Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 223

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 220 Archive 221 Archive 222 Archive 223 Archive 224 Archive 225 → Archive 230

curious

Does anyone here know what the fastest WP:100 was? Just curious. — Ched :  ?  17:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Just grabbing some WP:100 RfBs, here are the following times for the first 100 supports:
Also WP:200 RfBs (still first 100 supports):
These are just a few that I found and (roughly) calculated. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 18:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks The Anonymouse - looks like Riana has the time to beat then. — Ched :  ?  18:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if the current RfB will get to 200. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 19:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised ASO. A very respected editor. (good call on the nom) — Ched :  ?  19:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Heh. Kinda interesting that my RfB got 200 supports within the first 14 hours and only got 37 more supports in the 4.5 more days it was open! Guess those 39 opposes did what they were meant to do ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 22:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if the stats were confusing, but you got 100 supports in the first 14 hours, not 200. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 05:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hah, that makes a lot more sense. And I should have verified, too! ~ Riana ⁂ 15:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Depends on how you measure things. WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 4 took 52 hours from first vote to hundredth vote. Measuring from WP:Requests for adminship/Kww, it was over eighteen months.—Kww(talk) 16:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

What was over eighteen months? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 17:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Another request for adminship. TBrandley 17:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh! He meant eighteen months between his first and last RfA? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 17:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Fastness is not what we should aim for as a quality factor in an RfA in my opinion, nor in sex. Perhaps thoroughness of the voters.--Razionale (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Round Two done, Round Three is up

Round Two of the Requests for Comment (RfC) on the Requests for Adminship (RfA) process was a success by any measure, and has now been closed. The final round is a one-week vote on two proposals that got support, but relatively few votes, so we're advertising widely and hoping for broader participation in Round Three. - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I put up notifications here and at WP:CENT, WP:VPR, WP:AN, and Jimbo's talk page, and Ed will be putting a notice in the Signpost. Does anyone want a notification anywhere else? - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
After Round Three is over, what do you intend to do with the heavily supported proposals from Round Two that aren't being dealt with in the current round? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The delete-your-own-pages proposal has already gone to the devs ... are you talking about the 3 proposals intended to drum up new candidates, or do you mean Probation and Recall too? - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I mean any proposals that were not defeated in Round Two but aren't being discussed in Round Three. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 17:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, fair question. I'll be watching with interest as people work on the 3 proposals to try to drum up new candidates, and I'll probably participate, but I won't take a leading role; I don't see myself as the leader of these processes, all I did was make a proposal for an RfC and close Round Two with Ed, and we'll be closing Round Three (which won't take much effort). - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
So the plan is to immediately begin implementing those 3 proposals (for drumming up candidates) as soon as the RfC ends (which I believe would be very soon)? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Closing statement is up for Round Three (links to all 3 rounds are at WP:RFA2013). I'd like to help, but I'd rather stay uninvolved to make it easier to close RfCs involving admin tools, since just about no one volunteers to close those. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The predictable part. Round 3 is failing. Overwhelming opposition of both proposals.—cyberpower ChatOffline 03:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

We've added another proposal, "Probation", to Round Three. Have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Still failing. :p-Cyberpower678| converse _ 15:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

April 1

We're having three April 1 jokes running for adminship: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GA bot and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pinkie Pie.--Razionale (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Cute. I assume someone will delete them at midnight? --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
May I assume this notice at the top of the page - Cyberbot I has detected an internal conflict and will self destruct in 7 hours - is also an April Fools joke? --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
No I think that's real, it will consume its own code if not fixed QuiteUnusual (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Please no deletions. Consider the past years ones. They can be moved to a subpage of Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2013 per previous years' noms. The same goes for the request for foundership. Ryan Vesey 18:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I think I should be offended. Example already has a higher Support percentage than my last RFA and haven't edited since 2009. Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't let it bother you; keep in mind that Example spent all his time from 2009-2013 on IRC, chatting and sucking up and canvassing a support network for this RFA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if you are serious or just playing along with the april fools joke like I was but its all good in the hood. On a more serious note I don't think very highly of the RFA process anyway or in the all or nothing toolset so even if it wasn't April 1st it still wouldn't bother me. Its not uncommon for people to get the tools that shouldn't have them or don't use them. That's why we have 600+ Admins and its the same 20 characters who do all the admin work. Besides I have pissed off so many editors and hurt so many feelings I'm surprised I'm allowed to edit. It's only a matter of time till I get blocked again but oh well. Such is life. I used to beleive in the project and was hyper active on here but now I'm just piddling. Kumioko (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the Pinkie Pie one, at least, should be deleted. The user is blocked for socking, but it's a real username. wctaiwan (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Plus, the block was just 1 year ago, not for example 10.--Razionale (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFA2013

From the closing statement: The next step is to see how much of a difference the four proposals that passed in Round Two will make: Concerned editors start searching for quality candidates, Auto-prospecting, Project for nominators, and Unbundling - some U1 and G7s. There was a strong consensus in Round One that the RfA process should be more productive and easier to navigate, and if the proposals that passed are sufficient to achieve the desired goals, then this series of RfCs is done. If not, then we'll need to take a closer look at what jobs aren't getting done as the admin corps shrinks, and what can be done about that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and created WikiProject Admin Nominators. Anyone with an interest in the nominations process is very welcome to join. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Nice layout. — Ched :  ?  22:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is a pretty good design now that Ched mentions it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?

