Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 172

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 165

←

Archive 170

The line has been breached

Bureaucrats are the first line of defence against admin abuse. It is implicit that the responsibility shall fall on the bureaucrat should he/she willfully allows this line to be breached, the newly-promoted admin goes on to abuse his tools, and creates a whole bunch of mess that ArbCom would not have to pick up the pieces if the crats' did their job properly in the first place.

We now have the first example where a bad call on a RfA was made, and subsequently this has happened. This may be well history long ago, but this RfA has also been one of lowest % support that passed, and one of the significant events that has shaped RfA to what it is today. This is a reminder to please think of the consequences if you want to railroad a RfA. - Mailer Diablo 00:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well hot dog and hot damn, a .6% pass! That would be really cool if it were for the fact that he was about to be stripped of the tools. Tsk tsk.--(NGG) 01:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That rationale from Jan 2007 for promotion was very different than the rationales that we saw in 2008 and have seen this year. And ... really, I have pages and pages of stuff to do today, I'm not going to get anxious about what was going on in Jan 2007. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. You're going to complain about an RfA which passed because a crat used discretion on an !vote of just .6%??? Good lord, where have we come to! On an admin where it took over 2 years to desysop? Good grief... let's forget about the Archtransits of the world which were desysopped much quicker with a much higher pass rate. Sheeesh .6% ahd tw0 years ago? Sorry, this doesn't get me worked up in the least, I'd rather see 'crats open up the passes and failures.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is nothing to get worked up over, Spartacus, and I agree that people are generally pretty happy with crat rationales, happy enough that they're probably willing to give them some leeway if they'd got a good argument. But in fairness to Mailer, what he said was "a bad call on a RfA was made" ... and by today's standards, that was a very bad rationale, he's right. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The rationale Raul used was not the best, but to draw a cause and effect line between Raul's promotion and the current ArbCOM case is stretching the bounds.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The rationales for opposition that were raised in the RfA are now the locus of the issues in the Arbitration (i.e. rollback, blocking) resulting in his pending desysop. By the action of promotion and the accompanying rationale given, this is de-facto a vouch for his behavior. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of candidates have scraped in within the margin of discretion, but gone on to be excellent admins. Plenty of others have been supported unanimously and turned out less than good. Archtransit for example passed his RfA 53/0/0 and was banned shortly afterward. I suppose the point I'm making is the RfA tally is not always a reliable indicator of who will subsequently be good with the tools. In passing I'd add that 69.4% would in my view be within the realm of bureaucrat discretion. Euryalus (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I just read through this old discussion out of curiosity, and it's somewhat interesting but isn't really evidence of anything. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryulong 3 was a very close RFA, which could plausibly have been closed as failed or successful; Raul654 chose the latter (provoking great controversy as a result). Two years later, Ryulong has been desysopped. Is this evidence that Raul's close was wrong? Well, yes in the sense that it ultimately ended in a desysopping, but no in the sense that it was well within the bounds of crat discretion. I'm not sure I would have closed this RFA as successful myself, but Raul had every right to do so. And I don't think you can blame him for how it turned out in the end - as Euryalus says, many admins have passed RFA at similar levels and gone on to have no problems at all. (As an aside, the really interesting thing about that old talk page is how many of the arguments that were being had at WT:RFA then are still being had at WT:RFA today... does nothing ever change around here?) Robofish (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of bad RfA calls from the 65%-80% range and that have ended up in desysopping. This isn't special. It just shows that we need to vet people more carefully. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of bad RfA calls from the 81%-100% range and that have ended up in desysopping. This isn't special. It just shows that regardless of how well we vett, problems will arise.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are community calls once they are above 80%. :P I'm just saying that when it falls in the discretion range chances are that both the Crat and the community is to blame. Once its above 80%, its just us to blame. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

One isolated example does not make for a pattern. But there probably have been enough desysoppings for us to compare them as a group to the other admins. If a pattern emerges indicating that the closer the result the more likely the candidate is to ultimately be desysopped then perhaps we should raise the pass mark. If however a pattern emerges that Ryulong notwithstanding candidates who pass with less than 80% are less likely to be desysopped than candidates who passed with over 90% then logically we could lower the RFA threshold. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

<-- @Ottava-- very well said. @ Robofish-- No. We are destined to recycle the same discussions ad infinitum. It is fated. @Mailer-- Not sure what you're getting at beyond the obvious cautionary tale. Dloh cierekim 15:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

<-Just looked over the RFA. One the one hand, I had had positive interactions with Ryulong and he came to RFA with an astounding amount of vandal reversion, and I would have wanted to support based on that. On the other, the warning signs were there for us to see. Serious, recent to the RFA problems. On the gripping hand, hindsight is often 20/20. In the words of Glen Cook, "Still, the best augurs are those who divine the portents of the past. They compile phenomenal records." All we can do is look as closely as we can and make the best judgment possible. No guarantees on always passing the good ones while excluding the unready or unsuited. I would prefer that we not use Litmus tests and absolute thresholds. They just make RFA tougher without separating the wheat from the chaff. If anyone can come up with an infallible metric, I would love to try it out. Dloh cierekim 16:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Ryulong's the first case of a controversial pass ending in a desysop. Most people that arbcom desysops pass near-unanimously. So using this case to say we need to be tougher is dishonest at best. Wizardman 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wizardman. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 01:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In my view, Ryulong's is one of, if not the, worst RfA closes we've had. There have been other low-percentage closes but there's generally been a mitigating circumstance such as it being a reconfirmation of a competent but controversial admin. Ryulong really did seem to have been promoted based on the personal opinion of the closing bureaucrat overriding strong opposition; and there are very few other examples of this. Take it as a lesson, sure, but overall, in well over 99% of cases, our bureaucrats have done a great job with RfA closes even in the discretionary range. I don't see a great cause for concern. ~ mazca ^t|c 22:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"We now have the first example"... Personally, I think we're doing pretty damn well if, in the eight years that Wikipedia has been around and roughly six years that WP:RFA has existed, we're now having our "first example" of a bad call. Not only that, but that it took two years for that "bad call" to pan out... yeah, I'm not seeing much of a direct correlation here. (I'm not saying the RfA call was right or wrong; I'm honestly disinterested in debating that) Obviously, that RfA was a pretty pivotal one, so the argument could be made that its value was in the changes it made to RfA, rather than the promotion of the editor in question. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have long had issue with Ryulong's demeanor and once asked for him to stand for recall before backing down on a promise of good behavior (he since removed himself from AOR, a place I have never made the mistake of adding my name). I also never felt his 69% should have been promoted. Nonetheless he has contributed a great deal to the wiki and we are better off for having had him as a contributor. His vandal fighting, while sometimes overly aggressive, was also an asset to us. Andre (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah... "too many admins"?

Ok, so I've been holding off on the editing and doing more of the reading recently, and I've hardly been around these parts at all. That said, the 3rd oppose !vote here really gets to me. There are too many admins? Too many for what? Will the database implode? Will the world end? Or is it just that if the number of administrators is higher, the chance of one going haywire is statistically higher? Can anybody else honestly look at this as a reason to oppose somebody becoming an administrator here? I don't get it at all - Alex Muller 22:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

New record, 1,000 threads about the same user! ;-)--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 23:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You must have missed the big discussion here, and several discussions before that. Several people have opinioned that DougsTech be topic banned from RfA, but a majority still wish to allow him to vote. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 23:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the links. As I say, it's been a while since I've been round these parts, or Wikipedia at all. I guess I need to get back into it and remember how much reading of conversations and debates is necessary. Cheers :) Alex Muller 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Dougstech always votes this way, nobody seems to agree with him}}? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech actually said to CoM that he merely thinks there are too many of a certain type, which I infer to mean "the type who will do their jobs." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

