Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 197

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

Archive 190

←

Archive 195

Most admins are inactive

There are now only 847 active admins, fewer than at any time since mid 2006, and this week, for I believe the first time, the number of inactive admins overtook the number of active admins. Do people have an idea as to long this decline can continue for before it starts to have repercussions? Ϣere SpielChequers 17:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well this was bound to happen sooner or later, since we don't remove rights from inactive admins. The real question is, are the number of active admins sufficient to handle the administrative load? –xeno^talk 17:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was bound to happen; for the reason you point out, the number of inactive admins was inevitably going to rise indefinitely, but I see no reason that it was bound to do so at a greater rate than new ones are minted. Steve Smith (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to log out (ie. become inactive) than it is to pass RfA (ie. produce another active sysop). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, point taken, but we also have to take into account the ever-gradually rising bar for adminship. –xeno^talk 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, this question has been asked for the better part of at least two years...and the project is still doing quite well. I personally don't perceive whatever problems it has to be related to the number of active admins. Whether or not the article of the day is protected...how we treat BLP articles...whether or not a newly-registered user should be allowed to create articles...whether or not stubs are valid articles...and any number of other policy issues are much more likely to affect the project than how many admins are active. And, of course, on a slightly sarcastic note...there's really important stuff to be done around here. For example, we really need to figure out the proper way to title Lilibet's article...and more admins won't help there. Frank | talk 17:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<after ec with nod of agreement to julian and xeno> Past that point. There's tons of stuff out there I never deal with-- missed vandalism and missed pages that should be deleted. I sometimes revert vandalism that's days old. My mind boggles that there are over 5,000,000 articles. When I started there were fewer than 1,000,000. If 1/2 of us have gone inactive, is it natural attrition or burnout, or rather how much of each? There are many factors involved, the 'pedia has evolved, and the community seems more fractious than before. I'm not sure how well we're doing-- the vast increase in the number of articles seems great, but has then been a corresponding increase in skilled editors and sourcers? The declining admin number is just a symptom of a bigger problem. Back to the original question-- animation helps, but there are more admin tasks then ever. There is no way to give adequate time to all the backlogs, let alone work on article improvement. It takes an increasing amount of time to gain proficiency, and the community has been very dissatisfied with RFA candidates of late. Fewer people are applying- does that mean there off gaining the requisite skills? have lost all hope? don't really care or have an interest? I fear the latter-- that there is a vast number of editors with no interest in the encyclopedia beyond creating articles of particular interest to them . Dloh cierekim 17:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK its the declining number of active admins that we should focus on not the ratio of active to inactive. Hopefully 847 can keep up with the urgent stuff, but how long can that continue for as active admin numbers continue to decline, and what other price do we pay? Are our remaining admins spending an increasing proportion of their wiki time on admin stuff and are they in consequence getting more detached from the community? Ϣere SpielChequers 18:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How many bots/tools do we have to aid an admin? I know that there are admins out there using bots/tools to delete articles/move articles/etc at a rate much higher than what was possible a year or two ago. Thus, 1 admin today with the right tools can do more than 10 admins could 2 years ago without the same tools.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And that was part of my point - completely unwritten but it was in my head :-) Frank | talk 18:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the 847 includes at least 9 admin bots, 8 of which started since the beginning of last year, so the number of active non-bot admins is declining even faster than the total active admins..... Ϣere SpielChequers 18:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My view is that the results of the Cda RfC reveal the core of the problem. As Nakon's script clearly shows, admins are overwhelmingly against a moderate de-adminship proposal that can only take the mop away with a two-thirds !vote in favor to do so. A majority of non-admins are in favor of Cda, therefore it is the admin votes that have killed the proposal.

Since adminship is for life and allows powerful advantages that a minority of admins misuse, the community is more and more inclined to examine Rfa candidates with a microscope, which in turn discourages new candidates from running. I believe the admin system is broken, with low-grade abuse by some admins ongoing. This abuse is often longterm but too borderline for notice by arbcom, and Cda (as warty as the process that developed it and the final result is) was designed to provide an alternative way for the community to take action in such cases.

As I see it, Wikipedia is now stuck, seeing that opposition to admin term limits or other reasonable solutions is substantial from the tenured admin ranks that the community is increasingly reluctant to further significantly enlarge. As age, illness and distractions reduce the active admin ranks, quality admin time spent solving problems is likely to decline, bots notwithstanding.Jusdafax 19:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, the way to dilute all this power is to give it to more people-- dilute it. There should not be such a huge divide between admins and non admins. Admin should not be a lofty few. But they are too few. Soon, too few to matter. Dloh cierekim 19:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Look at how some RFA's go and imagine what the circus would be like at a CDA request after you'd really made some enemies by taking tough decisions. Is it any wonder that admins tend to be cautious about de-adminship proposals? Who wants to go through that every three months? Franamax (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No shit. This is the primary reason admins have to be suspicious about weak CDA procedures. We have a lot of eminently reasonable people (and some unreasonable people) turned away at RfA because they made pernicious enemies. Now we can have a song and dance about which is the cart and which the horse. But we are still locked in the bad social equilibrium. Asking one side to unilaterally disarm in the face of consequences like that is near-foolishness. And frankly the worry is less vague 'admin abuse' and more narrow obvious breaches of trust. Situtations like that are handled relatively well by arbcom. Protonk (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, you can still get 70% or more in arb elections even after fighting a lot with fundamentalists and racial supremacists, and most people don't do that until they become admin. Still, there's heaps of admins idling away on IRC YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I would be interested in seeing a histogram by number-of-actions and perhaps in what areas. If 40 admins were doing the bulk of the work when there were 1600 active admins, and 40 admins do the bulk of the work now, there's still a pretty good buffer. I'd also be interested in analysis of the impact of the abuse filter (and ClueBot), which I suspect might be profound. The important number, I think, is the ratio of "problems-per-admin" - is that growing or shrinking? As a side comment, maybe the decline is in the number of "bad" admins from the good 'ol days, but I see no way to measure that. Franamax (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see a good method to remove bad admins, but CDA isn't it. (I actually support what I'm told is even less popular, some kind of reaffirmation of community trust from time to time). And I hardly think that the 56% of non-admins who disagree with me could in any way be construed as a consensus, so it's not fair to characterize it as "admins killed the proposal."--~T P W 18:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, current issues facing Wikipedia have less to do with an admin shortage and more to do with an editor shortage for Wikipedia as it's currently conceived - if you consider the rate of relisting at AFD, the relative paucity of discussion at most XfDs/Pufs, the length of time to clear an item from notability backlogs, unreferenced backlogs, various other cleanup backlogs, etc., it's quite clear we don't have nearly enough editors focusing on those areas to clean out most of our administrative (used in the colloquial, rather than technical/privileged sense) backlogs. This is not necessarily to say we need more editors in those areas - we're all volunteers, and we do what we like about Wikipedia -- attempts to drag people into, say, clearing the unrefed BLP backlog might work in the short term, but creates enormous resentment, and possess no staying power. Rather, it does suggest that we might need to look at restructuring our approach to administrative tasks - this might mean more automation, a recognition that desired high standards must compromise with limited editorial resources, or something more creative than currently comes to mind. Ray^Talk 19:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as whether we have an admin shortage or not, a comparison of current and historical backlogs could be useful.

Ray makes good points about a possible editor shortage, but any follow up might be better addressed elesewhere. Maurreen (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How many times are we going to have this conversation? Or more to the point, is there ever going to be a version of the "not enough admins/no current candidates" conversation that actually produces anything tangible that we can take away from it? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- We haven't had the "too many admins" conversation for at least two weeks; shall we have that one next? – iride scent 00:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no one running yet again! Seeing as lists of candidates are only successful for a short period of time, how about we get some good candidates in there? ceranthor 00:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There was one user I had my eye on, and if he'd kept it up he could probably pass right now, but he wandered off without comment in January. I may have another idea though, but I haven't thoroughly vetted them yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some more experienced users would be interested in running? ceranthor 00:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, you are an autoreviewer and a rollbacker with a clean block log. That's really all I've checked out so far, but it's a solid foundation. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You've been editing here a bit longer than I have, it turns out, and you have identified hundreds of speedy delete-able articles as well. You're starting to look like a good candidate to me, ever run before? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've said this several times before, but I still think that if the "cabal" explained the need for additional admins it would attract more candidates and simplify the selection process. It would also help people like me understand the underlying trends. Is there more vandalism or less? Are tools helping? Do we have too many rules, or too few? Most organizations would challenge the idea of having unlimited growth in the number of janitors—particularly since the monthly number of edits now seems to be 15% lower than the October 2008 peak. - Pointillist (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's see, There isn't a cabal, or if there is they haven't let me in yet. We need more admins because the burnout rate is high, it's more a matter of replenishment. Tools do help but they can't take the place of another actual brain behind the work. And yes, we have waaaay to many rules. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is there burnout? Why do "we have waaaay too many rules"? Tool use has never been higher, and the number of experienced non-admin editors is probably greater than ever, too. What can we do to reduce the need for admins? - Pointillist (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandal rates - Huggle revert count is usually around 15 pages per minute, you would then have to add on the other users using Twinkle etc. I think the vandals are slowly getting to know how to screw the system - ignoring the new guys who just play silly, I've seen..

