that the RFA process is a problem that needs to be addressed. Every time we close a discussion about it someone starts another one up about some aspect of it somewhere else. The problem is how to fix it. The community has discussed it god knows how many times to no effect. We spend months and months and countless hours writing, discussing and then nothing comes out of it so the time and effort that could have been spent on building up the project is just lost. Poof!. I agree that gathering somem data would beb good but this has been done before as well. At this point pulling more data and spending another 6 months in discussions isn't going to help and it isn't going to chaneg the problem. RFA needs to be changed and the toolset needs to be reengnineered. Maybe some tools can be unbundled, maybe some need to move up to the Beauracrat level, maybe we need to lower the threshhold or maybe and likely some combination of the above. What we also need is to abolish this Adminship = Godhood and the Admin for life mentality and get back to the days when getting the tools was no big deal and removing them if something goes wrong doesn't require an Arbitration hearing and statements from you and 20 of your closest Frenemies. Kumioko (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)That's a backwards approach, has the proposer of this 5% drop looked at how it would have affected recent RfAs? That seems like the very first thing to do when designing this proposal. IMO the reason so many RFCs seem to fail is because it's just one well-meaning user's idea which they don't really evaluate or spend much time thinking about critically. Given that the pass percentage has remained about constant since 2006 (30-40% as I pointed out in a different thread above), it's the number of people putting themselves forward that is the driver of a lower number of passes. Further, the final vote percentages are likely bi-modal (either clear pass or clear fail) rather than more uniform, and something like the latter is an instance where fine-tuning a pass percentage results in an actual difference in pass rates (which again, don't seem to be the problem) Jebus989✰ 20:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually a lot of the RFC's have a lot of support. The problem is that there are a lot of users with different feelings about things in WP and for various reasons its near impossible to come to any consensus to change it. Some fear that lowering the bar or unbundling the tools will lead to abuse, some have avested interest in keeping the status quo and some just oppose because their backing their friends or because they don't like the proposer. If I submitted one a lot of folks would oppose it on the grounds I submitted it and wouldn't even read it. The system is failing because we are allowing it too. Bottom line. Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Crunching the numbers before making recommendations is the right way round to do things; prove there is a problem to be fixed first. Totally not my area of expertise, but I can make everyone some nice snacks while the brains do the math. — The Potato Hose 19:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Wanna test my theory?: The folks who make a prior agreement to actively support the result hash it out here, then see if we can make it happen. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Let me give you an example. At a restaurant where I was hired on as sous, everyone 'knew' that the servers were really slow to pick up food. Everyone 'knew' that all the servers were really slow, and before I came on board they'd spent about a year in endless management discussion about What To Do.
- So the first thing I did when I learned about this problem was to start timing the server pickups. (We didn't have a ringy-dingy bell, we had a system of discreet lights that would show up in the dining room to alert servers). After a month, I took the numbers to management, showed where the problems were (and with whom), and all of a sudden we had a couple of really concrete ways to make the servers pick up food faster: number one was just telling them "By the way, your pickups are being timed." That alone saw a decrease of ~25% in pickup times. Along with a couple of other small improvements, pickup times eventually dropped by 50%, customer satisfaction (longitudinally measured on an extant metric) increased, and the number of times we had to refire tables with cold food went to almost zero. Data: It's a Good Thing.
- In our situation here, we have basically the same thing: endless discussion, and not a lot of current data showing where the problems really are. Gather that data, and then very specific recommendations can be made based on that data, AND outcomes can be tracked against predictions. For example, and these are completely hypothetical numbers, let's say we have 100 admins performing a total of 1000 admin actions per day. Each admin performs 10 actions. Unfortunately, there are 1200 admin actions needed per day. The logical options there are to ask each admin to increase their workload by 20% (adding 2 more actions each per day), or to add 20 more admins (to keep the ratios the same), or both. But without knowing what those numbers are, we can't figure out how to attack them. — The Potato Hose 20:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well we can start by looking at the Admin areas like Edit protected and CCI. Edit protected backlogs can easily run over more than a week, CCI is about 3 months. Those are just 2. The problem is a lot of the admin work is unquantifiable. How do you quantify the Incidents at ANI or the Arbitration enforcement actions? How do you quantify the blocks, page protects or some of the other stuff like being able to see deleted content, etc. A lot of the Admin work isn't quantifiable. Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, so editprotected is quantifiable. What we need is to see those backlogs over time. Are they getting bigger? The key here is to ignore the unquantifiable stuff for now, and just look at the numbers. (Which we have to gather). Address the quantifiable stuff first, because that's impossible to argue against. "This is the backlog. This is what the backlog was 6/9/12/15/18/24 months ago. The backlog is increasing at a rate of x% MoM" is not a series of statements anyone can argue emotionally about, so it is the sort of thing that can be addressed efficiently. Also, addressing the backlogs in quantifiable areas will almost certainly mean increasing the number of admins. Network effects will then (help to) take care of the unquantifiable stuff; if there's more admins working to clear out editprotected backlogs, each of them has less actual work to do, so they can also help out in other areas. To put it another way: dishwashers in restaurants don't only wash dishes; they also peel potatoes and restock the bar. This frees up time for the chefs and bartenders to concentrate on other things.
- Well we can start by looking at the Admin areas like Edit protected and CCI. Edit protected backlogs can easily run over more than a week, CCI is about 3 months. Those are just 2. The problem is a lot of the admin work is unquantifiable. How do you quantify the Incidents at ANI or the Arbitration enforcement actions? How do you quantify the blocks, page protects or some of the other stuff like being able to see deleted content, etc. A lot of the Admin work isn't quantifiable. Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- In our situation here, we have basically the same thing: endless discussion, and not a lot of current data showing where the problems really are. Gather that data, and then very specific recommendations can be made based on that data, AND outcomes can be tracked against predictions. For example, and these are completely hypothetical numbers, let's say we have 100 admins performing a total of 1000 admin actions per day. Each admin performs 10 actions. Unfortunately, there are 1200 admin actions needed per day. The logical options there are to ask each admin to increase their workload by 20% (adding 2 more actions each per day), or to add 20 more admins (to keep the ratios the same), or both. But without knowing what those numbers are, we can't figure out how to attack them. — The Potato Hose 20:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- We need more dishwashers, basically. — The Potato Hose 20:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I use to think that, well we have got Jimbo Wales and the WMF, so there must be a measure of hope that more sanity might dawn on Wikipedia. Now I'm less sure. Jimbo is not a content builder and he doesn't seem to have expressed views attuned to or supportive of content builders. And the WMF seems even more indifferent, focused instead on social networking, political correctness and the superficial formatting of Wikipedia. The dominant culture on Wikipedia, from the WMF to the admin system, seems to encourage the view that content builders are generally a disposable nuisance; to be tossed out if they get uppity since someone else will take their place. We yes, some version of Randy from Boise from is usually willing to take their place. The current WMF approach seems to be aimed at replacing solid and competent content builders with neutered, superficially "civil" and politically correct versions of Randy.
- I haven't kept track of it, but not so long ago some key WMF member expressed views along the lines that Wikipedia was already largely complete, and needed to move to a new phase geared to administrative updating and maintenance rather than developing new content. I find that astonishing, and cannot comprehend the mind set that could come up with such a view. The areas I mostly write in would be at most 30% developed. Another WMF employee, perhaps the most accomplished of the content builders at WMF, also aligned himself recently with this brave new vision by decisively deprecating the role of content builders on Wikipedia. Has the WMF really set its sights this low? I'm just recounting some impressions here, but I would like a more sold base on which to form views. Have you Kumioko, or anyone else here, got a handle on what the WMF would amount to when it comes to arbitrating in key matters like the admin system? Where within the WMF are the people with influence who might have enough background experience to judge wisely on such matters. Does anyone have diffs which help clarify what is really going on in the collective mind of the WMF? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Enough. Every single person reading this page understands that you're pissed off. Two things:
- Cite, please. If you're going to keep saying these things, back them up, or I for one will just add you to my mental killfile and not bother reading another word you write about anything anywhere.