One can also link to enabling. This is the same "majority" that empowered kmweber to troll for how long? History repeats itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Carl, I always respect your views, but I think you're wrong here. After the subject has been thrashed to death and 'crats have already said they discount the !vote, we should just walk away. I like SBJ's proposal for a stock template, same as there was a proposal to just start out self-nom RFA's with an offsetting +1 to account for Kurt's inevitable !vote. This stuff is mainly propagated by a small group of people who freak out over RFA opposes and launch endless discussion. I sympathize, because they also make efforts here to "fix the system" which go nowhere. But in the end, we're talking about limiting someone's ability to say what they want because you don't agree with the ideas they express. That's wrong. Unpopular opinions shouldn't be suppressed, they should be refuted. In this case, with as few words as possible. DT is a known quantity, no-one should be getting all amped up because we're welcoming a returning editor. (And welcome back Alex!:) Franamax (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I was being a bit tongue in cheek there... though as someone who ~~reads~~ skims this page maybe once or twice a week, there's almost always at least one discussion of someone who always votes no or always votes yes. Not really sure there's any actual benefit to making a tempate to note that though, since there's not enough people doing that to have any gravity in the results. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should rephrase that. The proposals are not to suppress the person because of their opinions, rather it's because a different group of editors fly off the handle and the resulting discussion amounts to disruption. Using root-cause analysis will end up with banning DT, because if only he wasn't there, we would all think this is a perfect wiki. I suggest that the analysis is incomplete. The case of Dougstech and or Kmweber is a symptom, not a cure. Franamax (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone like DT should not be "topic banned" just for saying he thinks there are too many admins (of a certain type). Instead, he can post his opinion, and some other RfA observer can add some context for the benefit of the deciders, such as, "By the way, this is the 47th consecutive RfA where DT has said this..." and give the deciders some beneficial data. Censorship is not good. Let the supporters and opposers speak their minds, as their accumulated record tells us some things about them as well as about the nominees. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

↑ What he said. – iride scent 23:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

↑ What he said about what he said. And it's not like Doug has not had company in this. Treat like any other comment. Ignore or counter in one's own !vote and move on. Dloh cierekim 00:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Will someone take responsibility for immediately posting context whenever Dougstech expresses this opinion? Otherwise, we'll continue to have puzzled editors (reading the RfA), puzzled candidates (trying to figure out whether and how to respond), and repetitive threads on this talk page. Which wastes everyone's time. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there could be a bit of programming code, an "intercept" so to speak, which whenever he would post a "too many admins", would automatically also post a meter of how many times he has voted that way. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That would make for an interesting WP:BOTREQ...! — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this bothers people day after day should be some sort of hint that this is disruptive. This whole case seems common sense to anyone not exposed to the politics of the matter. The sort of enabling that has been going on really is damaging. Chillum 01:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps obsessing over one vote is the real problem here, and wasting all this time on discussion? Throwing out words like "enabling" does nothing. It has already been decided that no sort of ban on DT is enforceable; I suggest people let that lie, instead of harping on the same points and making more bad blood. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If one vote would swing the decision, then it's too close anyway, and the answer should be "No". Which is why trying to topic ban a specific user is not the way to do things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If it was one vote people would not be talking about it. There have been dozens of such votes and that is the issue. The topic keeps coming up because it keeps happening. Saying that people objecting to this is a waste of time is unduly dismissive and exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned enabling. Chillum 15:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Dozens of such votes in a single nomination? That's what I was referring to. No matter what DT does in a single nomination, it's still only one voice in that nomination. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of discussing the point here, why not ask the candidates for their views on the issue? Then at least the discussion would be relevant to the matter in hand. Groomtech (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Outside-the-box thinking! The boy wins a cigar! :) In fact, you could ask that as one of the standard questions in the first section of an RfA: "What's your opinion of editors who say Support or Oppose based on vague or generic reasons such as [list of examples here]?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're still only half-way out of the box. It should be just as interesting to hear whether candidates think there are too many admins ... Groomtech (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to imagine one who would say, yes, there are too many, may I join in? no cookies for this honest fella, I'm afraid... NVO (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

← Attention all: grab up your pitchforks and torches, we got us a lynchin to git to. </sarcasm>. Sorry, couldn't resist folks. Come on guys, Bugs got it right the first time around. We're not supposed to be some sort of censure police; it's only a big deal if folks make it one. Live, Love, Laugh, move on. — Ched : ? 18:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are too many admins, supporters, people who create boring pages, and vandals. I recommend an immediate termination of all of them in general. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

- Aha, an interesting concept: A "Wikipedia Reboot". Hey, it worked with James Bond, right? Also with Star Trek. Mmm... maybe not as well. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  - No, all they did was bleach-blond Bond's hair. MuZemike 21:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  - Actually I did mention this concept at meta or somewhere. If we were to run Wikipedia all over again from scratch, a lot of things would probably work very differently... - Mailer Diablo 00:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    - The trick is to make sure only the right people edit <grin /> Dloh cierekim 22:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  - Don't forget the reboot of Battlestar Galactica that was pretty frakin' awesome. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, when will the "too many threads about too many admins" meme hit? EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As soon as adorable cats say it. Flying Toaster 02:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Never read WP:BEANS, have you? EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh God, BEANS EVERWHERE. Flying Toaster 02:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What to learn from the FlyingToaster affair at RfA

Now that the FlyingToaster debacle is sufficiently over, I think it is time to reflect on how the RfA process can be improved. In my opinion:

Do not support a candidate just because you recognize and like him or her. Check the contributions. Click through the contributions list, pick an article and check it. This takes time, I know, but there are a hundred of us voting in each RfA. If everyone check at least something, any major problems will be discovered.
We must be able to discuss more than 1-2 aspects of a candidate. FlyingToaster's RfA was almost entirely about her CSD work and IRC. Reading though the oppose votes and deciding whether you agree with them or not, is not a good way to vote. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't read the administrator's noticeboard pages, I have no idea what this 'debacle' is all about. Could you provide a link for the curious? Robofish (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BN#Flying_Toaster_RfA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If I learned anything, it is that we probably don't need another FT thread. Law_{type! snype?} 21:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, having just read through the extensive arguments that have already occurred, that seems to be the case. Sorry I asked! Robofish (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link Juliancolton, I should have done that. This particular episode is all but over, but it shows deeper problems in the RfA process. If we sweep it under the carpet we re doomed to repeat the mistakes. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever RfA process you use, you're going to have some spectacular ones. I think the conclusion that there are 'deeper problems in the RfA process' is based on UNDUE emphasis on a FRINGE RfA. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 10:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No process is perfect. The fact that some admins eventually get desysopped doesn't per se mean the current process is broken. I don't mean to be blase about it, but if adminship is no big deal, then neither is losing it. The area we should focus on for improvement is making sure that admins do not abuse admin tools. Generally the community manages to do this, because sooner or later abuse is spotted and complained about and eventually dealt with. Perhaps we could try harder to make sure genuine complaints don't get ignored (because of the volume of nonsense and judgement calls), but other than that, I'm not sure the processes are doing that badly compared to feasible alternative processes. Rd232 ^talk 13:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it bears repeating (and yes, I've beaten this horse too much) that FT didn't abuse the tools. I know we've had situations where new admins were soon found out to be hiding poor behaviors resulting in removal of the mop (uncovering one that was an extensive sock master a year or so ago comes to mind), and while there was a missed behavior on FT's part that clearly would have garnered further oppose votes, I still think the end result here was much more a case of inter-clique antagonism than an actual failure of RfA.