I am conducting a survey at the link above to accomplish two things. First, I hope to gather a list of some potential future candidates interested in cratship. Second, I hope to be able to use the results of the survey as solid evidence of how admins view the RfB process and what factors cause the very low amount of activity. Anyone is welcome to comment, but the input of admins is particularly desired. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 14:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have this conversation every couple of weeks, and as far as I can remember always come to the same conclusion - that RfB activity is low, but it doesn't matter as there isn't a lot of 'crat-specific work and the current 'crats themselves don't feel overworked. I'm not criticising the process you're running there, but I can't see the need to have this debate yet again. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal April 2013

Based on
  • Jimbo's quote about adminship being "no big deal"
  • Apoc. 13:1. And I saw a beast coming up out the sea, ...
  • Interpretation: a monster (being) coming out of the sea of unfairness (sins) shows no mercy.
Assuming
I propose following solution bundle
RfA on probation:
  • By a majority's decision greater than 61.8034% (golden ratio rule)
Confirming RfA after 6 months:
  • By a majority's decision greater than 61.8034% (golden ratio rule)
First safety valve, desysop:
  • 'Confirming RfA' is triggered by 20 votes (one ninth of about 180 votes/ RfA)
Second safety valve, RfA stop:
  • the RfA process stops each year after 200 successful RfAs (2008 statistics)
--Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Well a Wikipedia consensus doesn't work after the Wikipedia hype in 2007. Even a pope election gets problems with a two thirds majority. It seemed to me that a golden ratio is high enough. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


  • Novel proposal but clearly not one that will gain any traction. Seriously? Beasts in the sea? Spartaz Humbug! 14:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, let's see. Random bible(?) quote in opening, followed by a false assumption, followed by some sort of weird math theory of how to elect people...no, I don't think this is comprehensible, much less workable. It might help if you could explain what's up with the quote, weird ratios, etc - maybe it makes sense to you, but it doesn't to me (or, probably, anyone else). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't believe that it is a false assumption. I think that I'm old enough to know that it's true. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      You know that there is a cohesive minority group deliberately and in bad faith blocking attempts to reach consensus on this issue? That's what's implied by your saying that they are "blocking" consensus by "abusing" their veto right, and it's an astoundingly bad-faith accusation. You're not saying that it's difficult to reach consensus, or that the sheer numbers of people participating means that majorities are rarely reached, or even that the existence of a significant minority unbalances discussions, but that people are deliberately obstructing attempts to reach consensus. And frankly, given how hard it is to get anyone on Wikipedia to agree or cooperate on anything, I very much doubt that such a conspiracy exists. If you have evidence that it does, you ought to take it directly to Arbcom. If you don't, you may want to consider re-wording your point so that it says something more realistic. Perhaps "I think we should discount the largest minority opinion in any deliberation over RFA reform" or something? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Doing some investigating, I see that English is not your native language, so it's probably better for me to explain how you seem to be making a point here you might not have intended to make, rather than assume you were making that point. So, to that end: the way you phrased your "assuming" section, you appear to be saying that you believe and know to be true the fact that there are people who, operating in bad faith, are trying to keep consensus from happening by abusing their rights/powers. If that's what you truly meant, then evidence of such a conspiracy should be sent to Arbcom or presented on ANI, so we can get it dealt with, and if you can't or won't provide that evidence, such an accusation can be consiered a personal attack. On the other hand, if what you actually intended to say was something more like "loud minorities seem to pop up in any discussion and they keep consensus from forming", then yes, that's probably true, but I personally don't feel we can deal with that by somehow nullifying the position of the minorities, which is what would happen if we adopted your proposal and said "well, we can't get consensus on reform, so we're just going to institute it anyway." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, we had KZs and Gulags. You assume that there is only sporadic conspiracy around us. The world history, on the other hand, tells me that the conspiracy tool is quite used. All have gut feeling and instinct. I believe that if we make a WP:RfC on: "do you believe that the consensus-building process is being blocked by loud minorities", we'll get a majority agreeing with it. This is no evidence for Arbcom, but it'd be still a fact. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • These proposals always rely on one of two assumptions: A) People don't apply because they think they will fail; or B) People don't apply because they don't look forward to being torn apart. Lowering the threshold naturally solves a lot of A, assuming it is true. Regarding B, this idea has been floated around a bunch that if you make it easier to remove an admin, then people won't feel a need to be so vicious in opposing them in the first place. Most of these assumptions are questionable. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
People who think they will fail probably will. Lowering the threshold would risk putting us back to pre 2007 days where most of the defrocked admins come from. Hence lower criteria would just create more work all round and possibly evoke even more skepticism about the ambitions, maturity, and the proficiency of the candidates. In reality, there is no theshold, it its set anew for each RfA depending on who turns out to vote. If we were to set fixed criteria for edit count, content creations, participation in meta areas, etc., we would be ignoring the very important research that is done by dedicated voters who turn up some very relevant reasons to opppose. All that is needed is for opposers to be a bit nicer in the way they express themselves - the main threholds that needs to be changed are the ones for civility and objective voting on RfA and hence significantly reducing to the drama; untill these are changed, any kind of alternative process will still invite the same nastiness. A quick glance at recent RfAs will demonstrate that apart from a handful of regulars, most of the voters are a transient bunch of people, as has been demonstrated by statistacs that were extrapolated during the WP:RFA2011 campaign.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
@User:Someguy1221. Nice summary. Making easier to remove a new admin, can help. If you don't like the situation as it is now, then you have to change something. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
@User:Kudpung. As I understand, my proposal changes one criteria only: from something like 80-70% support votes now to 61.8%. The rest is left unchanged. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as too complicated. I've noted that a number of people do not like to participate in the discussion at RFA because they feel like they will get badgered, and some are. Not everyone is as thick skinned as some of us old fools. There are a number of problems with RfA, but adding complexity seems to be counterintuitive as a solution. Greater participation by reasonable editors, plus less bludgeoning during the process would make it more tolerable. Lowering the bar to compensate for what is perceived as "bad opposers" is more than a little controversial. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A simple way to improve the situation. Establish some good criteria, and then have the norm for respondents to rate or discuss meeting those criteria. This would thin out responses based only on popularity contests, grudges, and the defacto "have you avoided difficult situations" criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal for RfA conduct clarification (amendments to editnotice and addition to Template:RfA)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Trevj has asked that this be closed, so I'm closing it as no consensus. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thread retitled from "Proposal for RfA conduct clarification (amendments to editnotice and addition to Template:RfA)".