- Part of the solution or part of the problem. Which are you going to be? Endless whining and unsupported bitching about "waaaaah the poor content creators waaaah" is not moving to a solution. — The Potato Hose 22:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, but my comments were addressed to editors who understand the background, not someone who has been here for three weeks.--Epipelagic (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Named account for three weeks != length of time spent observing and interacting with Wikipedia
- Length of time on Wikipedia is unrelated to the substance of my point, namely
- Be part of the solution or be part of the problem. Bitching != solution. Tarring a lot of people with a very wide brush != solution. — The Potato Hose 23:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Adding, 4. This is a redlink, and this is empty. So why not show people what a good, content-building admin can be? — The Potato Hose 23:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- There can be no rational solutions if we don't know what the problems are. I describe problems, as in this thread, and elsewhere offer solutions. For you it seems describing the problems = bitching + tarring people + being part of the problem. The only reason I participate on these boards is to support the somewhat novel idea that some dignity should be extended to content developers. I have little need for admin tools and no wish to be an admin under the current system, so that's not why I'm here. I know it's not popular to champion the case of content builders on these boards, but I persist because it is a just cause and someone should be supporting it. I will not be abandoning it as lost cause unless I abandon Wikipedia as lost cause. I find it tiresome too, endlessly presenting the same issues over again, like water drop torture. But as I see it, seeds need constant resowing, and eventually they may take root. I get heavy flak from insecure admins and admin wannabes, but that can be an indication that the critiques are on target. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- "There can be no rational solutions if we don't know what the problems are." - yes! Exactly! So let's do some research and figure out what the problems are. It's not that you're describing problems it's that you're insulting every single person who is here by saying stuff like "it's not popular to champion the case of content builders on these boards." It's like asking "So when did you stop beating your wife?" It's cheap, it's mean, and is doing nothing at all to work towards a solution. That is bitching. Do you want to work towards a solution, or do you want to sit here and keep barking that, in your estimation, there isn't a single person involved in this discussion or in the admin corps who wouldn't drown a content developer in a bathub if they could? Pick one, and forgive me if I ignore you if the one you choose is the one you've already been doing. — The Potato Hose 00:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Goodness, that's a little overblown :) And forgive me too, because with the best will I have no idea what your last sentence is about. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Overblown or not, the point remains. And sorry for the mashed up language. I am a potato after all. Translation: if you choose to just continue screaming "won't someone think of the content creators," forgive me, but I'm just going to ignore everything you have to say. It would probably be far more constructive to both your goals and everyone else's to stop screaming that, and start talking about rational concrete ways to fix the problems you see. Your choice. — The Potato Hose 00:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I know I cannot at this point be considered a neutral contributor to this discussion, but it would probably be in both your best interests if we could move on from this part of the conversation and start talking solutions. TCN7JM 00:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Eh, I've already made my contribution to finding a solution: research. Numbers. Hard data. This will show where actual problems lie, and will mean we won't have a lot of fuzzy arguments based on all the feels. Hopefully. But it looks like nobody else here is particularly interested in finding data-driven solutions, and I don't think yet another interminable RfC is going to have any effect other than stirring up a bunch more fuzzy arguments based on all the feels. — The Potato Hose 00:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I know I cannot at this point be considered a neutral contributor to this discussion, but it would probably be in both your best interests if we could move on from this part of the conversation and start talking solutions. TCN7JM 00:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Overblown or not, the point remains. And sorry for the mashed up language. I am a potato after all. Translation: if you choose to just continue screaming "won't someone think of the content creators," forgive me, but I'm just going to ignore everything you have to say. It would probably be far more constructive to both your goals and everyone else's to stop screaming that, and start talking about rational concrete ways to fix the problems you see. Your choice. — The Potato Hose 00:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Goodness, that's a little overblown :) And forgive me too, because with the best will I have no idea what your last sentence is about. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- "There can be no rational solutions if we don't know what the problems are." - yes! Exactly! So let's do some research and figure out what the problems are. It's not that you're describing problems it's that you're insulting every single person who is here by saying stuff like "it's not popular to champion the case of content builders on these boards." It's like asking "So when did you stop beating your wife?" It's cheap, it's mean, and is doing nothing at all to work towards a solution. That is bitching. Do you want to work towards a solution, or do you want to sit here and keep barking that, in your estimation, there isn't a single person involved in this discussion or in the admin corps who wouldn't drown a content developer in a bathub if they could? Pick one, and forgive me if I ignore you if the one you choose is the one you've already been doing. — The Potato Hose 00:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- There can be no rational solutions if we don't know what the problems are. I describe problems, as in this thread, and elsewhere offer solutions. For you it seems describing the problems = bitching + tarring people + being part of the problem. The only reason I participate on these boards is to support the somewhat novel idea that some dignity should be extended to content developers. I have little need for admin tools and no wish to be an admin under the current system, so that's not why I'm here. I know it's not popular to champion the case of content builders on these boards, but I persist because it is a just cause and someone should be supporting it. I will not be abandoning it as lost cause unless I abandon Wikipedia as lost cause. I find it tiresome too, endlessly presenting the same issues over again, like water drop torture. But as I see it, seeds need constant resowing, and eventually they may take root. I get heavy flak from insecure admins and admin wannabes, but that can be an indication that the critiques are on target. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Epi, First the WMF has a lot of people good at certain things but none that I am aware of has any experience at Arbitration except maybe the chief counsel. There are a lot of skilled developers but largely the staff is made up of relatively young freshly graduated university students who, although many are very very smart have very little real world experience. If it wasn't in one of their college books or learned on the job at the WMF then its outside their skill set. So to answer your question the answer is there aren't really any "qualified" but that also goes for the general editing community. Even the Arbitration committee doesn't have more than a couple with a background in litigation or arbitration. With that said, the status quo cannot be allowed to continue. A lot of editors don't like me, that's too bad, but their not trying to make things better. Their trying to keep their heads down and not ruffle feathers and many think the status quo is just fine.
- @Potato, I'm glad you are taking such an active role here and as such a new user no less. Its rare to see such a new editor find their way here and I hope the interactions here don't drive you away. This is a dramatic page and it can burn people out quick so don't let this talk page jade your view of the merits of Wikipedia. This isn't what the site is about, but its an important issue none the less. With all that though I want to give you some background. These problems go back years and have been discussed ad nauseum almost as long. Very few changes ever pass and those that do are generally minor and don't affect the process as a whole, at least much. There is a general consensus from nearly everyone familiar with the process that RFA has problems, its unlikley you'll find more than a handful that disagree with that. Here are a few facts that may help you get your arms around this 800 lb Gorilla.
- There are about 650 editors on the site that have the admin toolset or higher (Checkuser, Beauracrat, etc.).
- Roughly 90% of the admin work is done by the same (roughly speaking) 30 or so admins. Some have their little niches but generally its the same folks you see over and over.
- The rest of the admins rarely, if ever, use their tools. This is for a variety of reasons.
- There are several areas where admins exclusively can edit. There are entire namespaces that can be edited only by administrators (such as Module and Mediawiki).
- There are some tools within the Admin toolset that are easy to quantify (Such as blocks/unblocks, protect/unprotect, edits to protected content, granting privileges, Hiding revisions, edits to certain admin areas like CCI, CU, AE, etc. (Please let me know if you need me to clarify any of those acronyms).
- There are several tools that are not easy to quantify (such API High limits, access to the MediaWiki API, viewing deleted content, discussions and mediations in places like ANI, AFD, FA, the Main page, etc.
- If we watch these things you will see historically that there are lengthy backlogs at many of them. Its well known, so there isn't a need to start with a clean slate and these things can be easily documented and linked too. Its also easy to link to other RFC's and discussions on the topic. Additionally whenever a new RFC or discussion starts someone comes along and says Whoa, slow down, lets talk about this. The discussion drags out for several months and then fizzles out or gets canned. Its extremely frustrating. I hope this helps to clear things up a little and sorry for such a long post. Kumioko (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay so: 1) I know; 2) Really? Do you have documentation which shows this to be the case? Because if so, that provides another avenue for attacking the problem; 3) See #2; 4) yes; 5) I don't need any clarification, I know there are admin actions which are easily quantifiable; 6) Yes, but many of those are also quantifiable? How long are discussions remaining open after they should be closed at the various venues? With many--AfD, RfC, for example--that should be really easy to quantify.
- Enough. Every single person reading this page understands that you're pissed off. Two things:
- "It is well known" is rarely a good basis for making decisions which affect large groups of people. Many things that are "well known" aren't, or aren't how things really are. Having a long dragged-out discussion is exactly what I want to avoid. This is just going to go around in the same circles: "Well I think X is a problem so Y" "Yeah but X isn't really a problem" "And you haven't even considered Z" etc etc etc.