The problem with RfA is, and always has been, that the standards to pass are neither static, nor even evident. What is the bar for number of edits? What is the bar for content contributions? What is the bar for area of Wikipedia touched? What is the bar for talk page contributions? What is the bar for AIV contributions? What is the bar for speedy tags? What is the bar for being blocked too many times? What is the bar for finding consensus on what the bar is? If everyone says 1000 edits are the norm, but I start voting for candidates with at least 36 edits, my vote is legitimate so long as I explain it, no matter how patently stupid that vote is. There are no standards, and until there are standards you cannot hold someone accountable for failing to meet standards that do not exist. This is a clique driven process. Nothing more, and nothing less. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think that it is just the supporters who need to learn from this and other RFAs. Whether you are supporting or opposing please give clear, civil and ideally diff supported reasons why, this isn't just to try and make it more of a discussion, it also helps the other participants to know what sort of things you have or have not checked. Please remember that we are deciding whether or not a particular fellow editor should become a sysop - it does no harm when opposing to also mention good things about the candidate, and it can be perfectly legitimate when supporting to point out flaws you've noticed that in your view don't merit an oppose. If Flying Toaster's RFA had not been treated by some as a skirmish in the IRC/anti IRC dispute then I doubt that tempers and stress levels would have already been so elevated when certain issues emerged afterwards. I also think that the whole process would have been far less stressful to the candidate if it had been more civil, and if the RFA had been more focussed on the candidate's editing. Also it pays to keep tabs on RFAs that one has !voted in - I can remember one RFA this year which ended with half the !votes in one direction being per a !vote that had subsequently been withdrawn by the !voter; If the issues that lead to FlyingToaster resigning her bit had emerged late in the RFA I could well understand something similar happening (though I hope that if those issues had emerged at the very end of the RFA the crat would have put it on hold whilst the candidate responded to the new issues, or used their discretion to close as unsuccessful an RFA despite it having way over the 70% - 75% support level where crats normally exercise discretion). Ϣere SpielChequers 14:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a glance at my suggestion for updating the RfA template [below] with this in mind Hiberniantears? --Childoftv (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Updating the RfA template

I was wondering if there would be any support for updating the standard RfA template to include some mandatory stipulations of the community to help ground debate and focus !voters?

The items I was considering include (I'm no expert so please say what would be better than these):

Created Articles and Other Types of Page - Statistics and links [auto-generated preferably]
Content Compliance by Random, Auto-generated [and tamper-proof] sample - This would be a sample of the editor's created articles which would need to match all basic guidelines including plagiarism copyright etc. !Voters would be able to confirm for each article that each guideline was met and state so under the link.
Evidence of Policy Application- The candidate provides [up to 10?] examples where they have brought an article not created by them into Conformance with Wikipedia Policies
Evidence of Collaboration - The candidate provides evidence of working on ~~large~~ articles collaboratively with success
Evidence of Resolution - The candidate provides evidence of a multi-party conflict which was resolved properly through their input.
~~and maybe also [though not mandatory] GAs and FAs - Auto-generated statistics and links~~ seems this one don't fly --Childoftv (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The rationale behind this is to provide a medium body of work for people to check before they feel they can support. This should be helpful in encouraging people to trust each other's opinions and hold a well grounded dialogue about the candidate. I should think "support due to having checked standard compliances, read candidate responses and also xyz" would become common in RfAs

I think that candidates would be happy to do more objective work towards their RfA for the gain of greater, less chaotic convergence of opinion during the RfA process. This would hopefully result in less frustrated debates and fewer accusations. Encouraging all parties well before, during and after to focus on first hand objective assessments through community mandated, practically manifested guidance should ground the context of the important subjective debate that needs to occur.

I think discussing what these numbered principles would be, even if people disagree that this is a good suggestion, of some worth. --Childoftv (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Outright oppose. First, the candidates are tipped off to crowd into wikipedia: space to rev up the count, now they are tipped off to punch something into FAs just to make the stats... These look like rules written to be gamed. And where is the logic of connecting large articles with collaboration? ~~How can anything auto-generated check compliance with "each (sic) guideline" ? (incidentally, the most "auto-checkable" guideline, MOS:NUM, is also the least stable).~~Misunderstood your proposal, strike out Etc, etc. RFA voters are all different and everyone looks for something different. There's no need to force candidates to heed all of them, no one is perfect. NVO (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NVO, I think the GAs and FAs might not be good as stipulations so I've left them in as less important. What do you think would represent a minimal set of stipulations? Surely there are some complex but always necessary requirements with regard to plagiarism and created articles etc? --Childoftv (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism? What is plagiarism? apart from blatant copypaste, the answer isn't straightforward. Can you examine me for plagiarism unless you have the same set of books on your desk? no. Created articles? What about folks who salvage articles created by others? etc. Any attempt to impose mechanical rules will be followed with a mechanical compliance. Anyway, if you wanted my opinion on a "minimal set", I don't have one apart from irrational trust ("I know it when I see it"). I have no reservations voting for huggle-fighters or project coordinators with meager mainspace contributions, and I don't want to set artificial obstacle courses in front of these fellows. NVO (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose All these are distractions that risk reducing the time !voters spend looking at the candidates contributions, and if we want to learn one thing from the flying toaster incident its that we need to focus more on the candidates contributions. An FA or a GA is not an audit of the candidates contributions, but an audit of an article that they have contributed to and will usually be the main author of. However if another author has done the 5% of copy editing needed to remove spam, plagiarism, POV and abuse then an article could still achieve FA status. If you want to add anything to the template I suggest diffs for recent warnings posted to the candidate's talkpage. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:Copyvio and WP:PLAGIARISM cover the definitions somewhat. Doesn't focusing the !voters encourage them to actually check the candidate's articles, which is clearly what's important rather than trust other people checked and then accuse people of lying or being sheep? --Childoftv (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd rather that !voters were assessing the candidates contributions themselves rather than focussing on the ones that the candidate considered their best work. So take a candidate who edits football articles, all their articles on former players of their team are excellent well researched and the photos were taken by them. I'd still oppose if their deleted contributions included attack pages on the ref each time their team lost a match. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree WereSpielChequers, so isn't there a way for an automatic system to pick a random sample of contributions for RfA focus, so that all candidates will need to make all their work compliant in case the random sample includes something bad. The status quo is that candidates just take short-cuts where they don't think/don't realise people will check [whether intentionally or not]. Very little gets checked this way because the task is so unfocussed and so !voters, seeing that other people's samples checked out ok, don't bother seeking their own sample of the candidate's work. More would be checked if there was some guidance ..no?--Childoftv (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We have copyvio bots that flag articles and template authors where copy violation is suspected. If someone can write a bot that spots plagiarism then I'd rather it ran across the whole of Wikipedia not just a random sample of an RFA candidates work. Editors are allowed to delete warnings from their talk page and trawling through talk page history is time consuming, so I think that a report showing warnings issued in say the last 6 months or 5,000 edits would be useful. I agree that RFA can seem unfocussed, thats why its useful for !voters to say what they have checked. I would like RFA to become a bit more like wp:FAC, as if someone whose judgement I trust says they've checked x then I will tend to check elsewhere. Perhaps we need a system similar to new page patrol whereby editors who are checking a candidates contributions could green flag edits they consider good and red flag edits they find concerning. That way we could reduce the repetition of fifty editors looking at the candidates last fifty edits, twenty looking at the first fifty and no one noticing the newby they bit 1100 edits ago. To my mind the point when a certain recent RFA went awry was when one editor described the candidates contributions as appalling without saying why. If the reason that !voter thought the contributions were appalling was that he had spotted the plagiarism, an oppose of "comparing this diff with this source the candidate appears to have committed plagiarism" would have torpedoed the RFA and saved the community much angst. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For years I've had in the back of my mind the idea of some kind of editor "trust" rating system to make it easier to review edits. Could be done well or badly, and in an enormous number of different ways (eg public Ebay-style, or just private; based only on each editors' own ratings of others, or some kind of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon social web), but done well it could be an enormous asset. Most straightforwardly, it would start with flagging edits, and list for each editor (privately, to each editor doing the flagging) the number of edits approved and rejected or modified. Rd232 ^talk 10:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Private, anonymous rating will be a disaster. There are too many cleavages and warring factions reflecting real world conflicts (Jews-Arabs, Evolution-Creation etc etc.) to assume AGF for anon ratings. NVO (talk)