As part of the discussions arising from a recent RfA I've worked up some proposals to attempt to clarify things for participants. There's been some recent discussion on my talk page, and it now seems time to seek wider views. -- Trevj (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC note: Because of the relatively low participation levels here so far, at what is sometimes a busy place, I'm now starting an RfC on this. If consensus is clear before the 30 days are up, it may be appropriate to close it early. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Outline
  1. {{RfA/sandbox}} is based on {{RfA}}
  2. It includes the #Conduct clarification section, which is currently at Template:RfA conduct clarification/sandbox (should this approach be adopted, it may be best to directly include the text, due to the substitution of {{RfA}})
  3. User:Trevj/Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/sandbox is based on {{Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship}} (in userspace because of the protection on editnotices) - the {{cot}} title could be replaced with Conduct clarification but the current transclusion arrangement uses the title Applicable to all
Rationale
  1. There may be a need to clarify when it's appropriate for candidates to publicly thank others
  2. Badgering is something which comes up from time to time, and perhaps also deserves an explicit mention
Questions
  1. Would something along these lines offer an improvement (bearing in mind that we should avoid instruction creep)?
  2. If so, can wording be agreed upon here?
  3. If the proposal (or a variant of it) offers no improvement, how else can we better address the matters raised?

Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. I strongly endorse the clarifications regarding (1) the prohibition of canvassing by any and all parties regarding an RfA, and (2) the prohibition of talk page thank-you notes by candidates until the RfA is closed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Simple fix to a real problem. Garamond Lethet
    c     21:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment While the effort is appreciated, I'm not sure this is a good idea for several reasons. Some things - like civility and badgering - cannot be defined and we don't want editors to err on the side of timidity. The badgering clause, for example, may actually end up having a chilling effect on discussions (candidates may be wary of asking legitimate questions from an oppose !voter because of the badgering clause). The "off topic" clause is practically an invitation to editors to move things to the talk page. Once moved, it becomes harder for others to move them back. The 'diffs' suggestion is the only workable one and even that needs to be modified to "try to provide diffs'. We can't expect every !voter to provide diffs (see the support section of any RfA!). I could add that many of the things being advised against are actually good ways to get the measure of a candidate as well but, even without that, this is not a good idea. --regentspark (comment) 21:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks. What about the bit concerning not canvassing? (The diff note is lifted from {{Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship}}, and isn't my wording.) -- Trevj (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not so sure this is a good idea. Its not just CREEP; one of the things we look for in a potential admin is CLUE. If we actually have to instruct them not to do this, then it is likely they aren't ready for the bit. Puppy (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Does no harm but as the previous editor points out, it should be obvious that sending thank you messages before closure is naive. Leaky Caldron 14:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Wrong Place. Instead, I would suggest that Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#Thankspam be slightly edited to give guidance during an RfA instead of being for successful candidates as it stands now. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(Here by request of RFC Bot) While i'm leaning towards oppose because of the idea of not being able to thank people for taking part in an RfA before it closes just doesn't seem fair to judge to me i'm also aware of the suggestion that Badgering needs to be mentioned and i'm probably missing a lot of factors here so i'm gonna lean towards Neutral for this one. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 09:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment (original poster) I'm restoring this RfC from Archive 222, because it's not yet been closed. Therefore, I'm also requesting closure. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    In closing this, maybe it'd be helpful if some reference could be made to comments raised in the 2013 RfC (which I've not been following closely). Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Amadscientist (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    Is there any chance of you expanding on that, please (and maybe addressing question 3)? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    I've just dropped a {{talkback}} template in connection with this. In the absence of any expansion here, I trust that the closer will weight the above comment appropriately. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, I should have expanded. I don't really think it has been demonstrated that a problem exists that needs fixing here. and agree with Puppy that this is instruction creep by adding something not necessarily needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with the concerns given by RegentsPark and Puppy above. One of the things I look at when !voting is how the administrator handles themselves during the RfA. If we do want to be more explicit here though I agree with Guy Macon that it should be in the guidance thankspam section. PaleAqua (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closers will be needed

... in early May for WT:Protected Page Editor. I know it's unusual to ask in advance, but it sometimes takes a while to get closers for these. I got no takers at WP:AN. I'm also asking at WP:BN; anyone have an idea where else I might ask? - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wizardman is in; one slot left. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Willing to help out if you don't find a second. I'm not planning to contribute to that discussion (no opinion!).--regentspark (comment) 18:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic. Sven Manguard and Secret have also offered, so we've got 5 so far. I take back my "one slot left" comment ... the more people talking about this and working on it, the better. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Any other closers? I'll add the "discussion" template to stop the RfC after 30 days, early on May 3 (UTC). Would any of you like to start working on a joint closing statement, or would you prefer individual closing statements? - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok I'm ready to discuss, I think a joint closing statement would be useful here, for me the consensus is rather clear but we need to sort though all the arguements of both the support and the oppose. Besides me, RegentsPark, Sven and Wizardman who is the fifth closer? Secret account 16:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Me. I'm fine with working on it here, or by email. - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I have to pull out of doing the close because I voted. Sorry. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that, maybe next time. Who's in for the close, and when do you want to start working on it? I'll be hatting the discussion on Thursday evening (US Eastern time), when the 30 days runs. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I could look through it Thurs night; anyone else closing? Wizardman 17:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I could put aside a couple of hours on Thursday afternoon. Secret, should we just send you our opinions and you write up a summary version? --regentspark (comment) 19:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll email you guys a few thoughts on Thursday. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, I could look at it tonight. Secret account 16:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/No big deal?