Three to five IP vandals working together, as one changes a page, so the next one does a change, and so on - I'm assuming they are using Messenger or similar to keep tabs - Rollback fails to work, because it only rolls back one edit. Then they will all switch pages at once.
IP does 4 vandal edits, reboots router and gains a new IP address, does 4 more edits...
IP does 4 vandal edits, goes away for a few days, thus automated fighters set next message to No.1 again. They always manage to stop vandalising before the block.

Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that I see evidence of vandals working in teams. I have a second computer going so I can revert this type of vandalism while keeping an eye on the page in Huggle. Then, even if I am reverting to another vandalized version, I can get the warnings in, and then revert the article to the last clean version.

What I find truly discouraging is the light blocks some of these bozos are getting... sometimes as little as 31 hours. Jusdafax 20:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A) The ridiculously high standards are modern RFAs

B) The abuse admins put up with, which starts at RFAs all too often

= fewer admins

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We can reduce the need for admins by convincing the vandals and spammers to go away. Got any ideas on how to do that? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've ran twice. I plan on running sometime down the road, likely in April. As to whether ~~admins~~ (amended:) RfA candidates are held to a ridiculously high standard, I feel that admin candidates nowadays are aware of that and are prepared to cope with it. ceranthor 00:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

@Beeble The only suggestions I could make on that have historically been rejected as being contrary to the spirit of Wiki. Dloh cierekim 00:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why Ceranthor? What is it that you want to do you can't do now? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say admins are held to too high a standard, I said RFA standards are--there's a difference. As to vandals, trolls, etc, stop mollycoddling them. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You are entirely right; I have amended my comment. ceranthor 01:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If, as Beeblebrox says, the need for admins is driven by vandals and spammers, the steps are pretty obvious. How do you prevent such bad people becoming editors? How do you detect and fix their bad edits? How do you discourage or prevent them from coming back? We have tools, filters and rollbackers that we didn't have 18 months ago, the total of monthly edits has fallen 15% and the number of active admins has fallen maybe 2%. All I'm saying is let's be businesslike about this: if the need for more admins is proven, market forces will fix RfA. If things get desperate, that will concentrate our minds wonderfully. - Pointillist (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I remember, I've never nominated anyone to be an administrator. There are several people I can think of who'd do a good job, but one part of my confidence in them is my impression of their general mental balance, one necessary part of which is a lack of an obsessive interest in or knowledge of Wikipedia. (My own lack of expertise hasn't yet got me into any major trouble that I remember.) As I look at many questions in recent RfAs (even after ignoring those that seem plain silly), I know that my answer would be "don't know", "don't know and don't care", "having no idea of my own, I'd wait to see other people's answers and then consider those" and so on. A lot of the concerns seem to be about "extreme" inclusionism or deletionism; I don't remember seeing evidence of "extremism" either way, uh, perverting the closure of AfDs, and think it's a non-issue. While the confident expression of blatantly wrong answers is worrisome in an admin candidate, I'm rather untroubled by ho-hum answers and non-answers. Perhaps I and anyone thinking like me could improve (?) the RfA process by telling the more tiresome people in the peanut gallery what to do with their boring questions. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)*

I for one plan to take it a little easier with my example CSD and AfD questions. The last couple have provoked debate among experienced supporters and opposers (and caused a number of disputed opposes), so I don't think they have turned out to be overly helpful RfA questions. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I used what I thought was a brilliant question in an RFA once. The candidate got it wrong and his RFA collapsed. The problem is there is no certain way of evaluating a candidate. We've developed several litmus tests-- some contradictory of one another-- but I don't see that they've been as helpful as hoped. At the time, the one's I lifted off of User:Benon were the best I'd seen. Dloh cierekim 03:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I think some of the example AfDs etc used in RfAs are way too hard - there can be a tendency to pick very complex ones, which even experienced admins would have difficulty with, and the poor candidate gets ripped apart for being plucky enough to have a go at it and making a mistake. -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re to Pointillist. I didn't know that the number of edits had fallen by 15%, and looking at User:Katalaveno/TBE I think that is a bit of a simplification as the last 10 million edits took just 49 days - the fastest for several months. However the number of active admins hasn't just fallen by 2%. We have 849 active admins today, down from over a thousand at peak a couple of years ago. So our number of admins is down more than 15% from peak levels and the trend continues downwards. If people don't see this as a problem, how low would the number of active admins need to fall to before it was accepted as a problem? Ϣere SpielChequers 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, WereSpielChequers, I didn't realize that the number of active admins had fallen so much. I certainly don't mean to belittle your concern, it is just that when there's a shortage of resources, one of the standard questions is "should we do things differently so that fewer resources are required"? That's where I'm coming from, anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the should we do things differently approach, though the only thing that springs to my mind is an admin bot for certain U1 and G7 deletions. I think we could get consensus for that if we had an admin bot writer. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We already have a G7 bot. A U1 bot would need to be very carefully written otherwise it would be susceptible to abuse (move page from mainspace to userspace, db-u1). –xeno^talk 15:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the G7 bot just do talk pages? (to clean-up after WildBot)? A U1 bot could work on the same conditions as the G7 bot does; only one editor has contributed. (Of course, given the amount fo vandalism user-space takes, that could remove all the work for it). Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're right. I think we could probably prod the operator and botwriter to try to expand it though. –xeno^talk 16:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally do not see a big problem currently. While CSD seems eternally full, the site is not really falling apart. Yet. We do actually have several hundred admins, which is quite a lot if you think about it. Remember that things like filters and bots have taken the work admins used to do away. Then again, I do think RFA standards are much too high. Why I offered to nominate somebody just the other day, who declined, simply because he had not been active long enough. I'm sure he'll pass with flying colors in a few months, but the point is, he's not going to change in just a few months, so he's ready now. I don't understand the demand for time-related criteria. A person is either suitable or not. Aiken ♫ 14:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The solution is easy...make everyone with 5,000 edits and a clean block log an admin automatically. At the same time, set up an admin review committee that has desysop authority so that problemmatic admins can be removed quickly. That would quickly provide more admins, but not necessarily solve other problems with Wikipedia's administration, which I won't go into here. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I suspect you already know this <g>, but that approach would remove the pressure to rethink WP policies and improve processes. Pointillist (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but then you have 20,000-30,000 new administrators, most who have never had to interact with the community as a whole. It would also make policing that much harder as a good portion of them would be inept in certain areas. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A curious onservation. All administrators are inept in certain areas, and some of them in all areas. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may note so, Malleus, we have plenty of specialists who do their jobs well. Most take time before venturing into another area. You are right, though, some don't. ceranthor 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The anomaly remains though. Those like Kevin are reluctant to trust RfA candidates who don't display the full range of skills, even though no administrators do either. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I've tagged maybe two articles for deletion, and probably never be a great content producer (what is called "contributing to Wikipedia") so I figure I'd fail if I bothered to run, though I've been approached by a couple of admins about it. Auntie E. (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I actually trust them a lot. The style of that just seems like I don't vote in people who I don't trust. I'm usually the one who is a moral supporter, so I'm sorry if that is a bit confusing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's something you think you might like to do, for whatever reason, then allow yourself to be put forward at RfA. What's the worst that can happen? I'll tell you; your character will be assasinated, you will be told that you have one or more personality defects, and that your contributions to the project aren't worth spit. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Goodness. This is so easy. Have a vandal fighter of the month award and league table. Top 10 non-admin vandal fighters of every month promoted to admin. Top of the table immediately made a "crat." You'll have strong content and standards editors coming out your ears before you know it. And the editors that fall just out of the running will have something achievable to shoot for in double quick time.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That would make it an MMO, me thinks… --Izno (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm 99.9% sure that was a joke. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea though. If I ever have to re-run for adminship, I'm going to roll chaotic evil just to screw with the system. Reso lute 04:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the days of admins being appointed because they were good vandalfighters ended in early 2008 when rollback was unbundled. Not unreasonably the community now expects RFA candidates to show that they have in some way helped build the pedia as well as protected it. But there is a germ of a good idea in there, if we were to decide a minimum level of active admins who were needed, then we could have a monthly election for as many admins as were needed to get us back to that level. I suspect standards and candidates would be very different if it was a case of which 8 of this months candidates do I trust..... Ϣere SpielChequers 14:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That has potential. Maurreen (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Why, it's a wonderful idea (except for the crat part).13:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