? private, anonymous variant is contradictory. If it's private, only each editor knows about the ratings they make of others, no-one else. Rd232 ^talk 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose if for no other reason than because my own RfA would have failed a couple of those items (I had/have no multi-party dispute resolutions, created articles, or the incredibly vague "conformance" item). We don't need to force RfA candidates into specific roles. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me just clarify...while an anti-plagiarism bot would be cool, I'm not proposing that. I'm saying that if you give people at an RfA a sort of "where to start checking out this candidate" or "at least check here" then people will check more and their !votes will be made on better grounds and everyone will respect each other [if only a little] more. Clearly which articles are chosen for "where to start" must not be prejudiced by a person, so a machine should randomly select them, fairly.--Childoftv (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
To this very day, I have absolutely 0 created articles to my credit. I've done significant content work on a whopping two (Zombie Survival Guide and Hannah's Gift), both of which were done before my RfA; the rest of my mainspace edits are of the wikignome variety (fixing formatting, chiefly), as well as the usual anti-vandalism stuff. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, your ideas seem very good WereSpielChequers. I posted this because I'm interested in what kind of system would solve the 'focus' and 'credibility of my his !vote' problems [and also hopefully help define the necessary but not sufficient conditions of adminship]. More particularly I'm looking for a system which can do that and one which people would get behind with enough consensus to make the change.--Childoftv (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per most of the above. While I'll certainly agree that the more we vet the candidates, and the better prepared candidates are, the result is a positive in respects to the community. (yea, I know, very poor sentence structure on that). Anyway, to me it sounds too much like an attempt to force people into a groupthink mentality. Different people bring different skill-sets to the table, so I think it's best to allow each to play to their own individual strengths. — Ched : ? 16:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If the reason that !voter thought the contributions were appalling was that he had spotted the plagiarism, an oppose of "comparing this diff with this source the candidate appears to have committed plagiarism" would have torpedoed the RFA and saved the community much angst - so somehow that needs to become a norm, which is sort of the central reason I proposed this. How do we make that the norm, particularly if people have strong emotions about a candidate and what they represent? It's about encouraging legitimate claims and discouraging ambiguous emotionally loaded claims [which often don't break WP:CIVILITY ]. I think letting all sorts become admins is great, but !voters often seem to reject the theory that there are no objective necessary conditions of adminship--Childoftv (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose; many of these criteria bear no relevance to whether or not someone could make a good admin, and in any case, many RFA contributors may not hold any or all of them valuable. It would also make RFA into a box-ticking exercise. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose any arbitrary criterion. Do we trust User:X to not go nuts with the tools? If so, give him a mop. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, that is how I gained it, after all. X clamation point 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton, while I personally agree with you it's ever so clear that there are lots of people who don't. There seems to be an issue here of a set of individuals saying "I don't make this acrimonious, let's not change it, because I don't feel my attitude is to blame" but what emerges out of that is a highly ambiguous, unfocussed debate with nobody agreeing on what it is to be an admin or even what it is to constructively contribute to an RfA. Bad things will come of this frequently as it is highly anarchistic. Across many RfAs People will get offended, blocked, banned, many will lose friends and sleep and some will leave the community for good. Much needless debate about credibility of the candidate, !votes and particularly wikipedia policy will be done over and done over again because the community refuses to come together to better specify what it wants out of RfA. The status quo is tedious and full of millions of faulty assumptions and expectations which can only be subjectively bickered about. Is there nothing that can be done to improve this pointless waste of time and make RfAs respectable, well defined processes with dignified and adhered to norms of credibility and focus? --Childoftv (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, though establishing a set of requirements—some of which are more-or-less irrelevant to adminship itself—is not the right answer in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So if RfA stipulations are not the way to do it [and if they are but my headings are wrong, what should the headings be?] then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Childoftv (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also "my RfA wasn't based on this" isn't the right way to evaluate the merits of this proposal. I genuinely want an open discussion about objectivity and "grounding" the process. Just because your RfA wasn't frustrated and acrimonious doesn't mean that those which are aren't a problem, or that there might'nt be further benefits to better specification. It's about the right balance between enough grounding to make RfAs work better but not so much as to make them mechanical, arbitrary or wrongly restricted.--Childoftv (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New Question

I was thinking about a new question for the candidate - "If this is not your first RfA, how do you feel you have improved since your last RfA?" Any suggestions or thoughts? -down load ׀ sign! 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people use that question all the time. I'm sure everyone would approve of it.--(NGG) 00:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not me. Completely pointless making it standard, when it doesn't apply to many RFAs, only retries. Really, the standard questions are fine as they are. It should be up to the voter to decide whether the candidate improved or not. Majorly talk 00:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the only time I generally ask that question is if *I* haven't looked at the candidates history in too much depth or am missing how the candidate has addressed the issues raised at the first RfA. If the candidate addressed the issues, then it should be obvious from his/her contributions---and a wise nominator/candidate will address that in their opening statements. No need for a question.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's typically the sort of question that's raised in the nomination statement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that as compulsory it is unnecessary. If it needs to be asked, because it's not already covered, it will be - and regualrly is. In fact, EVula is right in suggesting that the candidates try to cover it themselves, isnce one would imagine they've asked themselves the same question re: why this RfA would pass when the last one didn't. It's a very important question, but it doesn't need formalising. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contribs point above, I do think there might be physicological aspects that would be helped by direct reply of the question, but that's nto really what is being discussed here. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good question, but standardized questions should be applicable to all candidates. Law_{type! snype?} 09:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

BexterSindicate

I was reading Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beeblebrox when I read an oppose vote signed by Bishonen, and the oppose's contents made me suspicious enough to check the page history, and when I did, I saw that the vote was made by an account signing as Bishonen, most likely to paint her in a bad light. This user's only edits are both the vote, removing SineBot's edit to their vote, and they've welcomed themselves. I was tempted to block them, but I decided to bring it here instead for a second opinion. Thanks. Acalamari 15:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for disruptive editing; it's pretty clear this is a sock. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Haha, I was just about to note your block. :P → Dylan 620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 16:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh...thanks: I was obviously too nice. :) Oppose indented. Acalamari 16:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I just paying more attention because it's me, or is it rather unusual to have 3 separate incidents like this in one RFA? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is rather unusual, this could be some sort of record. Useight (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure when the last time was I saw so many neutrals either... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's probably because so many people really really respect your work here Beebs. I think a lot of folks would really like to support, and just can't bring themselves to oppose because of a flashing red-light oopsie. Just IMHO. — Ched : ? 00:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That does seem to be an accurate assessment of the situation. I never thought an edit summary would end up torpedoing my RFA, but hey, live and learn. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm ... well, I do find value in evaluating how people deal with the inevitable mistakes they make too. I think the "learn" part of "live and learn" is important. ;) — Ched : ? 11:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Tech question: {{rfatally}}

Is this functioning properly? For example it's only registering supports at CactusWriter's RFA. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're the only opposer, does it really matter? It's not like your vote will affect the result. It's not supposed to be numbers anyway. People pay too much attention to the tally as it is. Majorly talk 15:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. You'd be best off asking X!. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot only updates every 30 minutes, so it takes a while for new !votes to register. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's spelled R-Fatally, go figure. NVO (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the real reason here is the bot appears not to register single votes that don't have anything below them. The bot recognized the oppose after I added this. Left a note at User talk:X!/Archives/05/2009#RfAtally. –xeno^talk 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just wondering. And Majorly, calm down. I was simply asking a question, there's no reason to hyperventilate. I know my oppose will not change the outcome, but I saw what appeared to be a technical glitch and inquired about it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. And don't worry, I'm not hyperventilating :) Majorly talk 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Your pC02 is still too high. Can somebody oppose the candidate on the basis of his/her favorite color to correct this? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I figure I should actually get this, but I am lost :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the scientist in me : ) Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you were trying to say carbon dioxide, you should have them subscripts or no one will understand :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Very true, but I can be insufferably lazy. I was going for "the partial pressure of carbon dioxide". Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok guys, calm down. I've solved this problem. It was actually fairly simple. When Tangotango was writing this library, he made a typo when he wrote it. The problem code was supposed to ignore lines with nothing in them, it ended up ignoring sections with only 1 item. X clamation point 16:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