We often hear people cite the "old" proverb that adminship is no big deal. The RfC linked above asks you to objectively say if you believe the Wikipedia community currently treats adminship as if it is no big deal. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Serious, mature, objective, and hard-working admins are well aware that adminship is absolutely no big deal. What has turned it into a big deal are the trials and tribulations of going through a week of unpleasantness which is suffered by even those who pass in the end with flying colours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I was going to respond to this RFC in some detail, but realized it's pointless. OWN of policy will prevent any serious discussion or change. Intothatdarkness 13:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'OWN of policy' but a couple of things are strikingly clear: the turnout for the spate of well intended RfCs during the first quarter of this year was exceptionally low - so low that even a well publicised central RfC proposal for a major change in the way admins are selected/elected would probably not attract sufficient quorum for a major policy change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
If it's no big deal, why do so many people make it such a big deal, especially at RFA/RFB? PumpkinSky talk 01:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
OWN of policy is pretty easy to understand, really. Over time, people who have been involved in creation of policy become vested in that policy. Just like OWNing articles, OWNing policy is a real issue (although it's not discussed or really addressed). OWNing policy and the various shadow bureaucracies are two of the main reasons things are dysfunctional. Intothatdarkness 13:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Semi-serious answer to Pumpkin Sky—Sayre's law--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Having thought about this issue for several years now, my conclusion is that adminship is a medium-sized deal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This will no doubt seem pedantic but it isn't about the tools - it's all about control and that's why it is a big deal. I've no interest in having an unbundling debate, but it is specifically the ability to stop people editing (block, protect), to destroy their work (delete) and to act as a quasi-judge at ANI that makes it a big deal. If admins had no special power to sit in judgement but just neutrally implemented the judgement of the community at large, then people would be less concerned about who had the buttons. QuiteUnusual (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to explain the difference between the two, go right ahead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
An example: AfDs require judgement from the closer on the arguments being made, so people are sensitive about granting the rights needed to close the AfD (i.e., delete). If AfDs were closed solely on the basis of a vote rather than weighing up consensus and policy (e.g., 80% in favour of the outcome with at least 10 people voting) then it really wouldn't matter who had the ability to delete because they could only use it in line with the community consensus, not their own opinion or judgement. Another example: Imagine there was an elected role of "Wikipedia Judge" that had no extra buttons but was empowered to make all decisions, like judging consensus in an AfD. All an admin could do is implement a Judge's decision. I can pretty much guarantee that RFJs would be like RFA today, and RFA would become no big deal again - anyone who appeared trustworthy to use the rights in a technically correct way would pass. In other words, I would advocate separating in some way "trusted to use the tools" and "trusted to sit in judgement". I have no practical suggestions for doing this - I was perhaps misguidedly trying to help explain where I think the problem lies QuiteUnusual (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the root cause of your confusion here is your misunderstanding of what consensus is. Having admins with a clue who would ignore head counts is a massive win for us, and indeed the only practical way to make decisions on a project with an effectively unlimited contributor base. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Adminship is no big deal in the sense that it's no honour or prestige. Being an admin doesn't make you taller, prettier, smarter, or better in bed. It's an enormous deal in the sense that it gives you control over the web's most used site for information. So we have to be quite careful about who we let become admins, because the consequences of letting the wrong person be an admin can be diasterousmostly explained here, but the only thing they get is a sinking feeling whenever they log in and see "You have new messages." WilyD 16:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Done properly, adminship isn't about control, it is about implementation. Everything an admin does is supposed to be in line with current consensus, ie: if I block someone, the judgement I should use is "If this went to ANI, a consensus would say to block". The community has simply given me the tools to implement the actions, after they decided I had the common sense and experience to know when to bring it to an admin board and when to just make the call and save them the time. Theoretically, this is how it supposed to work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
After you've been blocked for one second, or for using the word "sycophantic", you may start to feel differently Dennis. Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, give it a rest. I think that everyone is aware of your butthurt by now. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 18:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Of (a) people walking around with chips on their shoulders, and (b) people who take every opportunity to knock the chips off other peoples' shoulders, the latter are much more loathsome and far more disruptive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Does my "butthurt" in some way invalidate my comment Scottywong, and if so how? Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't invalidate your comment, it just makes you annoying, and therefore less likely to have your complaints addressed. Everyone is aware of the trials and tribulations that the Great Malleus has had to withstand, no need for continual reminders. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 18:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Listen to Scottywong, know your place and be quiet Malleus. Scottywong is an admin, you are one of the disposables. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I made a serious error by responding here, not noticing that I would be in breach of my ArbCom sanction, so Scottywong may have his playground to himself. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
No, that's entirely wrong. Being an admin gives me a large amount of control - if nothing else, admins are entrusted with the power to determine the consensus of a discussion. Very few decisions are ever reviewed, and unless you're working in a really public place, it's because nobody's watching. If you want adminship to be about implementation, you need an enormous amount of trust in admins, because what this board hands out is control. WilyD 08:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm on the record trying to get more non-admin to close discussions, as the majority of discussions do not require the admin bit, just an experienced editor. Having the bit doesn't give us better judgement in determining consensus, just the ability to implement the changes. Granted, part of the reason we get support at RFA is that they trust we can judge consensus, but we admin haven't cornered the market on good judgement. There are many more non-admin with good judgement than the total number of active admin. I strongly prefer non-admin closing discussions that relate to content, for example. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict; outdent) The takeaway from this subthread, which is running off the rails very quickly, is that adminship is a big deal in the sense that an administrator who makes poor decisions, particularly with regard to blocking, can do a lot of damage. Most of us are keenly aware of this fact, but it's good to bear it in mind.