@Malleus-- the trick is to no what you're bad at, and concentrate your efforts there. ;). Dloh cierekim 13:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A loose metaphor for the way things are currently is to think of it as getting a degree in Wikipedia from a liberal arts school. You may have a desire to pursue a particular field after graduation, but you have to study a variety of fields to at least a small extent to get the degree. Not saying it's right, but that's pretty much how it is. The only way to change that is to fundamentally change the way the process works, by limiting the questions to the candidates stated area of interest and then having a straight up or down vote without all the discussion. I'm not saying that's a good idea either, but the only way to force a change in the system is to change the apparatus, you can't change the people. The system was originally designed to work in favor of the candidate, with supporting being the default position. Over time this concept has gone by the wayside somewhat, in part because RFA has been gamed a few times, we've been fooled into promoting people who had some rather large skeletons in their wiki-closet. Now a lot of users won't rush to support or oppose if they don't already know the candidate, they wait for someone else to come up with a reason to oppose that they can get behind. It almost seems like oppose is now the default position for a significant percentage of users. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that, Beeblebrox, is that the community does not like to be limited in the questions it can ask. That was true last fall in the ArbCom elections, that is true at RfA. It takes consensus to authorize someone to do the limiting. Good luck. Personally, I'd like to see it done, too, but there seems little likelihood. As for the numbers of admins, all the stats and comparisons I have seen can be argued. Is the number of admins in 2006, say, relevant? WP was a very different site then, with different priorities. And the vandal fighter of the month thing makes me shudder how easily it could be gamed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Keep the status quo" should be the default position in pretty much every Wikipedia context; that is, "keep" at AFD, "no change" at policy proposals and "oppose" at RFA. The burden should be on anyone wanting change to make the case for said change. What you (Beeblebrox) are saying appears to be "More users should be admins; User:Example is a user; therefore User:Example should be an admin". It doesn't work like that, nor should it. – iride scent 12:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

All I was doing was describing the current situation and the only way I can see to change it. I thought I was pretty clear that I'm not actually advocating any particular position. We do need to keep adding admins, because we lose admins on a regular basis, but I don't see it as an urgent problem. My point, I suppose, was that these conversations never accomplish anything because they always end with some weak proposal that won't fundamentally change the game at RFA. Now this one is a bit different, because we have two rather radical options on the table, but nobody seems to be seriously considering them. And that is why RFA will stay just as it is now unless and until there is a shift in the attitudes of those who participate, which is not something that can be accomplished through more rules. So, are we done here, or does anyone have any other ideas for completely overhauling RFA, not just a tweak of the rules for the existing process? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone commented above that giving regular editors admin privileges automatically would produce a lot of incompetent admins. There is a way to help fix that. Someone needs to write a better "admin guide" which should list, step by step, what admins should do in the different situations that arise in Wikipedia. The guide should include checklists. Such a guide would help standardize admin actions and make it easier for admins to intervene and take action in routine, repeatable situation, such as vandalism, revert warring, etc. Cla68 (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NastalgicCam

Resolved

Mercy. Dloh cierekim 13:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Closed. Jamie S93^❤ 13:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

2 new admins in March 2010?

Guys, are we seriously only going to appoint two new admins this month? I think the project is going to have to give some very serious thought to fixing / replacing RfA if that's the case. RfA reform used to be something that would be nice if everyone could agree on how to change it, its now starting to look pretty necessary if were to resume appointing admins at a sensible rate. WJBscribe (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It might simply be that only 2 suitable candidates have been nominated so far - or do you think the judgment on any of the failed ones was seriously wrong? -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't we merge this thread to teh one above?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a slow month. —Dark 12:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually its a slow quarter after a couple of slow years and three of the slowest months since records began. User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month shows that we are heading for the lowest quarter ever, and we need four good candidates to come forward in the next 59 hours for this merely to be the equal worst month at RFA since records began in March 2003. Regardless of the merits of a couple of recent unsuccessful candidates, if we want to stabilise the numbers of our active admins we need to do something to persuade far more candidates to stand (anyone thinking of standing and looking for a nominator is welcome to read User:WereSpielChequers/RFA criteria, and email me if you think you meet my criteria for a nomination). Ϣere SpielChequers 13:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've always been growing tired of these "look how few we're promoting" threads. But only two this month? This is strange. I've been having the same feeling of "why can't we manage to promote more people?" It seems that every candidate who might have a shot is now being bombed down by a rush of opposers, with a few exceptions. The only people that were promoted were Tim Song and The Wordsmith, two users who, in my mind, were ready for the tools a while ago. (As for X!, I can't say fairly, but that wasn't even an RfA. ;)) Meanwhile, all but a few of the failures were SNOW, and all but one were withdraws. Does this indicate that people are becoming more hesitant to run? Or does it mean that we've promoted all the good candidates? Who knows? (X! · talk) · @635 · 14:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There are probably still some good candidates, but they aren't ready to become admins. Some of the candidates that withdrew because of the opposes would probably make good candidates in the future. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 14:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the trend seems to be accelerating. I don't have any preference what to do about it; my instinct is to favor a lot of little solutions over one big solution. Encourage voters to approve an admin candidate based on the quality of their admin-related work; look for people to nominate; consider (again!) unbundling one or more userrights that are currently admin-only. - Dank (push to talk) 14:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It is also becoming a trend that people are more hesitant to run. IIRC, more admins resigned in 2009 than ever before. The job is becoming hard to handle. As for RfA, specialists who have tried other areas and failed and content workers seem to do the best. Tim Song, for example, specialized at AFD and SPI, but also worked in other areas (Kissle). ceranthor 14:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

An admin's job is only as difficult as he chooses to make it. I'm principally a content contributor who uses his tools rarely, and keeps an eye on AN/I and the policy pages. Certainly, if one feels that your obligation as an admin is to dive headfirst into contentious areas, and you are not very tactful, you may have problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A quote from an oppose vote within the quickly terminated AfD that's the subject of the next section: An admin must be present in all fields, must have knowledge of our 1000+ (contradicting) policies, and must be able to solve disputes. Obvious poppycock (of course the "1000+" is a giveaway), and it does make me smile; but I do wonder what sort of effect amicable talk such as this has on people who are better prepared than that candidate, well intentioned, and sufficiently well informed to do the job. Could it be "We've fortified our 'administrator' citadel so soundly that it's impregnable; your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries; we fart in your general direction"? (Not that I'm advocating yet more solemnity in RfAs, far from it.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've still yet to see an argument that we must promote n candidates in a particular time. Whether it's 2 or 52, it's not going to change much in the long run. I think we should be thinking quality rather than quantity. Big problems, such as the state of some BLPs and plagiarism, are not going to go away with more admins. Aiken ♫ 15:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

But those are perennial problems. More admins will help decrease BLP problems. As for plagiarism, the people over at copyright problems and CCI do a great job. ceranthor 15:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is, why must we promote so many people? I'm not against promoting good candidates, but if a month happens to have a drought, so what? If we needed admins so desperately, we would promote them and lower standards, but right now it's not necessary. Aiken ♫ 15:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather let lowering standards be the last resort, not the first. If we were so short of admins that essential tasks that need admins were not getting done in a timely fashion, there are things we could do. Appeal to the existing admins, including those who mostly work in other areas, to do the tasks, for example. --Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The admin tasks that I mostly notice (because I do some work in the respective areas) are WP:AIV, WP:CSD, and WP:RPP, and in all three areas the admins do generally seem to be pretty quick to respond. So what I think we're talking about here is a potential problem, not a current one, and emergency action is currently not needed -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem people are thinking (but not saying) is that we may be well off now, but for years, admins have been constantly replaced by new ones once they retire, and there's no shortage. Yet if there's a long period with no admins, suddenly there will be no one to replace the normal retirements of old admins. Just a thought. (X! · talk) · @723 · 16:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Re "if a month happens to have a drought, so what?" If it was only one month, or even one quarter then I doubt we'd need these discussions. We've now had two years of drought at RFA, and unless something remarkable happens in the next couple of days, March 2010 looks like producing the least admins of any month since records began. After a run of three consecutive months with 6 or 7 RFAs we have only had 21 successful RFAs since December the 1st 2009. It looks like RFA is moving into a new phase with even fewer admins being appointed than was normal in the previous 18 month drought, I think this is a problem, and the time to address that problem is while we still have 5 active admins for every 6 we had at our peak. Change is difficult on this site, but in this case change is happening anyway, the question is what sort of change do we want, and I for one don't like the idea of admins becoming ever scarcer. For those of you who aren't ready to accept that RFA is broken, how few active admins would there need to be before you thought there was a problem? Ϣere SpielChequers 16:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that there's been 2 years deought. This and this show a steady influx of new admins being promoted, and not necessarily more or less than earlier years. I still don't understand the problem. Is the site falling apart? Are vandals running riot? We have plenty of admins, and while more are always welcome, it's no bad thing if a certain number aren't recruited. Take the website Wikihow. They only elect admins at certain times of the year.