- Interrupting that circle with a specific defined problem supported and identified by research is my goal here. The current model of discussion is "Not enough admins! Change all the things!" versus "Too many admins! Tarring and feathering" versus "It functions well enough, leave it alone" versus the occasional moderate voice that gets shouted down by everyone. I'm saying change the whole model to get to an actual result. Point to data, define the problem, define the solution. It is the very antidote to endless discussion. — The Potato Hose 00:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- So why, Kumioko, do you think there is any point seeking guidance from the WMF? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The current model of discussion is "Not enough admins! Change all the things!" versus "Too many admins! Tarring and feathering" : not only the current model - it's always been like this. Potato, I urge you to get up to speed on some of the enormous efforts that have already been made at WP:RFA2011 (where there are literally masses of data) and earlier this year to try and get things changed. We already know what the issues are with RfA, but the problem is getting enough people together to collaborate on getting any of the many suggestions brought to fruition. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I had already flipped through that and related discussions in 2012 and 2013. Refreshing my memory... yeah, there's a lot of very fuzzy discussion aimed at reforming an emotional process in an emotional way. There's not a lot of hard numbers indicating whether more admins are needed (if they're not, then the system is producing the correct result), and if they are needed, where they are needed (which would give a lot of information on how the system needs to change in order to specifically attract those people).
- For the record, I do believe there aren't enough admins, and new admins are attracted to specific areas where more workers may not really be necessary, and that RfA is less fun than running naked through a large rosebush. But 'I believe' and 'documented truth' aren't the same thing, so let's nail down whether or not our beliefs are correct, and solutions on how to address the last problem will develop more or less organically.
- What I'm saying is, a lot of great ideas have been bandied about, including at RFA2011 and RFA2012, but it's all emotional, so people get entrenched in their positions. Finding a solution by saying "We need to fix this backlog" not only helps avoid that fuzzy sticky emotional stuff, but also opens the door to finding solutions that aren't even related to RfA. For example, over the years a bunch of areas have developed pretty robust clerking systems; that seems to be a model (again, data please!) which could work in other areas to help eliminate backlogs. Do you see what I mean?
- This is kind-of useful data, because it definitely shows the number of candidates is declining. Why that number is declining is a very important thing to investigate and address, I agree! But! If that number is declining without a corresponding increase in admin backlogs or tasks that need to be done, there's no problem. Everyone's proceeding from the basic assumption "there aren't enough people being turned into admins," when we're not really sure if that's true, or if it's only true in specific ways and in specific areas. Let's figure those questions out, and see what the logical solutions are, whether they mean changing RfA or making other systems more robust. — The Potato Hose 01:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- 'Flipping through' is unfortunately not enough. I do not belive you have reviewd suffiecient deeply the work that has gone before, otherwise you would have clearly recognised the work as very serious and not as emotional. Please AGF on the work that was done, espcially, but not only, on extracting and and evaluating all the data. I alone probably spent 200 hours on that project, and many hours on the subsequent ones. Reading that entire project would avoid repeating the same suggestions. What isneeded at this stage is a new way of getting editors together and reaching some consensus - but it's all been tried, please review the multiple discussions that were held earlier this year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I never said it wasn't serious, and if you think I'm not AGF, either you're misunderstanding me or I'm not explaining myself well. Unless it's hiding somewhere, the data I see is on who supports what. I don't see any data which supports or disproves the central assumption that more admins are needed, nor where they are needed. I am very much suggesting a new way of getting editors together: by responding to specific problems outlined by actual data, not what we all think is true. — The Potato Hose 02:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is going to take a while to have something useful to share, but I've been working on this. In the background on this computer I'm running a program I wrote to analyse response times at RFPP from 2007-2013, and I have similar code that I'm looking at for AIV. The problem is that not all areas easily lend themselves to auto-generated quantifiable data for analysis, and that a fall in number of admins is most likely to hit less essential and time-dependent tasks first, rather than them. But I figured that I could at least check for any signs of increasing or decreasing delays in those areas, (and changing workloads, if anything turns up), and look to determine methodologies for other admin tasks. - Bilby (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well fry me up and eat me with Ketchup! That's awesome. — The Potato Hose 02:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is going to take a while to have something useful to share, but I've been working on this. In the background on this computer I'm running a program I wrote to analyse response times at RFPP from 2007-2013, and I have similar code that I'm looking at for AIV. The problem is that not all areas easily lend themselves to auto-generated quantifiable data for analysis, and that a fall in number of admins is most likely to hit less essential and time-dependent tasks first, rather than them. But I figured that I could at least check for any signs of increasing or decreasing delays in those areas, (and changing workloads, if anything turns up), and look to determine methodologies for other admin tasks. - Bilby (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Potato, I'll say again that you would be doing yourself a great favour if you were to read up on all the work that has been done already. Crunching numbers is no enviable task - been there, done that, and so have user:WereSpielChequers and numerous other dedicated and experienced RfA reformers who are already aware of the attrition and the point in time at which it will become critical. If you are not happy with spending a few hours getting up to speed, perhaps simply reading some of the many articles on RfA over the last two years or so in back numbers of the Signpost would help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you are saying that the data I am talking about already exists, and I have missed it, then by all means please tell me where it is. If it does not exist, then it should be researched. — The Potato Hose 02:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- For the third time, autodidactically, it would help you enormously to do your own research into what has gone before - if you then feel that some areas have been left untouched, then by all means start a project on them. I'm not against you here - I'm one of the most dedicated supporters of RfA reform on the entire Wikipedia, but doing yet more research into new stats isn't going to help know what we already know and have discussed ad nauseam.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really know how else to say it. Has the data I am talking about been researched before? If yes, where is it? — The Potato Hose 03:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think you are missing the point, Potato. What iot comes down to is that with the masses or research that have already been done over the last two (or three) years into the issues surrouding adminship, I don't thing that any further statistical efforts are going to add to what we already know. It might satisfy your own curiosity, but as far as can see, that's all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you are saying that the data I am talking about already exists, and I have missed it, then by all means please tell me where it is. If it does not exist, then it should be researched. — The Potato Hose 02:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I never said it wasn't serious, and if you think I'm not AGF, either you're misunderstanding me or I'm not explaining myself well. Unless it's hiding somewhere, the data I see is on who supports what. I don't see any data which supports or disproves the central assumption that more admins are needed, nor where they are needed. I am very much suggesting a new way of getting editors together: by responding to specific problems outlined by actual data, not what we all think is true. — The Potato Hose 02:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- 'Flipping through' is unfortunately not enough. I do not belive you have reviewd suffiecient deeply the work that has gone before, otherwise you would have clearly recognised the work as very serious and not as emotional. Please AGF on the work that was done, espcially, but not only, on extracting and and evaluating all the data. I alone probably spent 200 hours on that project, and many hours on the subsequent ones. Reading that entire project would avoid repeating the same suggestions. What isneeded at this stage is a new way of getting editors together and reaching some consensus - but it's all been tried, please review the multiple discussions that were held earlier this year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is kind-of useful data, because it definitely shows the number of candidates is declining. Why that number is declining is a very important thing to investigate and address, I agree! But! If that number is declining without a corresponding increase in admin backlogs or tasks that need to be done, there's no problem. Everyone's proceeding from the basic assumption "there aren't enough people being turned into admins," when we're not really sure if that's true, or if it's only true in specific ways and in specific areas. Let's figure those questions out, and see what the logical solutions are, whether they mean changing RfA or making other systems more robust. — The Potato Hose 01:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
So it doesn't exist. Okay, but you could have just said so. And no, this isn't about satisfying my own curiosity (weren't you saying something about AGF earlier...?), this is about finding solutions in a completely different way because the old way does not work. You know that joke? About the definition of insanity? Yeah.
What I am proposing, and you keep pooh-poohing, is that we step back and ask the question "Is RfA creating too few admins?" To answer that question, we need data. We might find, for example, that admins are having to do far less blocking of vandals (and therefore dealing with silly unblock requests etc), since the addition of the edit filters. We might also find that the backlogs at RFPP used to be only a day or so two years ago, but now it's up to two or three days and increasing pretty fast. So maybe a solution to that is to reform RfA somehow to pass more admins who will hopefully lend their attention to RFPP... or maybe a more robust system of clerkship there might lower the amount of time each request costs an admin, helping reduce backlog times. Maybe the solution is asking every admin to just deal with one RFPP per day. Or maybe just find some respected users who hang around those pages and get 'em to go for RfA. Maybe something else... the point being, The Ongoing Saga Of How To Fix RfA is pretty much Wikipedia's worst running joke, so why not tear some smaller chunks off the problem, as indicated by the data, and get stuff moving forward? This isn't me wanting to look at some nice pretty graphs; it really is a good faith way of attacking the problem in a much more targeted way that will hopefully bypass the usual morass of arguing and lack of consensus. — The Potato Hose 03:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Misunderstanding the WMF's role
I was hoping some of the old-timers would have chimed in by now. The WMF provides the infrastructure (i.e. servers, electricity, net connection, software, etc). They let each community decide for itself how to run things. A broken RfA system is our problem, not theirs. We get to decide how to solve it. The WMF is not going to provide a solution. They may help by providing data, conducting surveys, etc., but they are not going to fix the RfA problem. That is for us to do. The WMF just provides the infrastructure. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but that's how it's supposed to work. I'm fairly certain they don't want to get involved with RfA stuff. Jimbo, on the other hand, was supposed to make an announceement of some sort at the beginning of the year that was supposed to be somewhat related to RfA. Maybe he'll do that sometime soon. 64.40.54.58 (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Experiment
OK, who's in on the experiment? Includes agreeing to support whatever the group comes up with. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- North8000 (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- KumiokoCleanStart (as said above)
Experiment-goals
Please join the experiment above before editing this section.