In case people are interested, we've had 743 admins in December 2005; As of May 2009 we have 1660 admins. How about trying to answer this simple question, do we have enough admins or do we need more? South Bay (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering there are plenty of inactive admins and backlogs that do nothing but grow, I'd say we need more. — Σ xplicit 06:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Quantifying need for administrators is probably futile. One might attempt to measure it, by proxy, by comparing the ratio of admins to backlogs in 2005 and 2009, adjusted for article/editor inflation. The obvious answer is that the encyclopaedia always needs more good administrators, and therefore there will always be a use for processes such as RfA. Dougstech, in his selective and qualified application of the celebrated "too many admins" rationale, recognised this. Skomorokh 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RIG. But that doesn't disqualify the reasoning, "we have plenty of admins so we can afford to be selective." However, the number of admins itself doesn't tell us much. We would expect it to continue growing since few admins ever lose their adminship. A better figure might be the number of admins who edited this month compared to the number of regular users who did. Andre (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We need more admins. We need to be selective. We need to be not so selective that people who would do fine are rejected due to some sort of editcountitis. Dloh cierekim 20:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a better measure would be size of backlogs in different areas, compared to backlogs in non-admin areas (like RC and new article patrol). More pertinently, what about the backlogs in really tough areas of adminship, like WP:AE? It's not so much about raw numbers of admins, it's about having fresh troops trained, ready and willing to replace the ones out on the front lines... Franamax (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

When I started, we had less than 1,000,000 articles. Now we have more than 2,000,000. There just aren't enough admins around to have a chance of making sure of them. The quality goes down through sheer volume. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt whether most admins know where the articles are kept. "Making sure of them" falls to the regular editors who have them on their watch lists, not to administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We have less admins than in those times thanks to improved vandalfighting tools, where some work can be rather laborious. Rollback is available and Huggling/Twinkle can be installed at a moment's notice. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true Mailer, but anyone who uses automation gets opposed for it in RFA. Rather discourages anyone form bothering, I'd say. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As Franamax said, the test is whether there are enough admins to do all of the admin tasks that need to be done. My impression is that backlogs and unaddressed issues come up pretty frequently. Looie496 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, though at least there's some precedent. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, one thing that would help generally would be preparing candidates better, both for adminship and for RfA. We've got to keep trying to improve that. I've only come across Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching today, but I think this sort of thing needs more support from experienced admins who are good at that sort of thing. And as well as strengthening existing ones, we should always be looking at new ways to help prepare candidates better. Rd232 ^talk 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly something I need to do. Dloh cierekim 21:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We definitely need more admins. Kingturtle (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding and correcting mistaken "promotions" to admin

A couple of proposals aimed at reducing the risk of further disasters:

To reduce the risk of mistaken promotions, we need a Devil's Advocate in the original sense - someone whose job it is to present reasons for not making someone an admin at the time of the RfA. The Devil's Advocate should do independent research as well as scrutinising claims made by the nominator(s). Naturally the Devil's Advocate would have to be someone who understands policy well and can present evidence objectively, without any emotion-laden language. The obvious objection is that, if the nomination succeeds, the nominee will bear a grudge against the Devil's Advocate - but in that case the nominee would be unfit for adminship.
We need a recall procedure that works as a reverse RfA. We currently have something called Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship but it's unsatisfactory, because only admins, Arbitrators and Jimbo can take effective action. Arbitration cases are typically long and complex, which creates two problems: Arb may be slow to deal with an admin who is guilty of repeated misconduct; Arbcom seems to have enough work already. We need to wean ourselves away from dependence on Jimbo because he's human, so there's no guarantee of how long he'll be able to function as the final court of appeal. Admins have opposed an effective Requests for de-adminship process, but unfortunately they have lost the trust of a large chunk of the community in cases where the conduct of another admin is concerned. The obvious danger is malicious, frivoloous or just plain stupid nominations for removal of admin privileges. Any attempt to judge whether individual nominations are without merit would just create a mess: on the basis of recent events, admins would probably take a more hostile view of nominations than the wider community would; ArbCom does not have enough time to take on such cases;etc. I suggest a simple rule: no-one may nominate more than one admin for de-adminship per 12 months; nominations that break that rule are kept as a matter of record, but dismissed after evidence of a recent nomination by the same person has been attached; 3 or more nominations in 12 months by the same person results in a block. --Philcha (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with much of this.

Firstly the idea of a Devil's advocate. It's the job of every participant at RFAs to act as Devils advocate in the sense of looking for flaws in the candidate, but as we saw with Flyingtoaster it becomes counterproductive when Opposers act as a Devils advocate in the sense of talking up and overemphasising reasons for oppose, and even opposing for things unrelated to that individual candidate's suitability, such as too many admins, or I don't like IRC.

Secondly the statement "Admins have opposed an effective Requests for de-adminship process" this implies both that a workable process has been proposed and that admins collectively opposed it. I'm sure I'm not the only admin who would be happy to see a fair and effective deadminship process introduced, if such were proposed.

Thirdly the idea that if someone nominated three admins for deadminship in a year they should be blocked. Some such nominations will be good calls, whether the result is de-adminship, a good explanation or a less drastic result. Some will be bad calls. If someone legitimately and reasonably nominated four or more admins for de-adminship they should be complimented for diligence. If they nominated one simply as an attack they should be treated accordingly. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "It's the job of every participant at RFAs to act as Devils advocate in the sense of looking for flaws in the candidate", that plainly has not worked, so we need an alternative. I said the Devil's Advocate wold have to be thorough and objective - and that implies presenting evidence in the form of diffs or historical versions of pages. I agree that some embittered opposers will continue to rant, that's the price of free speech. But a well-researched and well-presented case against will often make such opposers look stupid and over-the-top, and possibly swing a few votes in the candidate's favour. "Too many admins" is just a running gag and shows no signs of becoming a meme, thank goodness. I'm less aware of "I don't like IRC" as a common reason for opposing. If it is, it suggests widespread distrust of admins. While there are plenty of admins I like and respect, I've seen enough evidence that admins treat offences by other admins much more leniently than similar offences by non-admins. The only counter to distrust is greater accountability of admins to non-admins.

I'm sure Ϣere is not the only admin who would be happy to see a fair and effective deadminship process introduced. However every time I've seen this mentioned, the majority of admins who contributed opposed, mainly on the not unreasonable grounds that vexatious proposals for de-admin would clog the system. That'swhy I proposed a means of at least limiting such abuse.