Nobody is suggesting admins will be scarcer. There just won't be many more. I can't come up with a number, but when Wikipedia is basically falling apart and there are backlogs going back weeks in all admin areas, maybe I'll reconsider. I don't think RFA is perfect, but it does the job it needs to. Aiken ♫ 16:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not just suggesting that active admins are getting scarcer, I've been measuring it, and my reading of the stats is that we have 20% fewer than at peak, and the trend is clear and downwards. As for the drought since April 2008, User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month seems clear to me, but if any of my figures are wrong please point out where. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The figures over recent times range from 6 a month to 13 a month, so one is nearly double the other. Perhaps it's an indication that we have gotten to a peak (around 2007) and now we are slowly plateauxing out. Your figures support a decline in admins, but I just don't think we need to replace them so urgently. As I say, I think we are adequately covered. Aiken ♫ 17:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not we are adequately covered now, the question I'm interested in is how long the current trend can continue before we have to change the way we do things. The 6 to 18 admins a month of the last 23 months has been less than half the 18 to 56 admins of the preceding couple of years. If the number of active admins was broadly stable then I could agree that things might have plateauxed out. But I see a 20% fall in just over 2 years, and with the number of successful RFAs at an all time low, I suspect the number of active admins will continue to fall to a point where eventually we do have to change the way we do things. As it is likely to take several months to replace RFA I would like to at least make people here aware that we are in a drought at RFA and that the number of active admins is falling. However If I've miscalculated and either we are not in a drought or the number of active admins is not falling as fast as I think, then I would appreciate someone pointing out the flaw in the data that I'm using. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've tried, but I haven't run across anyone else that I think could pass in the current environment. I've seen some backlogs in areas I sometimes work, but never anything to horrible. A few reports at WP:UAA and WP:RFPP have sat for a few hours, and some of the more obscure speedy deletion categories get backlogged sometimes, but currently there doesn't seem to be an urgent problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

...which means the total net gain/loss for the month is 0. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The total number of admins may be stable so far this month, but our active admins are dwindling. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The drought in successful RfAs is due in part to the increase in questions posed to candidates and a slight upward trend in the community's standards for candidates. Perhaps the community would be more likely to promote candidates if it were easier to remove bad admins. Majoreditor (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Majoreditor. I really think it keeps coming back to the lack of accountability. The way the system is now, an admin can 'get away' with actions a non-admin can't. And admins band together to protect their own, as I note in the section above. This creates non-admin resentment, and an unwillingness to promote to a lifetime position, which makes good candidates reluctant to run. Talk about a vicious circle! Jusdafax 00:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That isn't true at all. Admins are placed at ridiculous levels of scrutiny, and any logged action is liable to be endlessly contested. And admins "band together" since when? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of admins are great. The problem is that there are a very small number of substandard admins. This small number of substandard admins pose a conundrum to the community because there is no good process to de-sysop them. As a result, some editors tend to maintain very high RfA standards because "once an admin, always an admin". If it were easier to de-sysop bad admins then it is very likely that RfA standards may not be as lofty as they are now. Majoreditor (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We may not need more admins. Yes, we have more articles than we used to, so what? Frankly, a huge number of articles will never call for admin intervention because they are utterly trivial and not about BLP, and get next to no page views. The basic articles are written; WP is no longer a startup. Today, it would be hard to write an article not based on a new development (current event, sports figure who rises up, etc.) that would get 200 hits a day on a consistent basis. We are in a "maintain and improve" mode, not the frantic burst of article writing (many of which were substandard) which marked WP's early years. Whether we need as many admins as two or four years ago is an open question. And as for Majoreditor's concern, there are a few megabytes written pro and con about CDA and I don't feel compelled to respond.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I will say though, the trend of many of the opposes is worrying me slightly. In '06, noone blinked when a candidate with 2,000 edits requested for the bit. Nowadays though, the norm seems to be 5,000 edits before they can contemplate adminship. And if you have more than 5,000 edits, people will complain about how the vast majority of these edits are automated and scream "bot." Unless you've been here for a 2 or 3 years, you're unlikely to be able to gather that many edits if you are mainly an article contributor. Nor will you be able to gather enough content contributions if you are mainly an anti-vandalism/maintenance editor. Having said that, with the demanding nature of the community, not enough editors are given an incentive to continue contributing past a few months. This project is a lot more stressful than it was a few years back. —Dark 05:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet the project survives. And we get all the adminly tasks done. And we even promote anti-vandalism fighters. The desire of many !voters, including myself, to want to see article work I think goes to wanting to see how the candidate comes out in the give and take of article building. It shows temperament. Fairly important, given that we don't admins to crash and burn.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Adminly, very cute. I really have never seen anyone with over 5,000 edits be called a bot. Out of touch maybe, but never a bot. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Scream "automated editor with little content contribution." —Dark 00:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well as Wikipedia gets older, I'm guessing the average stay of editors is getting longer, so the average guy has probably seen more scandals, dodgy deals etc, so it's not surprising that they are more wary. I certainly am, and would not have nominated many of the people I did in 2006 and should have stayed far away from them because I know how to spot signs of parasitism, political animalism, social climbing tendencies a lot more easily. In 2006 there were hardly any 4-yr veterans, unless they started in 2002 when WP was small, now there are hundreds, maybe thousands including those who pop back occasionally YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But that could be the main problem. The environment is more hostile, and makes it harder for newer editors to edit due to the underlying belief that they are not experienced enough to contribute anything of value. I've seen so many of our newer editors driven away by some 'experienced' editors templating them or being plain rude, rather than explaining properly. In RfAs, I have quite high expectations for potential admins myself. However, I do not apply an arbitrary criteria (you don't have enough edits, not long enough experience etc. etc.) based solely on the editor's "statistics." I mean sure, you'll know something is wrong when someone has 50 edits, but for cases where the person has significant experience, it would be better to look at the quality of edits before judging. —Dark 07:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well definitely, RFA aside, as I hardly come to look anyway, people are definitely more isolationist nowadays with a bit of a siege mentality just in terms of putting their head down and writing their own thing. I only sat down to have a chat to two newbies in the last four months (a topic-specific custome welcome not a templated welcome) and one has written about 6 GAs since then and the other has written out three complete lists with tables since turning up last week (not sure if he is going for FLC) but I think that's one area where WikiProjects aren't as communal in the initiation type stuff. I got mobbed by 3-4 people when I first signed up with personal chats. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You can assess temperament by just seeing how they vandal fight - all will be called names, sworn at, user pages corrupted, etc., every time they have a session. You need a thick skin for a few hours on Huggle, you have to have Sticks and Stones mentality to survive - and a vandal even called me a bot last night... Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No way! Vandalfighting doesn't test temperament, because a few childish obscenities won't do anything to scare the patroller, and more importantly, many people's decision-making process is decided by how it will affect their image. Getting sworn at by a drive-by clown for reverting vandalism isn't going to make establishede editors think that the patrollers might be a dubious guy. But with POV-pushing etc, many people just assume both sides are both bad, so it's much more tempting for any image-conscious person to turn a blind eye to POV pushing, and things that are less trivial than reverting vandalism YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at your userpage shows that you have substantial content creation under your belt, and you should be rightly honored for that. But you appear to be sadly ignorant when it comes to understanding what a steady diet of absorbing dark utterances, obscene insults, focused hatred and even death threats can do to a person's morale and inner life. My userpage has been attacked nearly 200 times, sometimes in extremely ugly ways that do not bear description.