Motion #1 (Statement of goal) The rate of people becoming admins needs to be increased, at least a little.
Motion #2 (Statement of goal) Accomplishing #1 should include getting more good candidates to apply.
Experiment-Workshop / brainstorming on solution ideas
This is not a "decision" section on these, just a place to propose, discuss, and get a preliminary gauge of support on them. Please join the experiment above before editing this section.
Data-driven solutions
Identify quantifiable admin tasks
- Deletion/Undeletion
- Protection
- Blocking
- Unblocking
- Move-over-redir
- Histmerge
- Granting user permissions
- _________
Measurements
- Pick snapshots to establish data and trends. I would suggest looking at backlogs from 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36 months ago.
- Blocking backlog is probably hard to figure out, but it should be easy to figure out the unblocking backlog by looking at the times between posting an unblock request, and that request being approved or denied. (There will be some fuzziness in the data from people whose unblock requests need a lot of discussion. I think (but have no data to prove) that most unblock requests are pretty cut and dried so it wouldn't be that much noise).
Identify unquantifiable admin tasks
- Closing discussions and RfCs
- Editing protected pages/templates
- __________
Can these be quantified? How?
- Discussion closes will be hard to quantify. For AfDs maybe a good way to find the data would be to look at how far past 168 hours an AfD closed as 'delete' has stayed open (since non-admins can close some keeps).
- We may not be able to tell how often an admin edits through protection, but we can look at the time gaps between the editrequest and its resolution, can't we? — The Potato Hose 02:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Comments
Is all this necessary? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Until you feel like telling me where I can find this data (instead of just telling me to go wade through galaxies of text until I stumble upon it), yes. Again, my view is that we should start by questioning the assumption. I know you are a passionate advocate of RfA reform, but blah blah only tool is a hammer blah blah everything looks like a nail. I am saying that we should look in a very dispassionate way at hard numbers, then define the problem, then look for rational solutions. — The Potato Hose 03:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm really not trying to awkward, I would, at this stage however, have to do as much wading as you, and as my talk page notice states, I'm very stretched for time time right now. My memory of what was done is nevertheless very good. What I am suggesting is that if you do your own homework, I'm sure you will find some enlightenment, and a great deal of background and help in formulating whatever reform project you believe providing more data would be helpful for, and how it would reinforce your arguments. Previous reform projects were in fact dispassionate (if you ignore the trolling that finally made us give up), and led by experienced users both admins and non admins; the problems were very clearly identified as you will discover, and many serious solutions were suggested. However, even the latest round of discussions pioneered relentlessly by User:Dank earlier this year brought very little participation.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Look... you're still missing my point, and given that I've explained it half a dozen different ways, I can't help but wonder if it's on purpose. You're trying to bludgeon a problem to death, and I'm wanting research to find the weak points in its armour first. But if you're not interested in actually discussing what I am saying, instead of shooting it down at every single step, then I'm not really interested in continuing this conversation with you. — The Potato Hose 03:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Over the years, I've certainly bludgeoned the issues with RfA to death. I'm perfectly at liberty to suggest where you might look and I've explained why I have no inclination to do it for you, so please AGF - in my more enthusiastic phases on RfA reform and when I had more time, I might have done. I just know only too well where all these discussions lead (or don't). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Except that based on your responses, nobody has ever researched this data. And you have some strange objection to trying something different, which is bizarre to me. In any case, I'm tired of you saying "It won't work because Reasons" and not bothering to respond to any points I have raised. I would have thought someone as deeply involved in the past discussions as you say you have been would know where to find the data I seek--even if it's just a rough idea--or tell me flat out it's never been researched. Seems to me you're more interested in sounding weary about the struggle than really finding real solutions that actually have a snowball's chance of passing successfully. So for all those reasons, I really don't want to continue this 'discussion' with you; there's only so much knee-jerk rejection a man can take. — The Potato Hose 04:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've tried to make some sugestions but loosing your cool won't help either, and I'm a bit too long in the tooth to take the bait. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Every 'suggestion' you've made has been "NO UR RONG STOP IT," instead of actually refuting my points. Forgive me if I fail to recognize that as a persuasive argument. There was no bait. — The Potato Hose 05:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've tried to make some sugestions but loosing your cool won't help either, and I'm a bit too long in the tooth to take the bait. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Except that based on your responses, nobody has ever researched this data. And you have some strange objection to trying something different, which is bizarre to me. In any case, I'm tired of you saying "It won't work because Reasons" and not bothering to respond to any points I have raised. I would have thought someone as deeply involved in the past discussions as you say you have been would know where to find the data I seek--even if it's just a rough idea--or tell me flat out it's never been researched. Seems to me you're more interested in sounding weary about the struggle than really finding real solutions that actually have a snowball's chance of passing successfully. So for all those reasons, I really don't want to continue this 'discussion' with you; there's only so much knee-jerk rejection a man can take. — The Potato Hose 04:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Over the years, I've certainly bludgeoned the issues with RfA to death. I'm perfectly at liberty to suggest where you might look and I've explained why I have no inclination to do it for you, so please AGF - in my more enthusiastic phases on RfA reform and when I had more time, I might have done. I just know only too well where all these discussions lead (or don't). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Look... you're still missing my point, and given that I've explained it half a dozen different ways, I can't help but wonder if it's on purpose. You're trying to bludgeon a problem to death, and I'm wanting research to find the weak points in its armour first. But if you're not interested in actually discussing what I am saying, instead of shooting it down at every single step, then I'm not really interested in continuing this conversation with you. — The Potato Hose 03:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm really not trying to awkward, I would, at this stage however, have to do as much wading as you, and as my talk page notice states, I'm very stretched for time time right now. My memory of what was done is nevertheless very good. What I am suggesting is that if you do your own homework, I'm sure you will find some enlightenment, and a great deal of background and help in formulating whatever reform project you believe providing more data would be helpful for, and how it would reinforce your arguments. Previous reform projects were in fact dispassionate (if you ignore the trolling that finally made us give up), and led by experienced users both admins and non admins; the problems were very clearly identified as you will discover, and many serious solutions were suggested. However, even the latest round of discussions pioneered relentlessly by User:Dank earlier this year brought very little participation.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is looking like a rehash of the metadiscussion in the previous section. May I meekly suggest: Potato, if you wanna do it, just do it, and Kudpung, if you don't wanna do it, then just don't do it. You may doubt that any good will come of it, but no harm will come of simply mining for data, will it? --Stfg (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am. I just have little patience, online or off, with people who just say NO NO NO without even bothering to explain why. Saying "people have talked about stuff" is not saying why. — The Potato Hose 05:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Removed some unrelated personal commentary. Guys, try to keep this discussion more light than heat, ok? Personal attacks don't help resolve discussions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am. I just have little patience, online or off, with people who just say NO NO NO without even bothering to explain why. Saying "people have talked about stuff" is not saying why. — The Potato Hose 05:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- There seems to be some misunderstanding in the thread above. Admin attrition, the decline in candidacy, desyoping, and forcasts when admin numbers will become critical, and the reasons why, have all been well documented over the past 3 years, not only by myself, but by statistical contributions by WereSpielChequers, and relentless efforts by Dank and many others, to maintain support for RfA reform, and summarised by various authors of Signpost articles. I have never inferred that new stats would be bad stats - what I have contended is that they may only confirm, once again, what is already abundantly clear. 100s, if not 1,000s of hours have been put into research and discussion on what is wrong with RfA and suggesting of solutions, and even the Foundation and the Founder have voiced their opinions - but not actually done anything about it or carried them through - perhaps understandably so because RfA is a community issue to be resolved by the community. Nevertheless, Wales' comment nearly 3 years ago that RfA is a nasty place, still rings true and something still needs to be done. We can perhaps understand the large faction of those who appear to express antipathy for all things admin in general such as those of Other inspiration (quotes by others), and who possibly view all attempts at reform as simply maintaining a structure of site management they abhor and who hence tar all admins with the same brush, but nothing much will be achieved however if those who are interested in reform express themselves with hostility - RfA itself is a sufficiently hostile environment, and hostility on the part of those who want to change it, or who misrepresent other users' comments or take them out of context, won't help matters much. Nor will blatant lies and PA (blockable offense) in the middle of these discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
VP: Technical change in RfA procedure
A discussion about whether a (technical) change be made in the RfA procedure or not is going on at the technical village pump. smtchahaltalk 06:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
You can't change the way people act
You know what? I'll be around for most of the day (the rest of my week is booked, though), so let's see where this goes in just a day.
