Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-01-17/News and notes

A belated congrats to the editors of the Signpost for its 12th anniversary. We couldn't do without it. Erik Zachte (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Erik Zachte! We weren't digging for a compliment...well, OK, I suppose maybe we were :) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC) (Editor)[reply]

• Having watched those recent RFA's unfold, I will offer advice for potential admins - if you hold right wing / conservative views in US politics, you must never mention them on wiki or let your edits show your POV. Even if you've never let this affect the content you add. In fact, you're probably better off making a few comments about holding left wing political views here and there for the history diggers. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I generally agree that the watchlist notices, question limits, and the ORCP were the most helpful improvements. Having been responsible for the 2015 RfC, I freely admit that those changes were not a cure-all (although I would take note of the fact that I am, to this day, the only person in the history of Wikipedia to get any kind of change effected at RfA via the consensus process). The minor alteration to the discretionary range did not seem to do a whole lot a good, because in practice, the old range still seems to be applied in 'crat chats. I think a major problem is the great reluctance of 'crats to simply throw out oppose votes that are not grounded in policy.

But the heart of the RfA issue is really the high and unreasonable personal standards of certain participants. To be fair, the RfC did propose direct restrictions on RfA standards, but I did not seriously expect such a proposal to come anywhere near passing, so it wasn't as well thought-out as it could have been. But I don't think such a proposal would ever pass, regardless of how well-thought out it was—I have differed substantially with Kudpung on a good many issues, but there no doubt that he is correct when he says that people are still simply not willing to give up one of their last free-for-all playgrounds. However, I invite any willing person to attempt a thorough RfC on restricting RfA standards, and we'll see how it turns out.

Ultimately, I still hold to my belief that RfA itself will never be completely fixed, and the only true solution is to scrap it completely. Sometimes I even doubt the wisdom of the whole "consensus" idea. It is vague, and it creates a situation in which the closers, rather the participants, ultimately determine what does or does not happen. So it is not exactly true to say that "the community determines Wikipedia policy," or that "the community chooses its admins." No one can dispute that straight up-or-down votes are much more simple, efficient, and stress-free. After all, voting worked just fine a couple of months ago, and has worked in that context for over a decade now.

Biblio (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that RfA is essentially a political process, and selecting people for positions of public trust is always stressful and fraught with difficulties in balancing kindness with the need to publicly evaluate candidates. Go Phightins! and I had discussed the possibility of referencing an article like the following in the article, but didn't get around to it: People are so stressed by this election that the American Psychological Association has coping tips That's not to say that we don't have additional, unique considerations that compound the issue...but it's worthwhile to keep in mind that it's a challenging area for any community with formal positions. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC) (Editor)[reply]

• But the heart of the RfA issue is really the high and unreasonable personal standards of certain participants - this perception is of course completely wrong, as anyone knows who has been actively engaged in the search for suitable candidates for many years. The true reason lies incontestably in the behaviour of the voters, and as I stated to Signpost, when this is mentioned, people usually turn away. Kudos nevertheless to Biblioworm for having proven that change changes to the RfA process can be brought about. All we need now are the right changes, suggested and proposed in a compelling manner - and the incessant, cyclic talk at WT:RFA with its regular interjections by detractors, is not it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The true reason lies incontestably in the behaviour of the voters... - Exactly my point. The arguments at RfA are, far more often than not, in correlation with unreasonable demands on the candidates. You know as well as I do that the trouble always arises when someone opposes a candidate for some ridiculous reason. Biblio (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...the high and unreasonable personal standards of certain participants are actually rarely the reason for a candidate to fail and they haven't moved the goalposts to a higher grade point average. The Major issue with RfA is that potential candidates of the right calibre are reluctant to let thmselves be hung out to dry by such a viscous and nasty minded cult of vindictiveness and PA. That's why your argument is wrong, Biblioworm - you haven't been around long enough to know. Some of us have closely followed 300 RfA or more over the past many years. Your reforms were very important in that they proved that change can be brought about, and no one disputes that, but they didn't actually change the status quo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And who comprises that viscous and nasty minded cult of vindictiveness and PA? The unreasonable voters, obviously. The nastiness always breaks out in the "Oppose" section when someone posts some ridiculous rationale for why a candidate shouldn't succeed, and then proceeds to fight tooth and nail against it being discounted as it should be. And by the way, I have also examined many RfAs, including the very first ones from 2001. Biblio (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an ADMIN as opposed to most of those who have been interviewed for this story. However, I try to participate in all RFAs because I am very concerned about Bad Apple ADMINs. I define Bad Apple types as editors who have a chilling affect on those who cross paths with them to the point of losing potential good editors. I realize that many wannabe ADMINs don't want to go through a gruelling process to get the "mop". However I believe those unwilling to stand up to scrutiny, should not be ADMINs on wikipedia. Wikipedia is a vast world with no Separation of powers which, unfortunately, invites people with agendas to gain the tools that allow them to get rid of other editors with whom they disagree. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