The use on Wikipedia of terms such as "butthurt" should be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Could we please have a list of words that non admins should avoid. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I do generally avoid the use of such terms, except in cases where no better adjective exists to describe the situation. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I've always found it rather insulting when people insist that adminship (taken as a whole) is no big deal. Any time you give someone the ability to deny or block access it becomes a big deal. Couple that with life tenure subject to little review or real scrutiny and it remains a big deal. There are parts of the admin tool set that are indeed not a big deal, and some that might register as a medium deal. And people can be as keenly aware of that fact (blocking coupled with poor decisions) as they wish, but that awareness should be coupled with the understanding that it's that part of admining that IS a big deal. Denying that is, to me, a symptom of OWNing policy. Intothatdarkness 22:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Dennis Brown referred above to how the admin system is "supposed to work". Is there some place where the purpose or aims of the admin system are set out in a coherent fashion? Something similar to a mission statement, or perhaps a constitution, since the admins form a power base on Wikipedia and give themselves draconian powers over content builders. I, for one, would like to know what it is admins think they are here for, as admins. I would have thought the core guiding principle would be that the actions of admins should facilitate the building of the encyclopaedia. But it is clear that something quite different often goes on. Are critics such as Malleus now being banned from participating on boards like this? Is Malleus actually banned, as he suggested above, or could he be said to be banned by some stretch of the imagination? There is a current fashion of imposing vague edit restrictions on editors so if they edit something at the outer conceivable extreme of the restriction, something that as Sandstein usually expresses it, can be "broadly construed" as breaking the restriction, they can then be blocked for a long period. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
To answer your question about Malleus, yes, the Arbitration Committee has topic banned Malleus from making any edits related to the RFA process, except for !voting and asking questions in RFAs themselves (in general you can check for these kinds of restrictions/topic bans on WP:RESTRICT). FunPika 23:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
An exemplary warning to all of us who are not admins. Am I permitted to ask how admins know what they are here for? Admins often make pronouncements on these boards about what they are here for. How do they know how the admin system is "supposed to work"? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at the Administrators' reading list. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a list of articles about specific areas. Where's the mission statement or its equivalent setting out what admins are here for and what their core guiding principles are? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators would seem to include this information. Is there something you believe should be included there that is missing? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The section Expectations of adminship touches on this. It says with the vagueness that often characterises admin policies and guidelines, that "Administrator tools are... used with judgment... Administrators are expected to lead by example..." and "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools...". Just to what extent they are accountable is not really set out – I have never seen an admin desopped for behaving abusively towards content builders. But this falls well short of some sort of mission statement or constitution, which would clearly set out what admins are trying to achieve on Wikipedia, how they should go about it, and might also clarify any dignity or rights that might be accorded to content builders and other workers on Wikipedia. For example, should the admin system be about facilitating the building of the encyclopaedia or should it be about other things, what quality of relationship should be cultivated with content builders and other key members of the community, and to what extent would the admin system be committed to remedying matters when it is clear it falls short. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Good questions. For what it's worth, there was a failed proposal on admin accountability many years ago. Given that even attempts to change the RfA process consistently fail, I'm guessing that it would be very difficult indeed to reach agreement on a mission statement. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That's true. I just wanted to establish whether there was anything like a mission statement. There's no point in trying to construct one now; the system is too dysfunctional to achieve anything coherent or rational in that direction. It will have to wait till the current system collapses, and is replaced by something more workable. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
There was also WP:RAS that I authored with the help of User:Coren, which would have made admin more directly answerable to the rest of the community. My theory about what admin are here for is based on the idea that admin are part of the community, no different than anyone else, but it isn't practical to let everyone block/protect/delete without getting vandalism, so admin are here to do it on behalf of the community at their request (either expressed or implied based on previous experience), not to decide what should and shouldn't be done according to our own whims. Hence why I think we should be implementers and not controllers, and more accountable in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Dennis, what you personally think as an individual admin is negated by what other admins think. There is no centralised vision on Wikipedia about what admins are here for or how they should behave. Instead, vague guidelines and policies controlled by the admins themselves allow a sort of laissez faire individualism which enables each admin to decide for him or herself what kind of admin they want to be. Which is why it is now impossible to change these things in the admin system without external intervention or revolt by non admins. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
If, hypothetically (ahem), someone ran for admin with an enforceable undertaking of (a) not blocking anyone; and (b) a strict term limit, would that affect your view of the candidate or the process? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of problems with Wikipedia these days and one of the main ones is the mentality by some that adminship these days is a big deal. It is not, nor should it be a big deal to get, or to remove if someone has broken the rules. Over time though we have made it harder to get and nearly impossible to remove. We have also engrained into it and the culture that the admins are rarely if ever wrong and frequently hear things like "they're an admin, they know [instert your cliche' here]' and that has developed an us and them rift in the culture. Adding to that we are ever increasing the requirement to have the tools to do things like edit protected pages because more and more content is being protected including entire namespaces. The RFA has become a legendary nightmare, admin abuse is rampant and largely uncontrolled, etc. We need to eliminate the mentality that its no big deal. If the problem is that experienced editors who have been here for years "cannot be trusted" to be admins and the intent is that no matter what experience they have or that they are capable and willing to help do some of the admin tasks then they should be asked to leave the project. Few people in the project seem to care about building an encyclopedia anymore and its become more about status and power than contribution. We need to change that. I think everyone agrees that needs to change. The way to do that is to make it easier to contribute, not harder and if they abuse the tools, take them away! Most admins wouldn't even be able to pass a current RFA, that itself is a statement about the culture we have spent the last few years establishing and needs to change. The arguments that editors who have been here for years cannot be trusted with the tools is utter and complete bullshit. If we couldn't be trusted or didn't contribute we would be banned from the project completely long ago. Kumioko (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You must be in a different subculture than I am. Outside of forums like this, I rarely see admins mentioned at all except to complain about one of their decisions. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Nope, same subculture. I just have 22, 000 pages on my watchlist so I have a wide visibility of what the do right and wrong. Honestly most admins don't use their tools at all or rarely. Its the same 20-25 that do 90%+ of the admin related actions the problem is some of these have it in their heads they are always right and are above reproach. Additionally, when we/they are told that Admins are exempt from WP:Harassment and WP:Involved and are allowed to do things like endlessly harass and pursue editors they don't like or act like jerks because they know Arbcom is the only one that can revoke the tools it doesn't reflect well on the community. We allow it to happen and look the other way. I did it for years so I am guilty as anyone. Its getting worse and worse though and we need to put an end to it before it gets completely out of hand. Kumioko (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It's worth contemplating the recent advice given by a veteran admin to a 17 year old school boy who wants to be an admin. The advice was that if, over a period of 12 months, he works well on deletion issues, new page patrols and vandalism, then he should be able to succeed in a RfA. There would be little issue if the school boy were to be given rights to delete pages and block vandals. But no. He will receive the whole caboodle that all admins receive whether they need them or earned them, including rights that would be totally inappropriate in this case. Such as the right to lock down articles so experienced editors can't edit them, and the right to block experienced editors pretty much at whim. This will elevate the school boy, for the rest of his life, to an unearned position of privileged power over Wikipedia's principal content builders. No wonder he's so keen to be an admin. Even if the school boy doesn't block the experienced editors, the threat is always there in the background. For content editors, it's rather like trying to negotiate with a security man holding a taser. It is a contemptible system, totally under the control of the admins themselves. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Very well said. Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
There can be no honourable working conditions for committed builders of Wikipedia until matters like this are addressed from a position of common sense or natural justice. What could be more absurd than the treatment our finest copy editor has received, Malleus Fatuorum? What could be more absurd than the the treatment dealt to our finest bot operator, Rich Farmbrough? Everyone goes off the rails a bit from time to time. Normal human beings cannot intensively contribute in an environment like this year after year without getting a bit silly from time to time. These two are not, in any conceivable sense, editors working to the detriment of Wikipedia. If Malleus and Rich offended here and there, why is the Wikipedia admin system so crippled and pathetic that it cannot extend forgiveness and wipe the slate clean after the matters have been duly aired? What on earth is the admin system thinking? Is it really that stunningly stupid? We are all humans. Where is there a mandated acceptance of that on Wikipedia (apart from the extraordinarily generous de facto leeway admins extend to other admins)? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Well said Epi. See this PumpkinSky talk 09:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like — Ched :  ?  10:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