It seems like many of us can agree that RfA is a very nasty place, filled with personal attacks, snap judgments, and simply unfair and unwarranted opposition. This goes for RfAs themselves, RfA talk on this page, and RfA reform. RfA seems to have more problems than just nasty behavior, but it seems like the nasty behavior is causing other problems (low success rate, fewer people interested in running, etc). So, in my opinion (which may not be the majority opinion here, I'm not sure), while RfA has many problems, most of them are caused by one: incivility.
But what can we do about incivility? Very little, and I'll tell you why. We already have a policy (which is actually a part of Wiki's Five Pillars) that clearly and explicitly states that incivility will not be tolerated, and that we should remain as civil as possible on this project. Granted, there are times when a situation becomes stressful and one becomes more inclined to be rude than kind, but the fact remains, incivility is against Wiki policy. Regardless, people still post rude comments. They tear admin candidates apart, and they tear apart those who don't support/oppose specific reform proposals. Not everyone does this, but there are quite a few who do. It may even develop in this thread.
There have been plenty of proposals to stop incivility here. My favorite (the name of which I can't remember) was the one where a few editors would moderate comments and votes, and remove those which are not civil. Even though I like this proposal, I do acknowledge that it has its problems: editors have less freedom in what they say, and those appointed to oversee the comments could easily abuse their power. And I can definitely see why this proposal hasn't garnered enough support to go through.
Even that wouldn't completely stop incivility, though. In order to completely stop incivility, you would have to turn directly to the minds of those who are not civil, and completely change their mind, the way they think and act. Of course, this is entirely impossible.
What we need to do to change RfA is to, put simply, be nicer. If we're nicer, we won't completely discourage potential candidates from running, and we may see an increase in the RfA success rate. We can still give constructive criticism, as long as it's warranted, but we shouldn't be outright rude. I understand that this thread probably won't help RfA progress at all, and that's completely fine. But if you're an RfA voter, or you work on RfA reform, or if you're just reading this to read through RfA's talk page, I (and many others) encourage you to be civil when you're discussing these things, and while you can give constructive criticism (which is much needed in most cases), keep your blatantly rude comments to yourself. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 13:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, if everyone behaved in kind and decent ways it wouldn't matter much who had admin tools, or what those tools were, and most issues would be easily resolved. But many people are not kind people, particularly when they are given asymmetric power over another group of people. And some of the users on Wikipedia who moralise about "civility" use it to bludgeon other users, and are themselves in the top echelon of the worst abusers. I doubt, Utahraptor, that merely exhorting people to be more "civil" will produce changes for the good. What would significantly reduce levels of "incivility" would be to reduce current levels of anger at the injustices of the current shonky admin system by replacing it with one that functions in transparent, considered and decent ways. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a significant problem in RfAs. Also, that it's very difficult, and actually probably undesirable, to police civilty. But I've been wondering whether the following is feasible: any bullet in the voting sections, whether suppot, oppose or neutral, may be replied to only by the candidate (and the voter may reply to that, etc). Anyone else who wishes to discuss a vote must go to the voter's talk page, from which, as always, the voter may banish anyone who becomes offensive. I believe this will work, because those who use incivility as a strategy are usually depending on the attention they get from it. Very often, it's all they want. So make the attention harder to get. --Stfg (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I forget where I read this, but I found a lot of truth in it; if a person begins their comments to another with "Dear Utahraptor" for example, and closes with sincerely, it becomes harder to be rude in that communication. I'm certainly not prescribing speech, but like you said, we can only really change ourselves. In my own unscientific research, I found that I enjoy being nice to people, and I suspect they enjoy being treated with kindness as well. I guess that's a win win situation; for me anyway.--My76Strat (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Stfg: That actually sounds like it would help. Somebody should give that concept a shot.
- @My76Strat: Anger is natural; a few years ago, I snapped at a few people here on RfA talk (some may even remember; it was when I proposed we lower RfA standards, October 2010). But like you said, it's relatively easy to manage in most cases. Ultimately, though, the fate of RfA rests in the hands of the uncivil, and whether or not they're willing to be nicer. There's nothing we can do to completely change them, other than to say "Hey, you should be nicer". The rest is up to them. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 16:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that it would help to only have the candidate responding. In my experience the really crass stuff is often the "vote" itself, and sometimes it is best for others to respond rather than the candidate. Some of the most effective responses that I've seen have come from admins who were able to look at the relevant deleted contributions and explain why an action had made sense because of some page that was now deleted. ϢereSpielChequers 16:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- You have a point there. And ultimately, no matter what we do (if we even do anything), it won't completely solve the problem. The only cure-all for the volatile RfA environment is the total end of incivility, and while a few might be willing to tone down their voices, a complete cessation is probably out of the question. But who knows? Only time will tell how this eventually pans out. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 16:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I forget where I read this, but I found a lot of truth in it; if a person begins their comments to another with "Dear Utahraptor" for example, and closes with sincerely, it becomes harder to be rude in that communication. I'm certainly not prescribing speech, but like you said, we can only really change ourselves. In my own unscientific research, I found that I enjoy being nice to people, and I suspect they enjoy being treated with kindness as well. I guess that's a win win situation; for me anyway.--My76Strat (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I have a proposition to change it but excuse me if I don't have any faith whatsoever it will be taken seriously. Here is what I think we need to do. If they person cannot be civil in their comment then their "vote" should be stricken completely. It won't count. So if they want their vote to be considered, they better make the comment civil. My guess is it won't need to happen very many times before people start making civil comments. Kumioko (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- But there's the usual problem. What makes an RfA comment "civil"?--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- The same way we define it at WP:Civil! The bottom line is all they need to say is Support, Oppose or Neutral. All the commentary like, Oppose with Napalm, snide comments, insults, comments about a users motives, etc. are inappropriate and should constitute civility issues. There may certainly be some gray areas but its generally pretty easy to spot. There were some on mine recently. You can use that as an example. Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I do wonder what the correlation is between people who say "RfA is an uncivil place" and people who "have had an unpleasant RfA". Given that I don't believe RfA is as bad as some other people, I would have thought it was quite high. WormTT(talk) 20:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think that its easy enough to conclude that RFA is an uncivil place and we can also fairly easily determine how. Its not me as an individual editor saying it, its been said by many over and over from Jimbo and the WMF all the way down to new users. Was my RFA unpleasant? Certainly. But it doesn't change the core problem that the RFA process is crap and the comments left on RFA's need to be more civil. It has gotten a bit better this year but there are still plenty of hot headed editors making unnecessarily harsh and uncivil comments when a simple "Oppose, editor is too X" will do. We don't need all the dramatics and showmanship. Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I do wonder what the correlation is between people who say "RfA is an uncivil place" and people who "have had an unpleasant RfA". Given that I don't believe RfA is as bad as some other people, I would have thought it was quite high. WormTT(talk) 20:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- The same way we define it at WP:Civil! The bottom line is all they need to say is Support, Oppose or Neutral. All the commentary like, Oppose with Napalm, snide comments, insults, comments about a users motives, etc. are inappropriate and should constitute civility issues. There may certainly be some gray areas but its generally pretty easy to spot. There were some on mine recently. You can use that as an example. Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm largely with Kumioko on this one. If incivil !votes were simply reverted rather than ignored at the end then RFA would be much improved, and more effective. I can think of at least one RFA which in hindsight should have tanked and would have tanked if a memorably incivil oppose had been expressed more effectively and been diff supported. An incivil unevidenced rant at RFA can sometimes be little more than a dominance display by the wannabe alpha males of our community, trying and sometimes succeeding in swaying an RFA debate by tubthumping rather than rational discourse. Of course the difficulty is who gets to revert such RFA incivilities - I'd like to see the crats doing it. That said I would regard a straight unvarnished oppose !vote as borderline incivil. To me the difference between an incivil and civil !vote is over tone and evidence. I'd rather see "oppose - these two diffs look like copyvio to me" as it is more diplomatic and hopefully more effective than "Oppose - awful contributions". ϢereSpielChequers 22:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm with Kumioko as well. Constructive diffs and constructive criticism are fine, as long as they are well-founded and stray as far away from incivility as possible. We see a lot of comments that aren't constructive, though, and that are very rude and damaging to not only the candidate but RfA as a process. I've repeated several times that we're never going to completely fix this, and we won't; there will always be that "rude jerk" that just won't stop. But I think Kumioko's idea is a great one and would probably help, and if I had the time I'd try to help the community see it through. But I'm sure there are plenty of other people who are willing to do that. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 23:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Just more of the same useless discussions