No, my fellow Wikipedian, you have to be made of very stern stuff to be a dedicated vandal fighter, which is why I went to bat for Ronhjones at his Rfa when some here actually tried to deny him the tools, and I am proud of his adminship. A few weeks of Huggling even a few hours a day would give you a different perspective than your current one. There are people and even teams out there who do nothing but work to trash Wikipedia. Without the constant efforts of a surprisingly small number, this project would be ruined in just a few weeks time. For an obviously intelligent person like yourself to claim "vandalfighting doesn't test temperment" illustrates a real problem I have with those Wikipedians who, as I see it, appear to have their noses in the air. Jusdafax 17:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I did it a lot before I was an admin, and still have a large watchlist although I haven't used a feed/prompter since then, just a personal list. It was very easy, just clicking a button or popup, adding a template. Yes I had my userpage vandalised about 60+ times with profanity, vows of cannibalism (although I'ved deleted the userpage and left it behind with the username move etc) and it doesn't rattle you at all, as the vandal doesn't have any ability and no non-vandal will ever listen to them. But an established single-topic editor who routinely claims that opposing edits are manifestations of bigotry, are prevalent and can always make mud stick on ANI if they rant enough and often enough; some others will look at the ANI thread, some will mumble something and a few will be taken in. Nobody thinks "if I block this vandal he will call me names in his unblock request and damage my reputation" but it certainly deters people from blocking a racial/religious editor. Certainly indeffing a vandal won't bring a backlash at the ballot box, but blocking a racial/religious editor or reverting them will bring a few from their co-ethnics and religionists, so it deters people who are looking to get voted in as arbs or crats etc. "Without the constant efforts of a surprisingly small number, this project would be ruined in just a few weeks time", well unless people also do stuff without having a machine feed them, most vandalism isn't detected by a bot or general vandalism person armed with a prompter but reverted by a person active in the topic some time later. And I've seen a few vandal-fighting specialists elected in 2006 come very easily unhinged as admins. For them, blocking and gagging a vandal is easy, as they have zero rights, but when some of their deletions were questioned by other admins, they just went "A7" of "G1" or whatever wihout being able to explain anything lucidly and then got rather angry about the "illiterate peasants" and so forth. Some of them were really soft and couldn't handle any disputes/heat except for bashing vandals [effectively unarmed civilians in free-fire zones]. Many are fine and carry themselves well, but some can only beat up much smaller opponents and engage in posturing. You seem to have assumed that as a writer, I haven't done any cleaning up work. I did about 8000 deletions as well in 2006, although I've retired from that due to monotony not abuse. All I'm saying is that reverting vandalism isn't a difficult enough test to prove anything, not that it's a useless contribution. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax, before you dig yourself any deeper into this hole you may want to consider that you're addressing a long-serving member of Arbcom, who I'd venture to suggest has considerably more experience of "absorbing dark utterances, obscene insults, focused hatred and even death threats" than you. – iride scent 17:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to you, YellowMonkey, or anyone else here, it is my carefully considered opinion that ArbCom member or not, YellowMonkey is off base. Indeed, in my view the tone of your reply reinforces my point. Jusdafax 17:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well as far as admin/arbcom politics goes, you do get a few guys (including other admins) sometimes accusing some people of secretly teeing up 1-2 political moves with buddies, corruption, double-dealing etc, and whether this is true or not, some people will believe some things, not necessarily due to fact, but due to the image of the accuser. So those things can be stressful as people are worried about their reputation and standing among established Wikipedians. But if the vandal/IP claimed that the vandal-patroller or admin had sent abusive emails to them, people would just assume it's false, even if the established person had actually sworn at them on-wiki etc... Loss of wiki-prestige normally depends on the aura of guy making the criticism/abuse not the substance of the complaint, and rants by vandals don't have the ability to embarrass anyone enough to bait them into biting back, unlike a random lie by an established user. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey is an arbitrator? I never knew that! I also happen to disagree with him though; from what I can tell, he appears to be "dissing" vandal fighters completely. I think vandal-fighting does test temperament. But on the other hand, so does writing articles on touchy subjects. I don't think there's any need to dismiss the idea out of hand completely. Both are very different areas of work and attract different people. Both are useful too. Aiken ♫ 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Former arbitrator; he was on Arbcom under his old username of User:Blnguyen, which is probably why you don't recognise it. – iride scent 18:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't recognise the name at all. But we've digressed. Whether he's an arbitrator or not doesn't matter. Aiken ♫ 18:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Admins per x?

About whether we have and will have enough admins, it could be good to have an idea of how many admins we have per article, and similar statistics, and compare the current ratios with ratios in the past. But I'm not sure where to get such info. Maurreen (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There's some stuff at Wikipedia:Statistics, I'm not sure that our ratio of admins to articles is as relevant as say the ratio of admins to time to do ten million edits, but level of editing activity might not equate well to levels of blocking, deleting and protecting. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick mash of data from Special:Statistics gives the following for the "now" statistics:

We have 3811 articles per active administrator.

We have 23342 pages per active administrator. (So this is articles, project pages, redirects, etc etc)

We have 190 active users per active administrator, with admins included in the active user count, and active users being defined as having edited in the last month.

We have 995 image/media files per active administrator

--Taelus (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's an imperfect comparison, of content at WP:AN: On Jan. 5, 2005, it had 47 kb. Today it has 168 kb. Maurreen (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes: it had been created less than a month ago [1]. Aiken ♫ 19:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There are now 4,846 pages on my watchlist. ; Dloh cierekim 16:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

RFA Reform

Maybe it's time to dust off the idea of provisional adminship? One potential answer to !opposes of "I don't trust you with the tools" is to give over the tools and watch. This would extend a discretionary range (let's say down to 60%) where a 'crat could grant 3-month adminship with a mandatory re-confirmation at the end of the period. Maybe add a caveat that any 5 admins of good standing can tell the provisional to stand down from using tools during the probation. There's no doubt the activity would be scrutinized. It's obviously gameable by sticking to the easiest of admin activity, but that still frees up admin time and there will still be the hurdle after three months which requires that you have gained the trust of former !opposers. Franamax (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to warm up to the idea. I've seen one particular user always making spot-on AIV reports, and I was going to go give him a shove to apply for adminship until I saw his block log. I'm sure people wouldn't mind tooling him up to block vandals, but I doubt he'd make it through as is. –xeno^talk 19:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If these provisional admins are going to need monitoring for several months, it doesn't sound like the admin workload would be reduced, just shifted from actually doing admin work to monitoring admins that can't actually be fully trusted with the tools... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Another problem with admin lite or further unbundling of the tools is that it could cause another big hike in expectations at RFA. The unbundling of Rollback in early 2008 was quickly followed by a big drop in successful RFAs. I think a more reasonable solution would be to up the on the job training element of adminship, for example before I started appointing wp:Autoreviewers I nominated a couple, and the first time I blocked someone without warning I subsequently asked for another admin to check my decision. If it became the norm for admins to do a bit of CBT before they start using an unfamiliar part of the tools then perhaps some people would be willing to be a bit less strict in their RFA !voting. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Before I checked, I thought you were suggesting that admins should have some cognitive-behavioural therapy. Which maybe isn't a bad idea either ;p –xeno^talk 21:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's where provisional adminship would be good, there's no better training than a live environment. So another way would be "provisional, supervised" where any admin action could be reversed and wheel doesn't apply on the first round. The "final" RFA would be able to examine how well the proto-admin coped with reversal of actions too.

Also, I don't follow a correlation between non-admin rollback and RFA standards that isn't consistent with a secular decline in new admin numbers. Rollback was largely an initiative for the convenience of Huggle users and is actually a pretty trivial right (as evidenced by RFA candidates who say "I have had rollback for 2 months now and have never abused it") Franamax (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That is predicated on the idea that the candidate will need monitoring. For those who feel that way, this is a volunteer site, volunteer away. For those not so inclined, a review after the 3 months will do just fine. Enough imaginary admin wrongdoing is posited at en:wiki that I'm pretty sure most actual wrongdoing gets flagged up. Franamax (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The link between the unbundling of rollback and the start of the RFA drought is only a theory and the evidence is largely circumstantial. But as far as I'm aware it is the only theory we have to explain the step change at RFA in early 2008. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't think the late-2007 TEH CABALZ!! may have had some influence? Franamax (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In late 2007 I was a very new editor and not doing much outside mainspace, so I'm not familiar with 'TEH CABALZ!! but would a late 2007 incident have a dramatic effect on RFA in March 2008? As for the unbundling of Rollback causing a drop in RFA promotions, well as recently as Dec 2007 there were admins appointed simply as "avid vandal fighters". That has now stopped, and I can't remember when we last had a successful candidate who couldn't point to things they'd done to build the pedia as well as protect it. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would personally like to see some statistics comparing the numbers of successful to unsuccessful RfAs for a given month.(if there isn't one already) One point of interest is that there were 56 unsuccessful RfAs, compared to 22 successful in March 2008, which I find quite significant. We seem to have tightened our admin criteria during that month. —Dark 05:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty of measuring unsuccessful RFAs is that we have no way to directly measure people deterred from the process. But an indirect measure by analyzing RFAs by edits and tenure would be interesting. I suspect it would show that complete newbies still turn up and are turned down in some numbers, but the people with 3-12 months experience and 1,000 to 4,000 edits who used to run are now holding back. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The other problem is that some of the unsuccessful RfAs are quite rightly unsuccessful (an editor with a total of 100 edits for example) - in working out the figures, do we ignore the SNOW/NOTNOW closures? If not, at what point do we say "this person should not have applied, it can't be counted as a serious application". If we ignore SNOW/NOTNOWs, what are the figures like? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So far this month we have had 6 unsuccessful candidates who received majority support and fifteen who received less than that. I think that's fairly typical of recent months, lots of newbies whose RFAs last for hours, and a smaller number of candidates where the community couldn't get consensus to promote. Regardless of whether you think that some or all of the 6 who got over 50% would have made good admins, I think this shows that at least part of the problem is that very few experienced editors are willing to stand. One logical approach to such a phenomena would be to do a survey, and ask the currently active non admins why they haven't run. I think it should be fairly easy to select a group consisting of:

Not administrators or former administrators
12 months clean block log
Currently Active
First edited at least 6 months ago
>2,000 edits.