Judging whether a nomination for de-admin is sensible or without merit would require another process, and then we'd need to wensure that that was fair, etc., i.e. we'd go around in ever-decreasing circles. That's why I proposed a very simple measure to limit vexatious noms of re-admin. If you think one a year is too low, perhaps 3 per user per 12 months would be better. --Philcha (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure most admins would oppose a desysoping system that they saw as flawed, and a system that blocked someone for reporting a sock farm that included three admin accounts would in my view be flawed. The fact is that we have various system for giving feedback on admins, and we've just seen one admin pressured into resigning the bit. If you think an admin has made a mistake raise it with them - you may be surprised at the response. I believe that widening the admin pool and improving admin training would reduce distrust of the admin cadre, I'm not convinced that a better desysoping system would, though for other reasons I'd happily support reforms If I thought they'd work. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - I hate those): Ya know, BTP mentioned something (and have a great trip by the way BTP) about admins leaving the room. I'm not sure if it was implied, or that I inferred the thought - but it brings to light an intangible idea that there is a "divide" between editor and admin. Plain and simple ... that should NOT be! We are all editors here .. the fact that user:abc happens to have a couple extra tabs that will do block/protect/delete functions should not be a source of separating us into 2 distinct groups. Perhaps it does in actuality, but it really shouldn't. user:Rootology has been trying to say something very similar to this I think with his WP:EQUAL proposal. Perhaps I'm the only one who finds a bit of irony in this, given his beginning history - but from the masses comes great strength. I honestly do understand that editors work long and hard to achieve the respect, and trust required from the community to achieve passing marks in an RfA. But, the fact of the matter is, that achievement should never be viewed as a completion of a goal. An achievement to be proud of surely, but it should only be taken as a step along the way, not an "I got it" accomplishment. Sometimes people need to take one step back, in order to move two steps forward - but how do we get everyone on the same page on this? — Ched : ? 09:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ched, in principle no there should not be such a divide between admins and other editors, but a gap exists and is widening. Ever rising expectations by RFA !voters combined with decreasing civility at RFA has resulted in a year long drought of new admins. Combine that with resignations and other attrition and we have a declining core of admins to share the admin workload. The larger their proportion of time spent on admin work and the less time spent on non-admin work the less engaged admins will be with the community. Take me for example, since getting the mop I've practically disappeared from FAC as so much of my wiki time is spent at CSD. I would like us to be in a situation where all experienced civil editors were admins, and any admin spending most of their time doing admin stuff was seen as unusual. But that would require a step change to the system, such as for example a boost to the wp:new admin school with admins only allowed to use parts of the toolset for which they had passed the training module. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Spiel, how you doin? Yea, I did kinda notice that I tend to often echo your sentiments on various issues. Hopefully it's not in a parroting manner. ;). And I certainly agree that a perceived divide certainly does exist - although it really shouldn't in practice. I'd seen passing mention of the separation of tools here and there, but I don't recall a serious discussion on it to any great length. I'd imagine that there actually are a few, probably at the Pump. I have no idea what would be involved on the /dev side of it, but it very well might be worth exploration. I know the thread started with the concept that 'crats retain a "revoke" ability on newly passed RfA candidates, and I find the drift in this direction interesting. Not that my "typing out loud" actually adds any value to thread - but it probably would benefit me to research that a tad. Kind of "extend WP:UAL" if I'm following you on this. Hmmm, yea, I'll give that some thought. — Ched : ? 16:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ched, yes there have been several threads about dividing the tools further, as I remember they usually founder on the remaining tools needing access to deleted contributions; and the need for people who get that right to be vetted by RFA or similar level of check. I think I'd also oppose such a change because it might make the remaining Admin role even more selective and hard to get - as I fear was the result of unbundling rollback. I believe that boosting the new admin training system would reduce the number of admin mistakes and thereby reduce distrust of the admin cadre. It would also enable us to re-focus RFA on the key issues of trust, civility and clue; give us a way to handle admin mistakes and reintegrate admins returning after extended wikibreaks without the dwama of deadminship. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem I see with things like "reverse rfa" and implicit oversight is that they seem redundant compared to WP:ARBCOM and good 'ol fashioned observant editors. At least with the arbcom folks, you have a lot less shallow "per nom" votes and a bit more investigative detail to go with each case. Neither system is perfect, but I do not see a reason to compound the bureaucracy. Look... lets say the concern is a clever vandal passing at WP:RFA. After passing, an editor discovers the sock. Now, the moment he announces it can be compared to throwing a fishnet on a large animal. Will arbcoms temporary injunction to remove powers be slower than a week long rf_da? Will the response by the cornered vandal be less profound with his fellow editors calling for blood compared to the even-handedness of the arbitrators? I don't thing anything needs to change after the "incident" in question. Let us admit that we can make mistakes sometimes and dial up arbcom when we can't deal with discovering them. ZabMilenko 23:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC on process

A multitude of recent events, including brief discussions with User:WereSpielChequers, User:Majorly, and various other items I've inferred in the past weeks compels me to seek input from those editor who have experienced the RfA process first-hand. I'm hoping to get some input from current admins, and indeed any editors who have been through this, regardless of the "successful" or "un-successful" outcome.

How, if at all, did the RfA process affect you views of Wikipedia?
Did your editing patterns change after your RfA? .. and, (if yes) how?
What do you think the reasons for these changes were?

kthx — Ched : ? 23:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you wanting responses right here? Well, I hope so cuz here they come, even though mine isn't over yet I think it's fairly clear I'm not gonna make it this time.

My view of Wikipedia hasn't actually gone up or down as a result of this. I fully expected my edits to be closely scrutinized and I fully expected that once something was found there would be numerous "per" votes. I've watched RFA a lot more than I've participated in it, so it's not that surprising to me. What I didn't realize until after I transcluded it was what had just happened with FlyingToaster. Not that it changes or excuses my own error, but I think everyone is being extra-cautious right now because they don't want to "accidently" vote for the wrong person again. The sad thing about it is that a lot of RFA regulars apparently don't dig too deep before voting, but just wait for someone to make a point they can agree with so they'll know which way they want to vote. I repeat, though that I saw all of this (except the part about FT) before I ever nommed myself.
I doubt my actual editing pattern will change one bit as a result of this, but I will obviously be more careful with the summaries. Hardly anyone has even brought up my actual edits, or even my answers to the RFA questions. The few that have mentioned that they'd feel better if I had GA or FA articles, but I'm not willing to completely change my focus to something I might enjoy less just to pass an RFA. I also think that would be just the kind of RFA "gaming" that should be avoided. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Very sensible of you. RFA has its fads and fashions and as someone who occasionally reviews at wp:FAC I do hope that "must have an FA or GA" remains a minority view that doesn't stop good candidates passing. Having said that, if I spot a reason to oppose I don't see the point in doing a full review, except to sugar the pill by bringing out points such as Civility, FAs or a clean block log that show the candidate is a valued member of the community but either not suited for adminship or not yet ready. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review. Under the "Question" phase there are all sorts of people who answered those questions and others. The process itself stalled out - the primary user involved, Gazimoff, got pretty busy after he became an admin and it doesn't look like anyone else took up the mantle. Nathan^T 14:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's retired. It's interesting - he started in Feb. 08, became an admin 6 months later in August, and retired 6-7 months later in March. He posted a note on this page awhile back that he had changed jobs and also felt like Sisyphus pushing the review process alone. Nathan^T 14:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

/me duely notes coldly. I was not aware of that page. Thank You. — Ched : ? 16:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that initiatives to change RFA have gone nowhere... we can't all agree as to what the problem/s is/are. And even where we might agree on issues, we don't necessarily agree on solutions. For every proposal, there have been a score of reasons to resist/oppose.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WT:RFA. Maybe that should be in the front matter or something. Useight (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, personally, when I see somebody wanting to make change, I've reached the point where I roll my eyes and groan. Gazimoff's project highlighted the impossibility of meaningful change.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OH .. it wasn't that I was wanting to make changes, I'm just wondering how the whole procedure affects those who have endured it. How does it affect editing patterns and the view of WP. There is no way to suggest change until I understand how it works, and what results come about from an RfA. Does it make people bitter? .. do they retreat to secluded areas to edit? .. do admins. get pulled away from areas that they care about because they feel a sense of duty to maintenance task? ... that kinda stuff. — Ched : ? 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't foresee it happening to me, there are definitely users who have retreated into the shadows or even quit entirely as a result of a failed RFA. However, the reasons for this are probably as varied as the users themselves. Some were probably ashamed of themselves for failing, while others found out what they were doing here was not as valued as they had imagined, and some people just can't accept it when things don't go their way. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I really can't understand why someone would be ashamed of failing, or even if it's right to call getting less than 70% of the popular vote a failure at all. I've "failed" twice, but I'm not in the least ashamed by it, rather I'm amazed at the community's stupidity in not recognising an excellent candidate when presented with one. ;-) Would I stand again? Not in a million years. Will it make me leave? It probably will eventually, or at least it'll be a significant contributory factor when I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I never felt as though I was being judged against any type of objective standards, so I just tweaked a few habits to mitigate two areas of complaint which helped sink my first RfA. First, I just stopped using all caps in my edit summary when trying to get administrator action on cases that are not receiving administrator action. Then I used twinkle to run up my edit count. Then I passed my second RfA. Admittedly, I think I improved quite a bit between my first and second RfA, and that is reflected in the results of my second RfA, but again, I did not find the process terribly meaningful in judging my abilities as a sophisticated user of Wikipedia, so much as a sophisticated diplomat. If you fail an RfA, but have two or three things that people widely say you need to change before they'll support you, then just change those few things for a couple of months and you'll pass RfA. It is that easy, because it is that arbitrary. I actually got a lot more value out of Ryan Postlethwaite's admin school, as well as learning from my own mistakes. RfA used to be just a question of whether or not we trust someone to handle the responsibility. It is still that at the core, but with the addition of all kinds of individual litmus tests being applied by various individuals, which just allows a failing candidate to game the system by "meeting the goals" the next time around. Doesn't mean you have a bad admin, just a bad process for picking an admin. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A Question that has probably already been discussed to death

Since the early days of the project, RfA standards have risen exponentially. In 2004, for example, promotions with less than one thousand edits were quite common, see ChrisO, Noldoaran, Isomorphic, Pfortuny (and many more) and contributors with only 2 or 3 months of experience were routinely promoted. An editor was promoted to bureaucratship after about 4 months of serious editing, which many people now consider too little for an admin candidate, much less a 'crat. Indeed, after looking through a large number of RfAs from 2004 and 2005, if those candidates ran again today (with the same level of experience), I would expect less than 1/3 to succeed, and probably somewhere around 50% would be closed within 24 hours per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Yet, very few admins from the early flamed out and were de-sysopped; they didn't ruin the wiki; and many of them are still around today.