Over the last couple weeks there has, yet again, been long walls of discussion text about changing RFA. Yet again its the same cast of characters derailing any attempts to change the process. Several editors, including Kudpung have said they are advocates of changing the process but whenever changes are brought up every reason they can think of is brought forward to end the discussion. It won't work, it can't work, the WMF won't allow it, we can't trust them, etc. Its all garbage, every bit of it. IF the WMF wants to step up, let them, I wish they would. But if they won't then they should get out of the way and let us make the decision to change the process. Let them be the ones to say we cannot unbundle the tools. Let them say the process needs to stay the same. I am sick and tired of endless failed discussions to change a process that everyone including the WMF knows is garbage, reflects poorly on the project and needs to change. Yet all we can do is bicker and fight about what and how for months on end. Clearly I have no power to change the process, if I did, I would have already done it. Admins and the Arbcom act like they are the leaders of Wikipedia, if that's the case, and I do not believe it is, then they need to step up. They need to act to change the process instead of showing the community that they want to keep the power to themselves and ensure that they are in control. I do not think for a second anyone will care about this but I am tired of watching these useless discussions get derailed by editors who don't care and don't want the process to change. You are the problem as much as the process. If you don't like the suggestions, make some of your own or get out of the way and let those of us that want to make the process better try. Better still step up and be a part of the process and help to make it better. Either way, we need to quite fighting and arguing and make some changes. If they don't work we can make some more until we find the right solution. Kumioko (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer stasis and status quo to the prospect of caroming from poorly thought-out change to poorly implemented fix. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, me too. So let's try something different, and go for well thought-out changes and excellently implemented fixes. What these would be are, for the most part, already quite clear. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's complete bullshit. There have been several well thought out and strongly supported submissions in the last 6 months alone. None passed because people are too worried about holding onto their little perceptions of power. You can almost draw a straight line between those opposing and their status as admins. We can't change the process because largely, as shown above, admins will insult and abuse any editor who brings it up. It happens in every RFC, every discussion and these last couple are no exception. It shows that for all their banter and bullshit about how editors cannot be trusted they are just manipulating the process to suit them. You can say I'm just crazy but the result has been repeatedly shown. Admins won't allow the process to change because they will lose their power, such as it is. So we are left with the conclusion that the only way this process will change is if the WMF gets off their ass and takes action. But we all know that's not going to happen. So there's no reason to keep using them to derail attempts to change the process by saying they won't allow the change. Let's put them in the position to force them to either make a decision to change the process or stay the hell out of the way. Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Trying to "force" a decision is misguided. The bulldozer mentality is not going to get you anywhere. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing we do is going to get anywhere that's the problem. Because too many people either don't want the changes or don't have the moral courage to stand up to change a bad process. They are willing to just go along with it because they don't have the time, desire or political will to change it. Don't agree? Prove me wrong, make a change to the process and prove me wrong. Kumioko (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- You are mostly right. The "mechanics" of the system is the other gorilla in the living room. If we could get 3 more people to join you and me in the experiment above I think you and me and the others could prove you wrong. :-) North8000 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please make a change and prove Kumioko wrong (although he is at least 50% right on this). Prove the admins wrong too - ironically they are the ones who have worked hardest to bring about change, and obviously the changes were unsuccessful because they were rejected and trolled upon by the anti-admin brigade (diffs available) who, well, simply didn't like to see admins taking the initiative and doing something positive, because it damaged their mantras that all admins are badmins.
- The experiment above is a valiant attempt to search for something new, but it appears to be an attempt to quantify admin tasks. The only aim of such an exercise as far as I can see would be to propose unbundling of the tools. It certainly won't address the core issues of RfA. Major unbundling attempts, and calls for adminship on probation, have been made many times, and always failed to achieve consensus. I know, I know I'll probably get shot down rudely again for pointing it out, but what will those stats achieve that previous failed RfCs on unbundling did not? That said, I think it's quite obvious to those who know me, that I'm all in favour of any changes that can meet broad consensus towads improving the RfA process, and I'm definitely, most definitely not seeking to remove the 'Oppose' section from RfA, never have been, and never will be - to suggest otherwise is harrassement, PA, or at best, sad simplistic trolling.
- Some people have pretended not to understand what I mean by 'voting culture' - I'm sure there are many contributors to this talk page who know perfectly well what I mean; and it's not just that some oppose votes are beyond the pale, it's all the deceitful and disingenuous votes, lies, naive votes by people who just don't know what they're talking about, pile-ons, socks, and diverse stupidity. Many of these may get counted in the end tally because they are craftily worded to sound serious, even serious enough for the closing crat (we do not know just how many checks the crats make before a closure - they've never told us that much - one would need to be a crat to know). These votes are the one that need to be addressed by the candidate, other voters, and the community. A solution must be found, because other voters who simply pile on might believe the crap (and often do) - especially when it comes from an admin who is going or has gone off the rails (and if you want any proof of that, just ask). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- With respect Kudpung people didn't have a problem with the admins taking the lead. The problem was that admins were taking the lead in derailing changes that would have lessened their perceived power. The vast majority of the people opposing these changes have been admins and often, yourself. So although you keep saying you are an advocate for change, you seem to oppose almost every suggestion. You are right, I do advocate unbundling most or all of the tools. I also advocate getting back to the adminship is no big deal culture, eliminating the admin for life mentality and making it easier to remove the tools if an admin screws up. It shouldn't need to go before congress. Unfortunately all we can hope to do is some minor changes to the current process to make it more civil. Something that amounts to little more than paving a cowpath. All of these would mean a huge decrease in the power of admins though so each and every one will be voted down. As I said before, if the WMF wants to refuse a suggestion let them. But if they do, they had better be prepared to explain why and in my opinion had better be prepared to come up with some good solutions. People keep arguing the WMF won't allow block and protect to be unbundled but then say the RFA process is a community problem and not a WMF problem. So if the WMF wants this to be our problem, then they can't bitch when we come up with a solution to the problem. Otherwise they need to step up. Kumioko (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I endorse each of the changes Kumioko outlines here. Additionally a separate procedure is needed for disciplining content builders, perhaps by a panel of their peers elected by other content builders. The English Wikipedia has appointed for life many hundreds of functionaries, including users appointed even though they were thoroughly underqualified, and users appointed when they were little more than children. Any one of these users is permitted to abuse and block content builders, even to humiliate them and make them crawl on demand. Not one of these functionaries has ever been desopped for abusing non admins. It is impossible to change the system at present, because all of these life-appointees are allowed to vote and veto any attempts to trim their powers. So long as this contemptible situation continues, it casts a shadow over all admins on Wikipedia. Which is a shame, because we have some very good admins, and they have not been given a honourable field where they can play their game. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- With respect Kudpung people didn't have a problem with the admins taking the lead. The problem was that admins were taking the lead in derailing changes that would have lessened their perceived power. The vast majority of the people opposing these changes have been admins and often, yourself. So although you keep saying you are an advocate for change, you seem to oppose almost every suggestion. You are right, I do advocate unbundling most or all of the tools. I also advocate getting back to the adminship is no big deal culture, eliminating the admin for life mentality and making it easier to remove the tools if an admin screws up. It shouldn't need to go before congress. Unfortunately all we can hope to do is some minor changes to the current process to make it more civil. Something that amounts to little more than paving a cowpath. All of these would mean a huge decrease in the power of admins though so each and every one will be voted down. As I said before, if the WMF wants to refuse a suggestion let them. But if they do, they had better be prepared to explain why and in my opinion had better be prepared to come up with some good solutions. People keep arguing the WMF won't allow block and protect to be unbundled but then say the RFA process is a community problem and not a WMF problem. So if the WMF wants this to be our problem, then they can't bitch when we come up with a solution to the problem. Otherwise they need to step up. Kumioko (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- You are mostly right. The "mechanics" of the system is the other gorilla in the living room. If we could get 3 more people to join you and me in the experiment above I think you and me and the others could prove you wrong. :-) North8000 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing we do is going to get anywhere that's the problem. Because too many people either don't want the changes or don't have the moral courage to stand up to change a bad process. They are willing to just go along with it because they don't have the time, desire or political will to change it. Don't agree? Prove me wrong, make a change to the process and prove me wrong. Kumioko (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Trying to "force" a decision is misguided. The bulldozer mentality is not going to get you anywhere. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- No change is possible while admins are allowed to vote on the terms under which they operate. That is the crux of the matter. Admins will never allow their right to control those terms to be challenged. If anyone doubts that, I invite them to make a proposal which does challenge that right. Like military dictatorships, which also dictate the terms under which they operate, the admin system on Wikipedia will change only under some form of external coercion. The WMF seems utterly unequipped to force such change, since very few members there seem to have relevant experience editing on Wikipedia. That leaves, as the only two workable agents of change I can see, either dictate from Jimmy Wales or open rejection from the Wikipedia editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Kudpung, I accept some admins, like yourself and Dank and ϢereSpielChequers, work hard and honourably for real change. But other admins and admin wannabes shoot the proposals down no matter where they come from. Always, any proposals in the direction of change for the better is shot down. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- The list of admins includes not only Dank and WSC, but also Dennis Brown, Worm, The Blade of the Northern Lights, Richwales, Catfish Jim, Silk Tork, Ched, ErrantX, SPhilbrick, CT Cooper, Tyrol5, Balloonman, Beeblebrox, Swarm, 28bytes, Guerillero, Fetchcomms, Eagles247, Spartaz, and perhaps many others, who are/were all active contributors to the reform project(s) who demonstrated a clear will to get things changed for the better. None of them displayed any inclination to be wanting to protect their own status. Neither was thier intention to make it any easier for candidates who may be less suitable, to obtain the bit. The paradox is that there seems to be two groups of naysayers to reform: those wannabe (or wanted-to-be) admins who want it made easier with unbundling and the creation of new hats to collect, and those who complain that it too easy to become an admin and who want desysoping made easier before any changes are made. Take your pick.