• There are bad apples in every walk of life, from police officers, polititians, priests, and presidents. These people are always a rare and small part of society and I resent admins all being tarred with the same brush. Talkng about it too much spreads a totally disproportionate paranoia. I was badly treated by a pair of team tagging teenage admins (fortuately neither of them still around) which led me to want to understand how such people were allowed to become admins, and I began some research. Some while later it was suggested to me that I run for adminship, which I boldly did. My own RfA demonstrated without any doubt whatsoever that RfA is a horrible and broken process. The research I coordinated in 2011 however, did not reveal any compelling evidence that there are in fact many rotten apple admins - more to the point, it demonstrated conclusively that there is (or perhaps was) a distinctly disturbing rotten mentality among far too many of the voters, whether they regularly or only occasionally participate in RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Thanks for the well-written response. I have "known" you for sometime and I know you are sincere, and that you really believe that bad apples are few and far between. However, I and many others(I think?), who belong to the lower classes here at wiki-land, feel that our wiki-existence depends on being able to avoid confrontations with bad apples. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

• RFAs are in no way a "promotion." I thought we were five or six years past that way of thinking. The administrative tool kit and administrators are one thing. Content writers are another. The former is not superior to the latter. Carrite (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: With all due respect, that is true in theory, but my wiki-experience indictates otherwise. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

I think Ottawahitech, that my own experience with admins which was bad enough, speaks for itself particularly and especially on my RfA where the prime detractor, whose vicious PA on my RfA caused a storm of pile-on of opposes, is a since desysoped admin with a history of imposing his own version of 'facts' on hundreds, if not thousands of articles which largely escaped detection, again under the premise 'If he's an admin, he must be right'. Despite all this, and what I have witnessed in the ensuing 6 years, I still do not consider bad admins to be more than 1 or 2 percent of the truly active admins. A large number of whom show up regularly at Wikimania and whom I find to be, with only one exception (now desysoped), a bunch of actually rather nice people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

even if 1%, it is like rat turds in the raisins. they have an outsized harm. we had a promise to say good-bye to the toxic though productive, which remains unfulfilled. the 1% do not come to conferences or wikimanias, are they trainable? here is a self-diagnostic http://electricpulp.com/guykawasaki/arse/ might want to avoid those habits. Beatley (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beatly, do you actually know what we are discussing here? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That, Carrite, is a classic example of taking written communication out of context. I would have thought anyone would have perfectly understood why I put the word in quotes. Personally, I think 'promotion' has more to do with the climbing of greasy poles on the one hand, and the world of paid occupation on the other. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2017 (UT

Dear Ottawahitech You and I may not be so far apart as you might think. RFA is a process that enables the community to assess applicants for adminship and filter out the unsuitable ones. Your test "editors who have a chilling affect on those who cross paths with them" lacks a little precision, I suspect there may be edge cases where one person thinks the flaw was in the way a speedy was declined and another is more concerned about sloppy deletion tagging. But if you follow that test, look at RFA candidates, check their contributions and give diff supported evidence where you can make a case that the candidate is likely to have a chilling effect on other goodfaith editors, then you shouldn't be contributing to RFA being a gruelling process. In most RFAs I believe you will find yourself happily supporting candidates who do not have a chilling effect on others. In my experience RFA is at its most gruelling where we disagree on our RFA criteria, with some people asserting a candidate is qualified and others looking at the same evidence and saying that they also want x or y. Occasionally that may result in RFAs where we debate whether a particular comment is snarky or sufficiently recent to be troubling. But most candidate should pass your criteria with ease. ϢereSpielChequers 17:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betteridge's law of headlines. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a fairly recent addition to the Admin corps, I would descripe the RfA process AS tortuous and grueling. I would not encourage other experienced editors to go through the RfA process. It was personal, painful and brutal. It was not as if I was applying for super secret access to government documents, just the tools to be an admin. But regular editors have their arbitrary standards and if you don't meet them, well, forget it. Luckily, there were more people who trusted my judgment rather than editors who look at every non-content producing editor with highest levels of suspicion. The craziest thing is that even if I made some unfair and arbitrary judgement on another editor (which I was unlikely to do), another admin could undo or question my decision. Admin decisions aren't carved into stone. Admins disagree with each other all of the time, which I believe is HEALTHY. None of us have "godlike" status. If one admin makes an egregious error, contact another admin and state your case. Please, do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]