RFA Minimum

So I was scrapping together some info for an op-ed on RFA reform I'm thinking of writing, and I was wondering: What was the editor with the lowest edit count to have a successful RFA? Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In which year? Because I remember someone with just a few hundred edits or even less passed, in eldritch times...Lectonar (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I passed in November 2012 with circa 6500 edits; that was probably the lowest in recent times, though I haven't checked. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 21:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Update as of Oct'13, long after conversation was archived. (Dear xLinkBot or your human revert-when-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes equivalent: yes, I realize it says at the top DoNotEditTheContentsOfThisPage. Please see WP:NORULES, the encyclopedia is improved by the addition of my qualifying statement here, to the one-liner Robofish tossed off to be controversial -- it worked as you can see from Kumioko's heated response. Since I found the statement via googling, no doubt others will find it in the future. Think before you revert. Thanks.) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Update as of Oct'13, long after conversation was archived. The person in question had 42 edits on en.wikipedia.org (now up to 525) , but 10k+ edits on de.wikipedia.org (now up to 26k), and was specifically asking permission for edit-rights to six admin-restricted pages here, all of them related to his bot-speciality which is anti-spam work (mostly with xLinkBot blacklists it seems).[1][2][3] The actual unwritten minimum number for an edit-count, to have a hope of passing your RfA, as of 2013, is way north of 5000... and usually, requires that you be generating around a thousand edits per month. Difficult to accomplish, unless most of your editing is vandal-fighting and spam-reverting and CSD and NPP and other gunslinging work, 50 per day or so, which takes about an hour per evening. If you spend time adding content to articles, make sure you submit tons of little changes (one per minute spent editing or more), rather than one large update, if you want your edit-count to rise quickly enough to survive RfA someday. Automated editing tools will help you create this facade. Or maybe... adminship should really be no big deal, as it was in the Jimborrasic Era? I'm personally leaning pretty strongly towards option two. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I would add that the Lustiger seth RFA is an insult to those of us that have devoted large amounts of time to EnWiki to only be told to Fuck off and we can't be trusted but to then allow someone with less than 5 months experience and less than 50 edits to be an admin is just plain insulting and ridiculous. So does this mean that if I submit an RFA and state that any Admin can indefinitely block me if I misuse the tools and promise I will never ever block a vandal or protect a page that's being vandalized I can be an admin too? I doubt that very much. Kumioko (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Try it. I would support you. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. But I don't there are many others who feel the same way. Besides its not how the process should work. If an 18 year old college kid who's still living with mom and dad and still feels awkward around girls can be trusted because they never levied an oppose vote on a topic, then a 40 year old world traveller with an advanced degree, a good job and a family should be just or more trustworthy because they had the morale courage to vote their conscience. Kumioko (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning that there are sortable tables of candidates by number of edits and tenure from 2009-2012 at Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued)/Candidates WormTT(talk) 07:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Taelus had 3076 edits when he passed in early 2010, but otherwise I think that 3,500 is the defacto minimum for the current era. There have been a few at that level and some were clear successes. Of course as lustiger seth proved the community can sometimes be persuaded to include edits in other projects when evaluating candidates. ϢereSpielChequers 10:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • We should be pushing for quality, not quantity. 2,500 brilliant edits is much more preferable than 10,000 mediocre ones. GiantSnowman 11:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
That's true to a point but RFA or being an admin isn't really about number of edits anyway. Its about having the trust of the community and that more often than not requires one to have less edits rather than more. The More edits one has the more likely they will have done something to irritate one of the editors out there. In fact the most "trusted" admins and the ones who generally get the tools are the ones who rarely edit outside discussions and admin forums. I don't have any respect for the RFA process at this point and I doubt more than a couple do. It has absolutely nothing to do with trust, ability, maturity or ability. What it shows is that if you kiss enough ass and keep your head down you can get the tools, once you get the tools you can do virtually whatever you want, without fear of losing the tools because it takes an act of Wikicongress to remove them and they are granted for life. Kumioko (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I could never trust editors who rarely edit outside discussions and admin forums, and have have absolutely no respect for them either. The admins I trust are the ones with a solid record of article work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There needs to be some focus on what process would genuinely establish a minimum standard for the "trust of the community". At the moment this is a term admins apply to other admins and merely means that they passed an RfA. Passing an RfA means getting about 70% of the vote from the users who typically vote at RfAs. I don't know whether objective counts have been made here, but it seems clear that most voters at RfAs are repeat voters drawn from a tiny group of say 300 users, mainly politicised admins and users who inhabit the various drama boards. This is not in the slightest degree a representative sample of users on Wikipedia. It is absurd to say that such outcomes establish the "trust of the community". Using the term in that way is just a form of admin speak or disinformation. Some beginning steps in the right direction would be to exclude admins and admin hopefuls from voting, and to weight the votes of the remaining voters by allowing each voter one vote for every 10,0000 edits they have made, or one vote for every 10 articles over 20K they have written. Then we would start getting results more representative of the users who are actually building Wikipedia, and with less bias towards users who are here to shape the admin system into an ever more comfortable form of ecclesiastical sinecure. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    We have people serving on ArbCom who only got 60%. How would you exclude an admin hopeful from voting? Who are they? Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Not sure. Users with past RfAs. Users who state on their user page they want to be an admin. Users who self disclose... I guess that's not really workable. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Trust" means that their actions are predictable, or at least fully consistent with previous actions, and their words and demeanor in communication convey calm and steady, and there is no hint anywhere of aggression. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (warning: possible NPA violation per WP:BITE)Yet another whirl around the "what will it take for me to become an Admin roller coaster", this time from an editor who in their present guise has been here for 2 months, informs us that they are a journalist, historian, and chemist all the time while being a school student. Give us a break, please. If you have been here only 2 months you can have no sensible input or contribution to make into the alleged issues pertaining to RfAs. A 4 month RFC on RfA reform just ended. Go read it [4], [5], [6], [7]. Leaky Caldron 12:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I have absolutely NO intentions of becoming an administrator anytime soon, despite my status as a student, I do take classes and am trained in all three of those areas, and this is a clean start account of a user that has been here since 2008. Frankly, I am offended by your haughty assumptions. Go soak your head.
Signed, Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 20:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