And survey them to ask them what they think of RFA and adminship, and what would persuade them to run, now or in the future. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Having gone through a successful RfA about 6 weeks ago, I thought I’d share what my immediate observations about the process were after the RfA closed. When I was nominated out of the blue by another editor, I could honestly say that I had never sought or even thought much about becoming an Admin. Thus I was really somewhat oblivious to the process and the nuances of Admin tools. Once the RfA was underway, I not only had to learn about the process, admin tools and interpret what the participants were really saying with their supports, opposes and neutrals. Here’s a summary of my immediate observations:

Other than the criteria Can we trust this editor with Admin tools? there’s really no additional specific criteria that would say that a person is 1) eligible for adminship (some specific participation minimums) 2) qualified for adminship (some behavioral minimums). When I listened to the reasons that participants either supported me or opposed me, it really felt like they weren’t doing so by evaluating my WP history against specific guidelines, but against their personal beliefs about what an Admin candidate should or should not have done. Absent more specific eligibility and qualification criteria, it seemed to me as sort of a Mob Rule evaluation.
I was struck by the difference between the statements being made by Supporters and Opposers. For the most part, Supporters clearly stated in some fashion that I can trust this editor with Admin Tools. Opposers on the other hand rarely said I cannot trust this editor with Admin Tools; they merely implied it with some ad hoc rationale and statements that may or may not have had any relationship to Trust. As a recipient of those types of ad hoc comments, I personally felt that it was unfair that opposers really didn’t have to state their position in terms of the overall RfA criteria: Can we trust this editor with Admin tools? and defend that position with valid rationale.

So based on those observations, I believe RfA reform ought to focus on two things:

Establishing more specific eligibility (participation minimums) and qualification (behavior minimums) criteria that everyone can agree to and evaluate candidates against.
Requiring RfA participants to clearly state: I can/cannot trust this candidate with Admin Tools and support that position with rationale consistent with the eligibility and qualification criteria.

--Mike Cline (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I weakly supported you. And I meant just that. I differed little in opinion to many of those who opposed you. I am uncomfortable with your suggestions particularly because opposers are already held up to much higher scrutiny than supporters. Polargeo (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike. We normally take support as being agreement with the nomination statement, and any addition is optional. I agree that Opposes need to be specific and reasoned, though trust isn't always the issue - sometimes the candidate simply isn't ready yet. Rereading your RFA I would categorise most of the Opposes as being for lack of a particular type of experience, presumably the supporters thought as I did that your other contributions made up for inexperience in project space. I don't think it unreasonable to expect Opposers to be more detailed than supporters, afterall we value an oppose at equal to almost three supports. I also think that Opposers should where possible be clear as to what change they would expect to see before changing their position. The broader issue of mob rule is a fair comment, but difficult to solve. In real life recruitment you make sure that the job spec and interview panel are synchronised and even if members of the interview panel disagree as to what sort of candidate they want to appoint, you try to agree the criteria you are judging against. I think it would be fairer to potential candidates if we could synchronise our criteria a bit more, we have certain de-facto rules such as a minimum three month gap between RFAs, but for example we have widely differing positions as to experience, tenure and especially how long one should wait before past misdeeds can be disregarded. Divergence of RFA criteria is an unfortunate feature of the current system, and whilst I would be happy for crats to disregard !votes of the "candidate supports policy x" variety I'm not sure we could define and agree a clear criteria for adminship (though I think we could and should define a clear criteria for snow fail and change the software so that editors with less than 500 edits can't self nominate). Ϣere SpielChequers 14:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Recently I was confronted with a user who had a block over a year ago but I opposed based on several reasons including low edits since last block, multiple blocks and insufficient benefit in granting tools. This was closed per SNOW anyway. However, strict rules are in my opinion certainly not the solution as they may have prevented my very well reasoned oppose. Polargeo (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

WSC - in a protracted way, you are agreeing with me. I am curious though why you feel: I'm not sure we could define and agree [on] a clear criteria for adminship. There is 5+ years of experience with RfAs, a record of successful Adminship and a record of unsuccessful Adminship and a record of what gets Admins in trouble with WP and with other editors. Given all that experience, I would think that reasonable specific minimum criteria could eventually be agreed on. I am not the one to articulate what those minimums ought to be, but I certainly would feel comfortable evaluating a candidate against clearly defined eligibility (participation and experience minimums) and qualification (behavioral minimums).--Mike Cline (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Minimums have changed drastically over the 5 years. However, there are very few problems with poor admins and very few problems with backlogs so it seems that the process is working. If we take a 2000 edit limit then even under that level there are a few who could still be considered. We are perfectly able to deal swiftly with the regular 200 edit candidates who apply, so no issues there. Polargeo (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't now have a position on whether reforms or more admins are needed.

But I think it could be helpful to have more-defined guidelines. For instance, that might discourage some of the snow fails from running, which could indirectly decrease hostility or perceptions of hostility, which could encourage candidates with more potential to run.

Another possibility would be a search and nominating committee. This could help even if totally unofficial, but especially if it included members with opposing views. If a candidate were nominated by two people who significantly disagree on other issues, that nomination would be more likely to be successful. Maurreen (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the snow fails don't take the time to look at past RfA's or criteria. This situation is easily dealt with and is not a serious issue as those prospective admins are usually given encouragement and good advice on what to do before submitting their next RfA. Polargeo (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why some non-admins don't run

As someone in the group mentioned by WereSpielChequers: Initially I didn't run because I literally didn't want the extra buttons. On my old computer I had a technical problem with my touchpad, which used to decide that I wanted to click in random places. That was very annoying, but as an admin I would have had to apologise for that all the time. At the time I rejected rollback for the same reason.

Now I don't run because I enjoy the power, safety and convenience of not being an admin. And having a less cluttered user interface is also still an advantage. If I am really sure some admin action is necessary I just ask an admin. Normally that's because of some blockworthy vandalism, which I encounter no more than perhaps twice a month. As a non-admin I find that people I am in a dispute with take me a bit less seriously but are also much less afraid of me. Overall that's an advantage. Hans Adler 13:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm another person with a clean block log and much experience (although my experience is off and on). I was nominated once, with a result of 5/5/3. Since then, a couple of people have asked about nominating me again.

But running doesn't seem worth the trouble for now.

I have little need of the tools. I think I've asked for admin help only twice -- once to protect a page, and once to close an RFC.

But I would be expected to study and probably have knowledge of areas in which I am not interested in.