- The main problem is that participation at the major RfCs for reform (if and when they ever happen) is the poor publicity and low turnout; a watchlist notice may have helped garner more participation, and hence more support. This thread may help shed some light. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think there are certainly some that just want to collect some hats but I think the majority are just trying to keep the project going and want to help out. Using myself as an example, people don't want me to be an admin, for various reasons, ok fine. But then that means I cannot help out and it makes more work for them. Backlogs are longer and things continue to get worse. I would like to help out with things like CCI, Protected templates and others but I can't. Lots of others are the same way. If our help is not needed or wanted then there should not be a backlog at CCI and we shouldn't have to wait more than a week to get edits made to a protected template. I also agree that some of those admins you list claim to be reformers but then when you look at their voting records they oppose everything. So are they still reformers if the oppose every attempt at reform? I would argue not really. What we need is change, not the theory or discussion of change but real change and these useless incessant discussions about them won't change anything. Kumioko (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- If I have opposed some (but certainly not all) suggestions, they were those that advanced proposals for lowering the bar - and that in many ways includes some forms of unbundling. Lowering the bar will only open the gate for even less qualified candidtaes of the very kind that many of the anti-admin crowd certainly don't want, and would result in more work to desysop them when they err through lack of knowledge or abuse of power. I certainly agree with you that change is required and not, at this stage, more discussion on the theory of change - and that's what what I have been trying to point out in the threads above, along with the fact that almost every single possible idea for change and why it is needed has been thrashed out and exhausted time and time again, with every new recent suggestion being simply an iteration of of previously covered material and requests for proof of what is already clearly acknowledged. Understandable partly, because newcomers to the topic are not aware of them and the thousands of posts on this very talk page. It makes me weary, because like most of us veterans of change, I've simply run out of ideas. I've posted something on Jimbo's talk page (which I extremely rarely ever do), but his response was that he's going on vacation at the end of the month - neatly sidestepping this very critical issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was struck by that sidestep too. Since Jimbo said he was coming up with some ideas in the New Year, I think we can take it that he has had second thoughts. I suppose that means the only hope now is for the peasants to revolt. Or would it be better for the peasants to just leave, so the admins can have the place to themselves? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah that's not surprising. Jimbo and the WMF don't seem to want to get involved except to release bullshit GUI changes that piss off those of us that actually work on the project (not on the coding of it). They want to flex their muscle on crap no one cares about and turn it into a firestorm and then the areas like this where we really need their help we hear nothing but crickets. I reiterate my feelings above. I think it will require them to change the RFA process since we as a community have shown we are incapable of doing it but I don't want to hear arguments of the WMF won't allow X. They have had their opportunity to change this process as have we so if we do decide on something, since the WMF feels this is a community problem, then they opt out of shooting it down if they don't like it. Otherwise they need to decide on something that they do agree with and then we can deal with it. One way or the other, some changes need to be done. Kumioko (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Would there be any real problems with porting the current English Wikipedia content to a new wiki, and setting up a decent admin structure there? It could fund raise the same way Wikipedia currently fund raises. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah that's not surprising. Jimbo and the WMF don't seem to want to get involved except to release bullshit GUI changes that piss off those of us that actually work on the project (not on the coding of it). They want to flex their muscle on crap no one cares about and turn it into a firestorm and then the areas like this where we really need their help we hear nothing but crickets. I reiterate my feelings above. I think it will require them to change the RFA process since we as a community have shown we are incapable of doing it but I don't want to hear arguments of the WMF won't allow X. They have had their opportunity to change this process as have we so if we do decide on something, since the WMF feels this is a community problem, then they opt out of shooting it down if they don't like it. Otherwise they need to decide on something that they do agree with and then we can deal with it. One way or the other, some changes need to be done. Kumioko (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I was struck by that sidestep too. Since Jimbo said he was coming up with some ideas in the New Year, I think we can take it that he has had second thoughts. I suppose that means the only hope now is for the peasants to revolt. Or would it be better for the peasants to just leave, so the admins can have the place to themselves? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- If I have opposed some (but certainly not all) suggestions, they were those that advanced proposals for lowering the bar - and that in many ways includes some forms of unbundling. Lowering the bar will only open the gate for even less qualified candidtaes of the very kind that many of the anti-admin crowd certainly don't want, and would result in more work to desysop them when they err through lack of knowledge or abuse of power. I certainly agree with you that change is required and not, at this stage, more discussion on the theory of change - and that's what what I have been trying to point out in the threads above, along with the fact that almost every single possible idea for change and why it is needed has been thrashed out and exhausted time and time again, with every new recent suggestion being simply an iteration of of previously covered material and requests for proof of what is already clearly acknowledged. Understandable partly, because newcomers to the topic are not aware of them and the thousands of posts on this very talk page. It makes me weary, because like most of us veterans of change, I've simply run out of ideas. I've posted something on Jimbo's talk page (which I extremely rarely ever do), but his response was that he's going on vacation at the end of the month - neatly sidestepping this very critical issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think there are certainly some that just want to collect some hats but I think the majority are just trying to keep the project going and want to help out. Using myself as an example, people don't want me to be an admin, for various reasons, ok fine. But then that means I cannot help out and it makes more work for them. Backlogs are longer and things continue to get worse. I would like to help out with things like CCI, Protected templates and others but I can't. Lots of others are the same way. If our help is not needed or wanted then there should not be a backlog at CCI and we shouldn't have to wait more than a week to get edits made to a protected template. I also agree that some of those admins you list claim to be reformers but then when you look at their voting records they oppose everything. So are they still reformers if the oppose every attempt at reform? I would argue not really. What we need is change, not the theory or discussion of change but real change and these useless incessant discussions about them won't change anything. Kumioko (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Kudpung, I accept some admins, like yourself and Dank and ϢereSpielChequers, work hard and honourably for real change. But other admins and admin wannabes shoot the proposals down no matter where they come from. Always, any proposals in the direction of change for the better is shot down. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Other Foundation Wikis have better, or at least different admin electoral systems. That does not necessarily mean they have better admins. Wherever you look, there will be a rotten apple in the barrel, just like there are many among the voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The jig is up
Administrators ought to be required to identify to the WMF to show they have reached the legal age of majority where they domicile. The fact that this is so vehemently opposed is telling of our problems in many ways. The kids need to concentrate on doing well in school and the adults can administer this site while they focus on studies. We shouldn't be exposing minor children to some utterly adult content that resides in our deleted contributions, but we do; why?--My76Strat (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- A grey area - not controlled by current policy. That said, some children have made it even to 'cratship, and in one instance, if memory serves me right, even to steward. I'm not saying whether I'm in favour of this or not. Whichever way I would opine, I would be shot down in flames. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- It really doesn't matter. No major change will happen unless the WMF enforces it. If that happens, who knows how many people would leave in protest? AutomaticStrikeout ? 02:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have to wonder what you mean by "adult content". A lot of people are exposed to very questionable content even in junior high and high school years, and I fail to see how a person in his/her high school years, which is most likely the age of most if not all of the non-adult sysops, would be greatly affected by seeing this apparently horrifying content. TCN7JM 04:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's not about how mature you are. It's about what kind of availability can the WMF facilitate for minor children. I'm not talking about what you can find in this great encyclopedia; that free content is arguably educational. It's about what may be reasonably available as deleted content, and its suitability.--My76Strat (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- What in the world does that have to do with adminship? All the sysop tools that require maturity (yes, they do) and trustworthiness, and you're upset because the right to view deleted content is not needed in a child's education? Why does that matter in becoming a sysop? TCN7JM 05:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's not about how mature you are. It's about what kind of availability can the WMF facilitate for minor children. I'm not talking about what you can find in this great encyclopedia; that free content is arguably educational. It's about what may be reasonably available as deleted content, and its suitability.--My76Strat (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