AfD "accuracy"

What's up with the idea that the percentage of time that your AfD vote agreed with the outcome is some kind of indicator of "accuracy"? Are we that deep into some kind of self-reinforcing groupthink spiral that this ridiculous idea goes unchallenged? Gigs (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's challenged every time it's brought up in an RfA. — Bility (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it has been been challenged quite often, from both sides. While I don't personally go wild over it, it is not an inherently bad metric, just not a particularly good one imho. Cluefulness is not something a number can easily be attached to but just because the model is wrong doesn't mean it isn't useful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
In a way it is challenged, but in another way it isn't. It seems to me that it's challenged as a rationale to justify opposition, but the core question of whether often being in agreement with eventual AfD outcomes is even a good thing doesn't seem to be challenged. There's an implicit assumption built into it that the outcome at AfD is never "wrong". Gigs (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't think so (see Nick's comment below) but rather that in AfD aggregated as a whole is usually pretty good. A 100% record is meaningless if you've been in two of 'em, but after a few hundred the statistical noise dies off a bit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
If the closing admin has correctly determined consensus, then it never is wrong, even when it's wrong. That's how consensus works. — Bility (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
A consensus of 3 or 4 people, one or two of which might have been involved with writing the article or a friend of that person, aren't much of a consensus. That's par for the course at AfD. Such a consensus goes against our wiki-wide consensus on a somewhat regular basis. Gigs (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Administrators delete content, editors don't, the only way to gain some idea of how accurate any given editor is going to be at deleting inappropriate and retaining appropriate content is to see how they comment at AfD and to review their tagging of speedily deleted material. That's not to say it's a perfect system but it's better than no system. The problem stems not from reviewing the comments and deciding for yourself whether the editor has the level of understanding YOU want in an administrator, but setting great store by percentages. Articles can be deleted for stupid reasons, not deleted for stupid reasons, administrators can and do make mistakes, discussions can be stacked. If you're reviewing just the percentage and not the actual comments or level of clue shown by the editor, then you're a bit daft, really, but looking at the percentage gives a sensible starting point for looking through comments and assessing ability in any given editor. Nick (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Similar, some might say, to edit count. The number doesn't mean anything really, but when an editor waltzes into RfA with 40 or 400,000 edits, eyebrows are raised. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
We expect our admins to obey and enforce policy. There is no requirement that an admin actually agree with written policy, let alone every AFD consensus. From reading such opposes, I think that some editors are concerned that an admin-hopeful who consistently falls on the "wrong side" of an AFD may have a misunderstanding of policies/guidelines related to article retention. But that is of course a dangerous thing to assume simply from a number. I agree with Nick that it is a starting point only - you still have to go through those AFDs and assess the !votes on a case-by-case basis. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is close to what I am getting at. This is why I mentioned groupthink. Someone with a strong understanding of policy is probably more likely to vote against the prevailing discussion at AfD. It doesn't take any understanding of policy to make a bunch of uncontroversial tack-on keep and delete votes. It takes a strong understanding of policy to back up an opinion that is going against the numbers. Gigs (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of curiosity Gigs, when were you planning to run for adminship again? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
No time soon. Gigs (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I do find this trend particularly unhelpful as it risks encouraging bandwagon voting. I know personally if I browse AfD I will often not bother participating if a debate is obviously going the way I feel it should go - but if people are genuinely judging on this metric, it's in my interest to go and throw an extra opinion that doesn't actually help consensus. Conversely, if I feel the consensus is going the wrong way I risk looking like an idiot in this metric by going against the hive mind! Very dangerous - but i've been happy to see this generally being challenged when it does get used at RfA. ~ mazca talk 17:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
As others have said, a particularly low 'accuracy' number may signal an individual who either has a poor grasp of policy or who is inclined to tilt at windmills, while a one-hundred-percent 'accuracy' should prompt concerns about me-too vote padding—but the interpretation of the number should rely on an investigation of actual edits, never on the number itself.
In any case, I have long felt that a useful standard question would be along the lines of,
Please provide a few examples of project-space edits (AfD, AN/I, etc.) where you believe you have offered a concise summary of a situation, along with a sensible recommendation/suggestion/request for action, accompanied by a clearly-stated rationale.
In other words, we want admin candidates to show us that they are capable of
  • figuring out what's going on in a situation,
  • describing cogently to other editors (admins or not) what's happening,
  • coming up with reasonable solutions, and
  • explaining why their proposed solution is worthwhile and in line with the goals of the project.
These are skills that nearly every admin will be called upon to use, and they are skills that every non-admin should be in a position to demonstrate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Some basic metrics are required as starting criteria for the suitability of a candidate, and their performance at AfD is one of them. Of more concern, are especially the bandwaggon voters (on both RfA and AfD), who do little or none of their own conscientious research before chiming in. AfD always has been a leaky bucket.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • AFD Accuracy is a worthless measure. All this does is promote that a user vote in the popular direction on as many AFD's as possible if they are going to be running for RFA. I am much more concerned that the candidate participates in venues than whether they voted to keep or delete something. As an admin they aren't there to vote stack, their there to perform the action required by consensus whether that is to close the discussion or delete the Article as required in the AFD. Wether they voted to keep it or delete it really doesn't matter much. Kumioko (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It matters because the comments with which they accompany their vote can demonstarte whether or not they have a clear understanding of policy. That's why RfA voters who rely on a candidate's AfD stats should should review the actual AfDs and not simply take the stats themselves for granted. The same is frelevant for any voter's decision based on CSD tagging performance. If we didn't have any metrics at all, RfA would simply be a 'I like/don't like' the candidate exercise which I am sure nobody here really wants either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you noticed but RFA is already a popularity contest and has been for quite a long time. I also strongly disagree that someone who votes on an AFD for whatever the popular vote is going is in any way beneficial. All this tells the user is that if they just go along and vote in the direction things are going with the AFD, and add a few up before they run, then they increase their chances of it passing. I would much rather they vote their feelings, right or wrong, then going with the flow to build up AFD credit. OF course this is coming from someone who will never be allowed to be an admin so take that for whatever its worth. Kumioko (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