And I would be inviting criticism. I accept constructive criticism. But it seems like a nontrival amount of criticism at RFAs is not appropriate for the purpose at hand. Maurreen (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And some of the questions don't even seem relevant. Maurreen (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Maurreen. I don't think you would be expected to study as such. However, your description of on/off is not really accurate. You stopped editing in 2006 and then started editing again in February this year. I would strongly advise another couple of months of editing before considering running for admin. Polargeo (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, thanks, but like I said, running doesn't seem worth the trouble. Maurreen (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As a recent (successful) RFA candidate who also took a long break, my situation is somewhat similar to yours, Maurreen. In my case, I waited a little over a year between returning and running, and when I did run everyone was saying "its about time, you've been ready for a while." So, for you, waiting a while longer would be beneficial. That said, though I disagree with some of the arguments you've made (especially in the BLP situation), I find that your arguments are generally well-reasoned and I would be willing to support. In another 4-6 months, if you decide you want the tools, I would be more than happy to nominate you. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, thanks very much for your encouragement. I'll keep it in mind if I decide to run later. Maurreen (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been told that i should run by a few people, most of whom write here more often than i do. I have thanked them for their offers of support but have declined all offers of nomination because i prefer a self nomination (which is more likely to fail), i have no GA/FA/DYK/CSD/NPP (indie music is not notable) and those are expectations from many RfA voters, and generally i have seen candidates whom i consider more experienced than myself fail. I have been around since the early days, mainly reading articles until a few years ago (after all that is what all of this is for). I have found an RfA where the user confessed to actually reading articles in addition to writing them and he was opposed for being a reader. I have some edits from way back then via IP addresses but i really don't recall any more what they are. I have seen many articles develop and change as relevant policy has been established and further developed in incremental and monumental steps. However i do not edit enough to "prove myself" by the standards of many people because what i could write is either already there or is outside the scope of relevant notability criteria. So i spend my time at WP:ACC and WP:CHU and often branch off my editing in rather random-appearing tangents based on interactions there. My now-alternate account was blocked last year (when it was my main account) on the presumption of being a banned user. I'm not. My change of user name was hijacked. Not only do i have an apology from the blocking admin but an anonymous mention in the WP:LTA under the "Joker" vandal section stating my innocence and recording a newly realised way in which vandals might operate. If that is not a comprehensive introduction into many relevant admin areas, which would be my focus should i ever be an admin, then i can't imagine what would be. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't Panic

When I started editing here five years ago, things were still looking pretty fly-by-night. Vandalism, backlogs of articles in need of serious repair, and not much guidance anywhere. Things are much better now. The actual number of active admins far exceeds the number we used to have; forcing more just means some won't have anything to do but sit around thinking up new bureaucratic debacles (which is what we're starting to see now). Rather than worrying about percentages and hypothetical situations, ask yourself: What needs to be done? Is it being done?

I say yes. Articles are improved, policies are refined, and processes are streamlined. The help desk and the village pump are fully manned. Reports at AIV and ANI are responded to in minutes, if not seconds. We have such a good handle on things that we have time for ridiculously drawn-out debates on even the most inane RfCs. There's already an admin glut, so there's no need to worry about a few months of low RfAs. If there's some glaring problem that's being neglected and you know of someone who would be good for the job of fixing it, nominate them. If not, I don't see the need to force nominations just so we can have something to write about in that section of the Signpost. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. As long as there is an administrative backlog there is always a need for more admins. -- œ ^™ 05:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

More admins doesn't solve that. We need more admins who want to work on that stuff. If we don't have 'em, we don't have 'em. There's nothing in that category that's urgently needed; if there is, what on Earth are you and I doing talking to each other here? In fact, most of CAT:AB was artificially created by the needless bureaucratic processes I mentioned above; much of it could be fixed simply by getting rid of a few templates that force pages into that category in the first place. Who cares if an indef-blocked user has a subpage in his user space? It doesn't have any meaningful impact on the encyclopedia, so nobody can be bothered to go through them all. Not now, and not later. As I said - if you know of someone who does want to do that stuff, by all means nominate them. But greater numbers aren't the answer. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kafziel is right. There is a clearly a certain advantage to strength in numbers, but it all boils down to how much work each individual accomplishes. I've mentioned this before but very few people seem to agree. Oh well. :/ -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly see some merit to this position. The "backlog" linked above contains much that is of no interest to me to work on. Maybe there's somebody out there who really wants to work with Category:Rescaled fairuse images but it isn't me. I'm pretty sure Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages is patrolled by a bot that deletes anything that's been in it for several months, hardly an urgent problem either. I don't know what Wikipedia:Pokémon investigations is but I'm pretty sure I don't care about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

^ That. Keegan (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol I just saw that one too [2]. No, there is no longer a CAT:TEMP deletion bot operating. I've removed that category from backlog -- it's not a backlog if no one cares. –xeno^talk 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, we need to add another question to RfA's: "Do you intend to actually DO any work while you are an admin?" -- œ ^™ 19:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? I don't do much, but when I do do something, it is a net benefit for hte project. If a person uses the bit once to block a vandal before they can vandalize another, delete a single attack page, etc it is a net benefit.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

^ That. Plus not everything administrative can be pinpointed in public logs, janitorial work is much more ephemeral than spending a few months clearing out FfD and getting burned out, to never wield the mop again. Keegan (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I do admin work, but like everyone else who volunteers here, I do what I'm interested in, I don't take assignments. Just today I have dealt with about 30 CSD noms, blocked several users, and responded to a few unblock requests. Yesterday I dealt with a whole pile of reports at WP:RPP. These are things that it currently interests me to deal with, I don't feel obligated to work in areas that are of no interest to me just because there is a backlog. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Same here. When I ran for RfA, I said exactly why I wanted the tools and that's pretty much what I've been doing, though I've blocked a lot more people than I thought I would and have deleted more CSDs than planned (WP:CSD and WP:PROD go hand-in-hand as I've learned). I don't close AfDs, don't hang out at AIV, UAA, or RPP. I did spend one day at AN3 because someone at the noticeboard said there was a gigantic backlog, and there was, but once that was cleared I stayed away. I think I do plenty of "work" as it is, but if I was forced to do things I wasn't interested in I'd resign the bit and go back to what I did before I was an admin. -- Atama頭 00:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And when I ran, I intended to do what interested me... using the tools to assist in my vandal-fighting in the early morning when all of the kids on the east coast are bored, and there aren't very many admins active at the time, and some CSD and UAA work. I didn't pass, but I tried anyways, and I explicitly stated that I didn't wish to get involved in things that I didn't want to get involved in in the first place. However apparently vandal-fighters such as myself are supposedly guaranteed to get in some kind of content dispute which we're unfamiliar with, and thus are "unfit" for adminship because of that. I know, with me it wasn't just that reasoning that killed my RfA(s), but it was the main reason... I stuck with what I wanted to do, and I've done so for over 1 and an half years. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to take the view that even the most trivial of admin work is important to the project and I try to take on a wide array of things, not just those that interest me. The only problem with that is sometimes I take on too much and I never finish what I start! -- œ ^™ 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what can create burnout, OlEnglish. There is a small adminbase that still do what they have always done. If you feel like you can't complete a task at a time you are going to be buried in incomplete burdens, with people nudging you. Do what you want to and you'll be still be interested in eighteen months. If you don't, you'll probably just be inclined to say fuck it and abandon the account. This is the point where you'll "start anew" and the next thing you know you're an admin again. Embrace what you find fulfilling, is my advice with 3.5 years of the mop dirty. We hate to see quality users go away because of overinvolvement outside of areas of interest. Keegan (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In my own RFA, admittedly not the best exanple of a resounding endorsement, I tried to take pains to answer the hypothetical question of "do you intend to do any work?" with as close to "not really, but..." as I could accurately convey. I just figured I would be a net benefit with buttons rather than without. It shouldn't really matter what I work on, if I'm doing it with a reasonable amount of sense and a large dose of listen-to-what-other-people-say, what am I breaking? Franamax (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If a trusted editor has the admin tools then if they use them only once a month that is a benefit. It is not at all easy to become an admin and an editor generally has to prove to a very great extent that if they were the sort of person who wanted to edit in another area then they would make darn sure they understood what they were doing before diving in. I get very irritated by the whole "I didn't run for admin to do this or that, or I did run for admin to do this and only this" argument. If you have the tools you can be trusted to do as much as you can trust yourself to do, that is why RfA is so strict. Polargeo (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And also that is why I dislike the whole "I only want to use the tools for DYK why are you opposing me becuase I have never !voted in an AfD?" rubbish Polargeo (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If they only intend to work AFD, you are right... the problem however originates when people want to bolster their application. "I want to work on CSD/AFD/DYK... but I only have exp at DYK." That's when a problem arises. Watch how you answer those questions, they have resulted in more than one candidate failing.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"If a person uses the bit once to block a vandal before they can vandalize another, delete a single attack page, etc it is a net benefit." - Balloonman.