So here's my question: Why have standards risen so much? Why do people expect a minimum of 3k edits today and 5 or 6 months of editing? What was wrong with the days of "700 edits and 3 months, sounds like a good guy, let's promote"? I know that some people will say that back in the day the wiki was smaller and people knew each other better, so not as many edits were necessary, but that's not really the issue here. If 500 edits were enough for someone to be known in 2004, then couldn't we get to know candidates today by carefully looking at a record of 500 or 1000 edits? Cool3 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, analogy time. Someone sets up a small cornershop in the middle of a small village. They sell the best buns in the world, and everyone queues up to buy one. He is known throughout the village and unsurprisingly becomes major (of the village... pfft, whatever.) The same man, in a parallel history, sets up a small cornershop in the middle of New York City. He still sells the best buns in the world, but people walk past a barely notice the man. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't become major, and is confined to selling buns the rest of his life. See what I mean? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the rise in standards is almost unsuportable - and surely must be overdue to level out in terms of edit count and tenure. I do find some editors standards of expectation at RFA to be incredibly high. To play devils advocate however, and noting some RFA's from the early days, let us consider an older motor car as an example. It moved us from A to B. It worked. It was brilliant by the standards of the time. Now we expect anti-lock brakes, 50 to the gallon and 100 mph plus from our vehicles. Increasing expectation of the highest standards is not all bad.... except when our expectations deprive us of acceptable if sub-optimal solutions. Pedro : Chat 21:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I object to your calling Ferrari "highest standards"! :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  - I take your counter point, and accept the error of my assertion :). Pedro : Chat 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see some currency in weburiedoursecretsinthegarden's explanation, but I think there's more. Automated tools, countervandalism, mass minor copyediting, and changes in the corpus of the wiki ("Africa is no longer a redlink") have led to an increase in the average number of edits before editors ask for and obtain adminship. There's some chicken and some egg there, but I expect that standards in particular have increased because people lump every candidate into the same modern understanding of editing with automated tools, etc., so they simply expect more of everyone, even those whose individual edits are more extensive, and whose contributions are poorly measured by their edit counts. While that may not be fair, it's led to a large increase in the minimum number of edits that are expected, with a somewhat smaller consumate increase in the number of actual editing hours expected before adminship (after-all 800 non-automated, substantive edits in 2004 probably required more time than 6000 edits worth of countervandalism and spell-checking today).--chaser (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Change happens.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's called group dynamics, as groups evolve so too do the expectations. I joined a group a few years ago that was a council of a larger national group. According to the larger national groups standards, in order to hold executive positions with the group you had to have met certain experience requirements within the group. Because the council I belonged to was new, that expectation was waved. Not only that, but I was invited to represent our council at the state conference. Today, that same council would never let somebody hold that position. Then think about American soceity. My grandfather was a Colonel in the Air Force. He had a HS degree. Today, you can't be an officer without a college degree, heck senior enlisted personell are expected to have college degrees today. My Dad was a Lt Colonel before retiring, he had a PhD. In order to make it to Colonel the expectation was that you had at least a Master's degree. Today, the expectations are even higher... but this is the norm for EVERY organization and every culture. As they evolve expectations naturally increase as the rules and formality increase. 5 years ago, the rules at WP were nothing ike they are today. A person could learn all they needed in a shorter period... the number of vandals were also nothing like they are today... the prestige of WP is nothing like it is today.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is of course one major flaw (Major Flaw geddit?) in your argument, which is that unlike your own antecedents administrators never die. Would the US still be happy to have your grandfather as a serving member of the Air Force today? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that after five years on Wikipedia, administrators who stuck around are (hopefully) still capable of performing their administrative tasks. After fifty years in the military, an individual would not be capable of performing at the same level they had previously. It's going to be nigh impossible to find a perfect analogy. Useight (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are no doubt aware that wikipedia is approaching the stage where around 50% of its administrators are inactive even by the very loose "official" definition of that term. So it's not a matter of "sticking around". Still, let's not get bogged down in facts, eh? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I am aware of the high turnover, which is why I used the qualifier "who stuck around" to indicate that I was referring to the small minority with a long tenure. My statement was comparing what would be a very long tenure on Wikipedia (five years) to what would be a very long tenure in the military (fifty years). Useight (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The best answer is that standards across Wikipedia have increased in the same way over the same time period. Look at the evolution of Featured Articles over the same time period; early FAs wouldn't even merit B-class under todays classification system. As Wikipedia as a whole gets better, the standards rise with it. I would expect that the ratio of admins-to--active-editors has remained roughly constant; its just that as Wikipedia has become a larger population, we have raised the standards for the leaders of that population. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why guess? Why not look at the figures and see if you're right? And please, can we just drop the hollow pretence that administrators are "leaders"? I thought they were janitors? Or is the hollow pretence that they're janitora? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm...dude, are you talking to yourself?--(NGG) 02:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the only way to get a sensible answer around here, as you've just proved once again. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was just looking for someone to continue this thread but all I kept seeing was your response getting longer. Lol, sorry.--(NGG) 02:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(response to Malleus) Here's what I found. Today: 158,060 active users, 1,656 admins (approx 100:1). May 2004: 2945 active users, 260 admins (approx. 10:1). Problem is, the 2004 source uses a different metric for "active users": 5 edits in the last month instead of the current source's 1 edit in the last month. So these stats are pretty useless. -kotra (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You just need better stats: Wikipedia:Editing_frequency ;-) Dragons flight (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Neat, thanks (I noticed that in Category:Wikipedia statistics, but thought it was something else). In that case, switching out the May 2004 active users figure (5664), it's 95:1 now, and 22:1 in May 2004. Now my obsession with useless statistics that have little bearing on anything is momentarily sated. -kotra (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