WT:Protected_Page_Editor

Okay, that RfC has been closed, sorry for the delay. Are there any RfA-related RfCs coming in the near future? I'm about ready to dive into some work at Milhist that might keep me from closing such RfCs in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 12:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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)
If you want to be even lazier, you could use "WP:BN" instead. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
*Cough*...I always am that lazy indeed. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I would high five you, but... eh... EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:48, 17 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)

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 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)

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.[8] 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)
It seems fairly clear that that was a lower bound estimate rather than an absolute limit. Regardless, we also need more GA/FA reviewers, more OTRS volunteers… hey we could use more editors! Jebus989✰ 23:25, 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)

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 [9] 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)

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)
So... lots of effort for high drama and no reward, plus the added bonus of a high risk for inadvertent bad decisions? Wow, you'd think people would be lining up. Manning (talk) 05:47, 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.
  1. 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.
  2. "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?
  3. "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.
  4. 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.
  5. "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)
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. "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)

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 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)
  • 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)
I think a year should pretty much average it out.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 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)
    Interesting, thanks for posting.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 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)
I delete those kinds of articles frequently, and although I occasionally I get flak, mostly I don't. Perhaps you're just unlucky (smile).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:05, 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)
    And I certainly do not want to know. This make life much more difficult.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 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)

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)

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)
  • 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)

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, [10][11]. 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)

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)
I actually kinda count you among the active ones, but not in a bad way.:-) Kumioko (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I really appreciate that. But if I was to look through my edits and actions for the last few months I think I would fit the title of active gnome who occasionally is active as an admin or otherwise as an editor. ϢereSpielChequers 14:55, 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)
I think the 50%+1 is a pretty good solution for starters. I still don't think it will pass though. Too many are vested in the existing system and would deny it ever being implemented. Kumioko (talk) 19:13, 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)
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)
Those who do not write content and are only here to comment on boards should not be here at all. Most sysops, Epipelagic, are content writers, mind you. TCN7JM 21:48, 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)

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)
(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)
[12] --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)
  • (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)
    Strat, are you going to start an RFC about the future of RFA? If so, I'd be willing to comment. TCN7JM 23:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    I very well may. this is a first step in gauging support for the merits of the approach.--My76Strat (talk) 23:59, 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)

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)
My claim (in passing) was that "many seem to fail", of course some have some support but we seem to agree failure is a common outcome of RfA-related RFCs. Regardless it's somewhat ancillary to my main point about this specific proposal Jebus989✰ 20:39, 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)

Sure let's give it a shot. Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 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.
We need more dishwashers, basically. — The Potato Hose 20:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko, I think you have confounded two copyright areas. WP:CP is backlogged roughly 2 months; WP:CCI is actually backlogged around 3.5 years. --Stfg (talk) 21:01, 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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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)
  1. Named account for three weeks != length of time spent observing and interacting with Wikipedia
  2. Length of time on Wikipedia is unrelated to the substance of my point, namely
  3. 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)
You cannot call Epipelagic out for complaining about how nothing has worked and then do the same thing yourself. If we know what data we are looking for, then it will be easier to find the problem. So let's do that, okay? TCN7JM 01:04, 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.
  1. There are about 650 editors on the site that have the admin toolset or higher (Checkuser, Beauracrat, etc.).
  2. 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.
  3. The rest of the admins rarely, if ever, use their tools. This is for a variety of reasons.
  4. 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).
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
"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)
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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_223&oldid=1151037347"