A lot of young people might think something like this is a terrible thing; I don't believe it is, however something like this could be framed in some way where the WMF was almost compelled to make changes and actually follow some other set of rules; like wherever the servers are located. I don't see deleted contributions, but I imagine some age specific content, if not images, would exceed what the spirit of Florida law is striving for regarding young people.--My76Strat (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- The only way to introduce such measures would be to insist that all candidates submit a proof of identity to the Foundation, like we are required to do for some functions already, or to expunge completely any highly sensitive material from the servers, or limit access to it, like we already do to some extent, to oversighters (who need to be over 18 and identified themselves to the WMF). This would however be a major turnaround in fundamental policy. It's something that the community could bring about through its own initiative, but I believe it's been tried already and failed on the premise that Wikipedia is not censored. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that young students should focus on their studies, but adults have responsibilities that take up most of their time, too. And what of college students? They're not children, yet they need to focus on their studies. So should college students not be allowed to run? I'm not saying I oppose your proposal; on the contrary I'm neutral about it. But you have to remember that when you make a proposal like this you have to look at all angles, not just the angle that looks pretty. ;) The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 12:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what brought this up, but I have to disagree. Some editors choose to use—or declare—their real names, and that's their choice, but anonymity is a cherished part of the internet and an important factor in many participating here, for many reasons including in some cases very real problems with livelihood and safety. Moreover, we quite rightly pay attention to the edits—the actions—of editors here, not to their names (including, so far as possible, their choice of nickname). I understand we have had quite capable admins who were under the age of majority in their countries of residence, but I wouldn't know the specifics and frankly would rather not know, because it's none of my business. What is my business is their on-wiki reputation. I really don't think it's worth driving good editors—and admin candidates—away, or forcing them to either feel less safe or be intentionally dishonest, in order to save them from reading dirty graffiti in articles. As if the encyclopedia isn't already full of sexually explicit, politically alarming and otherwise disturbing content as all good encyclopedias are. Surely we all know the encyclopedia, along with National Geographic, serves as many children's first introduction to pictures their parents would rather they didn't see. And surely we all recognise this "for the sake of the children" argument as a classic thin end of the wedge—where would the censorship stop, and how would we possibly accommodate all the diverse parental/authoritarian demands for censorship? In addition, although the ability to view deleted material is as I understand it the big legal obstacle to unbundling from the WMF's point of view, it doesn't follow that administrators necessarily spend a great deal of their time viewing deleted content. Anyone level-headed enough to volunteer to be an admin and to be trusted with adminship is surely level-headed enough to limit their exposure to dreck if it's likely to unnerve them. So I'm frankly surprised to see this proposed and supported. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- By the same reasoning – young people need to spend all their time on schoolwork! – I imagine that My76Strat also actively campaigns against teenagers being allowed to watch television, talk to their friends, participate in sports, play chess, have a part-time job, learn a musical instrument, perform volunteer work, or read any books not officially assigned by a teacher. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Was that necessary? AutomaticStrikeout ? 13:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think yes. My76Strat's logic seems to be that children should not be allowed to become sysops because the rights aren't beneficial to their studies. If you're going to use that logic, you must also agree that sysop rights aren't beneficial to an adult's career. If that was the case, we'd have around 0 sysops. TCN7JM 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there would be any possibility of framing a proposal that the WMF would be obliged to support, whatever the topic. The Foundation has a history of rejecting changes that were reached after substantial debate and massive community consensus. The WMF employees who have the final say, are not elected personel and an employee can even unilaterally override anything they don't like. On the other hand, they frequently impose and implement their new ideas which the community might not have been given sufficient opportunity to comment on. In the recent past, some such ideas have resulted in the need for a massive clean up by the volunteers when Foundation projects badly misfired. There is some speculation that the WMF may intervene on RfA reform; that remains to be seen, but they are probably just as at loss for plausible solutions as we are now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't about ensuring that all admins are 18 or over, having all admins identify to the Foundation is about enabling PR companies to serve writs on deleting admins and stop us deleting their clients' pages as spam or POV puffery. Yes in the past we used to appoint admins who were teenagers or younger, but to my regret one of the consequences of the Greying of the pedia is that those days are over. Most of our admins were appointed in 2004-2007 before the RFA drought began, and an admin appointed in 2004 would have needed to be under 9 when appointed to be under 18 now. We might still have some admins under the age of 18, but they will soon be legally adult (I seriously doubt if we currently have an admin aged under 16). Anonymous editing means that when companies try to serve writs on editors the Foundation can truthfully say that they don't know those editors identities. If spam is going to increase in line with readership then we can't afford to make things easier for the PR industry, especially as a side effect of solving a non problem - we need to recognise the "content builders being harassed by juvenile admins" as a dated if not busted meme that no longer reflects what happens here, and possibly never did. ϢereSpielChequers 13:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I must have missed it in a previous discussion, but if I may ask: What actual problem is this intended to solve? Resolute 17:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- None, but...the jig is up now! :) Garion96 (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You wouldn't be the only one who missed something. This is merely an avenue for possible change. I'm not an ogre as some seem to believe. I'm glad people are passionate regarding their views. But face it, some of the same people who would fight tooth and nail to stop a proposal for an age criteria for adminship will also fight tooth and nail to block an unbundling proposal. Perhaps these same people would support unbundeling if the alternative was an age requirement. And I think a case can be made that the bundle in its current form is not an all ages bundle.--My76Strat (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- None, but...the jig is up now! :) Garion96 (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I must say that this whole thread stinks of WP:POINT seeing as My76Strat admits that there was no issue this was meant to resolve and that he knew there would be wide opposition. I may have misunderstood him, which I still think I did not, but this whole thread is useless conversation. TCN7JM 18:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I never said there was no issue to resolve, and I don't know what anticipating opposition has to do with a discussions worth. I suppose your suggestion that this thread is useless is an admission that you appended nothing of value? Perhaps you should try another approach and instead bring value into the discussion.--My76Strat (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I misunderstood that last comment of yours, you didn't admit that this wasn't supposed to change anything, but anticipating opposition definitely does have to do with a discussion. If you know everybody is going to oppose a proposal, then it would be less of a waste of time to not bring it up. Your bringing this non-issue up without giving a valid wiki-related reason why it should be changed is a waste of time. (Also, please do not tell me to fuck off in your edit summaries. Thank you.) TCN7JM 19:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't tell me to fuck off by your condescension. I'd sooner slap your face with a glove than to take these unsolicited attacks (that is a reference to challenging one to a duel). Most of your comments seem directed at me, and less about the idea. Do you expect to like the consequences of poking a bear?--My76Strat (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not being condescending, or at least not trying to intentionally. Sorry if that's how it's coming off. I never attacked you, but you are definitely trying to attack me, especially with your last comment. I don't want any comment warring or fighting or whatever you would like to call it, I just wonder why you proposed this. I questioned you on the idea yesterday, but you did not answer the questions, instead telling me I misunderstood you and not telling me how I misunderstood you. Just clearing this up, I never tried to attack you, it's just that none of my questions have been answered and that irritates me because you continue to tell me I've misunderstood you. TCN7JM 19:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't tell me to fuck off by your condescension. I'd sooner slap your face with a glove than to take these unsolicited attacks (that is a reference to challenging one to a duel). Most of your comments seem directed at me, and less about the idea. Do you expect to like the consequences of poking a bear?--My76Strat (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I misunderstood that last comment of yours, you didn't admit that this wasn't supposed to change anything, but anticipating opposition definitely does have to do with a discussion. If you know everybody is going to oppose a proposal, then it would be less of a waste of time to not bring it up. Your bringing this non-issue up without giving a valid wiki-related reason why it should be changed is a waste of time. (Also, please do not tell me to fuck off in your edit summaries. Thank you.) TCN7JM 19:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
We'll need at least one more closer, and two would be nice. This may run until June 17, though the proposer has proposed ending it sooner: see User_talk:Theopolisme#Closing PC/2 RfC. (This may or may not be relevant to RfA.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)