←Warning snarky comment coming: re: "Still, let's not get bogged down in facts, eh?" ... certainly not, we are an encyclopedic effort after all ... lol. Sorry Mal, I just couldn't resist ;) — Ched : ? 03:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Jayron is on to something. As any population increases, in a Darwinian sense, those who were once Gods will again become men. The above average go back to mediocrity. With ever increasing numbers, there is a better genepool to select from, so standards naturally shift to those with the perceived talent. The college you attend today most likely has stricter standards than it did 20 or even 10 years ago. When God invented microbreweries, Coors just wasn't cutting it for me anymore. Law_{type! snype?} 04:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Works fine for closed systems, through in emigration and it's not so rosy. NVO (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly not an empirical approach or I could have contradicted myself with US presidential candidates over the last 50 years where one could argue that the system has become so watered down that it is impossible to distinguish any one individual as being exceptional. Law_{type! snype?} 06:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a divide at RFA between those who consider that all civil, experienced editors in goodstanding should become admins, and those who consider that admins should be some sort of elite uberwikipedians. If like me you tend to the former group then having less than a thousand admins amongst our 158,000 active users is deeply troubling. If you belong to the latter group then please consider; What happens when the standards at RFA rise to the point where most wikipedians are unlikely to meet them during their wiki career? How do we keep our dwindling number of active admins as part of the community if they have to spend an increasing proportion of their Wiki time doing admin actions? And remember, since there is no consensus as to what an uberwikipedian looks like, even candidates that you support may still be rejected. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one has considered the issues related to reducing the risk of ill-considered admin actions and correcting as quickly as possible those that occur - i.e the need for a swift and fair appeals system and and a swift and fair recall system. Without these, it's quite reasonable for editors to want to front-load all the safeguards into RfAs. --Philcha (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PEREN#It should be easier to remove adminship Rd232 ^talk 10:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that the "Reasons for rejection" at WP:PEREN#It should be easier to remove adminship lead with "Rejected by admins". I suggest the fact that admins give much greater weight to the views of other admins is a another reason for "ordinary" editors to be hyper-cautious at RfA. --Philcha (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason actually given is "Many admins object that a system like this would be too open to abuse by editors who have been disciplined by admins for violating policy." Which is I've suggested (in passing, never tried to make a proper proposal) that a recall request could be made by anyone, but this would be ignorable unless a number of admins support the recall, and then it would be taken to a formal Arbcom-like (if not actually Arbcom) procedure. Rd232 ^talk 13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems a little to me like the referee of a football match having to get the agreement of a players' teammates before being allowed to send the player off the pitch. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No. A closer analogy would be requiring the agreement of all footballers in a league before a player can be banned from playing. The alternative we're trying to avoid is letting fans vote on the issue. Rd232 ^talk 13:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Like Malleus, I think requiring others admins to approve a recall would not solve the problem. I've suggested elsewhere that a fixed number of recalls per 12 months per editor (not accounts, you don't get extra tries for sockpuppets) would be a simple way to control frivolous or malicious recall motions. Or perhaps a system like challenges in tennis - each challenge substracts from the quota, but each successful challenge adds to the quota. --Philcha (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Any system would be better than none. Why would admins approving a recall not work? At least it's fairly simple and easy to understand, unlike whatever it is you're suggesting. Rd232 ^talk 13:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well someone's got to be the first to say it, so here goes. Would turkeys vote for Thanksgiving? The lack of trust in the administrator corps from a significant and I dare say increasing, number of regular editors would make any proposal that administrators themselves have the last say in approving a recall a laughing stock. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm pretty sure that trust issues relate (a) to specific admins and (b) to a failure to have a better system for reviewing controversial admin actions, not to lacking trust in the "admin corps". Second, do we allow the general population to vote on whether individual cops should get sacked? No, we have internal investigations, and perhaps some external body to handle complaints and do investigations as well. As long as admins have a police function, letting the people they're supposed to police judge them is highly problematic if it isn't filtered appropriately. Rd232 ^talk 14:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The analogy "do we allow the general population to vote on whether individual cops should get sacked" is both invalid and unreassuring. It's invalid because, at least in theory, cops are accountable to elected representatives, whom the public can vote out. It's unreassuring because there are too many police scandals of both commission and omission, and they mostly get away with it even when there's clear evidence of wrong-doing. --Philcha (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not an invalid analogy. Arbcom is elected, and can throw admins out after investigation. The problem is that there is no working equivalent of internal review or internal investigations, which to mind would exactly involve admin discussion, based on evidence from anyone. Reminder: currently there is no process, apart from Arbcom (which is and should be a last resort). Rd232 ^talk 14:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Err, just remind me. How many members of the present ArbCom are not administrators? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Your point being? They're elected. If people objected that much to them being admins, they wouldn't vote for them. Frankly, I'm starting to think you have issues with admins that derive from bad personal experience, in which case, again, if there was any misbehaviour or misjudgement by an admin, that doesn't mean you should treat the class of admins as a political cabal. Rd232 ^talk 18:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't care what you think; the only thing that matters to me is what I think. And I think that when you stick your head in the sand your arse makes a very good target. How many of the active editors voted? Who had the final say in who was elected? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone had the option of voting. It was advertised to all. It's like people who complain about Obama who didn't vote either way... except on Wikipedia, one vote matters even more, because there's much less people. hmwith τ 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What, we don't even get a 3/5th compromise?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice try ~~Schizo~~I'm Spartacus!. For a 3/5th compromise on WP the analogue of slaves would be non-admins. Get real :-) Philcha (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not based upon what MF wrote, he wants to disenfranchize admins.... now the notion that non-admins only count as 3/5ths of an admin in building consensus, I could go along with that :P ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

MF's did not say that, he said, "would make any proposal that administrators themselves have the last say in approving a recall a laughing stock". My intention, and I think MF's, was that admins get the same voting rights as other registered users. --Philcha (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To draw some of these ideas together: adminship offers access to more powerful tools than it did a few years ago, and WP is generally more complicated. So RfA standards should have risen, and did. The pool of qualified applying candidates has also grown (as the community has grown), but not proportionally. Two problems I see. First, the continuing lack of a workable desysopping procedure, or even a system for monitoring the behaviour of new admins (developing Wikipedia:Administrator review?), which makes RfA such a painful crunch point. (There's a reason it's a perennial proposal.) Second, the range of tools and experiences candidates and admins can have is now so wide that it makes it very difficult to establish a clear relationship between a candidate's experience and the admin tools they'll have access to and duties they'll be expected to be capable of performing. Short of finding some way of making specialist admins (formally or informally), or breaking away some of the tools from adminship to separate roles, I can't see a way around that. Rd232 ^talk 10:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I expect the RFA standard to grow even higher because of the growing popularity of en.wikipedia. We will have more people running for adminship in future. AdjustShift (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick eyeball of the figures does not appear to support your assertion that wikipedia's popularity is growing. Quite the reverse in fact; it appears that the peak number of active editors occurred about two years ago, and has been in steady decline since then. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Popularity in terms of usage may still be rising, but new editors are not joining us in the numbers they once did, or at least not as fast as editors leave. I fear that overzealous new page patrolling maybe partly responsible for the loss of editors. I'm not aware that the tools are any wider than they once were - if anything the unbundling of rollback and account creation have reduced the number of admin only tools. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussions like this one always stall because very few seem quite certain of what they want to achieve by them, or can even agree the premises on which they're based. For instance, Probably everyone would agree that one active administrator per 100,000 active editors is to say the least a little on the low side, but would everyone agree that one active administrator per five active editors was too many? One per two editors? What would an optimum ratio be? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the general view was that there was no optimum ratio of admins to users, only of admins to admin workload. Rd232 ^talk 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Admin workload" is just busy work, a lot of it created by an unwillingness to grasp the nettle and make a few changes that would eliminate much of it. The number of janitors an institution employs doesn't depend on the size of the institution (the "workload"), it depends on what use is being made of the facility. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes such as? Anyway that's irrelevant to the point. It may be we can reduce admin workload, but admin workload is still the reason to have admins. Rd232 ^talk 14:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes such as flagged revisions, semi-protection of BLPs ... have you been living in a cave for the past few months? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the original question, I think standards with regards to experience have risen too much. I got my tools without much drama after my account was 3-4 months old and had made about 3000 edits, but a record like that would probably be NOTNOWed in short order. Regarding edit counts, the presence of automated tools has made inflating the edit count total easier, and that may account for the higher "average edit count for a new admin" figure we have today, but it doesn't provide an adequate explanation for why a candidate with 2000-4000 substantial non-automated edits should fail. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

People tend to look at the numbers and not how good the edits are. That may explain why an RFA candidate with 2000-4000 substantial non-automated edits may fail. AdjustShift (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, that is why they may fail, but it doesn't explain why they should fail. Your observation that people look at numbers rather than the substance of the edits is right on the money, unfortunately. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

They shouldn't fail. An RFA of a candidate with 2000-4000 substantial non-automated edits shouldn't fail. But the RFA regulars have the habit of looking at the number of edits, rather than the substance of the edits. If an RFA candidate has contributed to difficult subjects like differential calculus, done very little automated edits, and knows about the WP policies, his RFA should pass. But he may struggle to pass because of the low edit count. AdjustShift (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)