I respectfully disagree. I find it a moderately time-consuming process to review an RfA application, including the user's contributions, answers to questions, and other !voters' comments. I am certain that other editors also find this review time-consuming. If there is no RfA for me (and others) to assess, that's time that we could use elsewhere to improve Wikipedia. Thus an admin who only uses the tools once is actually a net negative. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's fairly far out in the realm of the hypothetical. What about a more realistic example, such as an admin who only uses the tools a few times a month, or has long periods of inactivity followed by bursts of clearing out backlogs or something? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

A few times a month? Hmm, that's marginal. Bursts of activity? Sure, that's great. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You're kind of proving my original point. The time you spend looking at RfAs is time you could be spending elsewhere. But you're not. Because RfAs interest you, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Every part of Wikipeda's administration has a group of users who are interested in maintaining it; if it doesn't, that's a good sign that it's not needed. If something is so irrelevant and tedious that nobody wants to do it—or even make a bot to do it—then it's probably not worth doing. And it's equally probable that nobody will want to do it, no matter how many admins we have (stopping short, of course, of the infinite monkey theorem). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I agree with Balloonman's statements. We have no shortage of mops, and no one is required to review RFA applications. We judge each candidacy on its merits. We have elected qualified candidates who have stated they don't intend to use the tools very often. The argument "he doesn't need the mop" is disfavored as a reason to oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why we do need more admins

I'm sorry but I don't agree that because certain areas are "fully manned" or because many areas that could be backlogged are not, the low rate of appointment of new admins isn't a problem. We have no way of knowing what advantages the project would have if we had, say, double the number of admins we currently have.
For one thing, the current workload for admins means that very little time is spent actively checking decisions by other admins in any meaningful sense. What active admin trying to keep on top of backlogs has the time to look through the deletion log and check that deletions were correctly performed? Even the most competent admin trying to review a large number of speedy requests in a short space of time will get it wrong from time to time. But there aren't nearly enough admins to look over those decisions and make sure that a well meaning new user hasn't had content deleted needlessly.
I don't think the project would lose anything by halving the workload of current admins, allowing them to spend more time considering each decision, and I suspect it would gain a lot. The making of admin actions is not a goal in itself, nor is the elimination of backlogs. The goal should be to make sure that these decisions are being made correctly. The narrowing of the pool of active admins, in my opinion, means that too few people are being asked to do too many things.
If it were known that we had enough admins that the actions of new/inexperienced admins were going to be the subject of active scrutiny, I think RfA standards could be relaxed a bit. Adminship has become a big deal not because it has to be, but because so few admins are being appointed. WJBscribe (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the myth of the overworked admin. People love to talk about admins like we're cogs in a machine; if only there were more cogs, each could do less. But cogs don't have a choice about the work they perform, and we do. You say too few people are being asked to do too many things, but that's not exactly true - nobody is being asked to do anything. Sure, I get the occasional request on my talk page, but 99% of my on-wiki time is spent doing what I want to do. Fortunately, that includes a lot of admin-type stuff. But Raul's Third Law is just as true for admin tasks as it is for everything else. If you want to start handing out assignments, you're going to have to start handing out paychecks, too. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, "ah, the myth of the overworked admin" is pretty patronising response to someone's comment. No one may be requesting anyone to do anything, let alone paying them to, but think there are nevertheless admins feel a need to keep the backlogs down, and gain satisfaction from knowing that they have done so. Sometimes what people "want to do" is part of what they feel they have to do. I think there are plenty of admins want to keep the backlogs. IMO, we should be encouraging people to spend more time thinking about admin actions (both their own and other people's). Increasing the pool of available admins would mean that some of time which people kindly offer to the project could spend on such activities. WJBscribe (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to encourage people to spend more time on specific admin actions, I'm all for that. We could have a weekly admin newsletter with a "project of the week" or some such thing. Maybe the admins we already have just need some direction and encouragement. I just don't see what that has to do with the actual number of admins, one way or the other. Nobody is overworked; anybody who has time to post a comment on this page only proves my point. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I like this idea. I'm sure someone could think of an idea or two to even make it interesting. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone needs to do a selling job, to explain why anyone would want to go through the one-week hazing just so they could help clear a few back-logs they have no interest in? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing the edit summary I thought this was gonna be a proposal to just institute a flat one time monetary fee for the admin position in place of the current RfA process. I'm disappointed.radek (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If the Wikimedia Foundation was to pay admins, we'd have to have a lot fewer. But, on the other side of the coin, we'd have admins working on backlogs 40 hours per week. With so few admins, we could afford to be extremely selective when, well, selecting them. The bar would be raised to record heights, but I imagine backlogs would be at record lows (along with the Foundation's bank account). Useight (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more of just straight up bribery or simony. Or to elaborate; there's probably a lot more people who'd be willing to fork out the funds to be an admin rather than go through the current RfA process.radek (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling with your basic premise. Why would anyone want to be an administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure myself but I reckon standard reasons include prestige, admin armor, and the block button. Anyhowz, de gustibus non est disputandum and all that.radek (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe some like to do the menial work :) Aiken ♫ 23:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If the WMF was paying them, then probably the WMF would not unreasonably want to choose them. FWIW it's my view that the number of administrators ought to be reduced considerably, as it seems that nothing else will focus attention on eliminating all of the invented busywork. Naturally I don't expect anyone to agree with me though. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire; I agree wholeheartedly. Tan | 39 23:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the most productive thing to come out of this discussion may simply be finding out I'm not alone in this. If the number of admins can't keep up with the busywork, get rid of the busywork. Most of it was invented to give the glut of admins something to do, and serves little or no practical purpose. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd even go so far as to argue that much of the busywork is counter-productive, as it drives away potentially productive editors. For what benefit? A few less words deployed that some deem impolite? Usernames that don't don't offend the terminally over-sensitive? In the interests of full disclosure I speak as one who was blocked for using the word "sycophantic". --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As they say, if you want something done, give it to a busy man. Useight (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll clear the current backlog at WP:TFD for fifty bucks, and I'll throw in the backlog at WP:PUF for an extra twenty five. Any takers? I've got a PayPal account you can send it to... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, noone cares about template deletion. That's why there is such a backlog. —Dark 01:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'd argue that there is no backlog there! If nobody cares, it's not a backlog. Same with the photos: If a specific photo is clearly a problem, it will be deleted. If it isn't a problem, does the related discussion really need to be closed? How does that improve the encyclopedia? Is it a backlog just because at some point someone decided to put a {{backlog}} tag on the page? The term "backlog" doesn't even have a definition; WP:BACKLOG says it's "a list of things that need to be done, but have not been done for some time." Some time? According to whom? What happens if it isn't?

It's all part of the bureaucratic process we've artificially created for ourselves, but it's not actually necessary. Most of it is, as Malleus said, busy work. And the amount of busy work increases right along with the number of admins (is, in fact, created by those new admins), so that it will never be satisfied. So there's no need to panic; everything is just fine. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A nice summary. Let's agree what needs to be done, as opposed to what could be done given an infinite number of administrators, then it might be easier to decide how many is enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree about the files. Although not many people are willing to tackle that backlog, it is more significant than templates. Copyright is important. —Dark 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Which part of admin status is needed to deal with copyright issues?radek (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Every admin should have a basic understanding of copyright. But that's just my personal opinion. —Dark 02:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion misses the point, although understandably so given how few administrators actually ever write anything. Everyone here needs to have a good understanding of copyright. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. My point is that while some backlogs can be dismissed, others cannot. WP:PUI can be a more efficient process. It is boring, tedious work that noone wants to do. But, in the absence of a better process, it is something that needs to be dealt with. And to answer radek's question more fully, admins are needed to delete these problematic images. —Dark 02:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, any photo that is a problem has already been or soon will be deleted. They are not part of the supposed backlog (unless "backlog" is now taken to mean a day or so). Any blatant copyright violations can be (and are) quickly deleted without discussion, and when in doubt an OTRS ticket filed by the complainant can help settle the matter. None of these parts of the system are particularly short-handed. What contributes to the "backlog" is a lack of procedural closures (with tags like {{Ffd top}}) on images that consensus does not support deleting. It's just the dotting of the i's within the system we've set up that comes a bit more slowly, and it's not necessary to be an admin to handle any of that stuff. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But how will another admin know if that case has been handled? —Dark 02:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ignore all rules. Especially really trivial stuff like templates.

To use Dark's example, I just went through WP:PUI for 3/12, 3/13, and 3/14. Took me 11 minutes to do three days' worth of images because I didn't bother with templates. If the link is red, that means I deleted the picture. If it's blue, it's still there because the consensus was to keep it (except that in one case, consensus was to give the uploader time to get out of the hospital, which also seems reasonable, and we can assume they'll give us a nudge when enough time has gone by). The reasons for all of my decisions should be self-evident from the comments of the participants (or the lack thereof). No need to close anything; the deleted ones are deleted, and the not-deleted ones are not deleted. If a few editors want to keep discussing them ad infinitum, it doesn't hurt anything. Any admin with a calendar can see that more than 7 days have passed so there's no need to respond to comments until and unless someone brings it to deletion review. If someone has a question, they can ask me. If something should not have been deleted, it can be restored. If something should have been deleted and wasn't, it can be revisited. No problem anywhere - and no backlog. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I sympathize with WJBscribe but I think Kafziel is making a really important point. If the number of active admins seems to be falling, it should stimulate debate about how to reduce the workload for janitors. Wouldn't that be a more useful discussion than how to entice more candidates to RfA? - Pointillist (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reducing the wordload could have a side benefit of enticing more candidates.

There are probably two main ways of reducing workload -- better tools and less bureacracy. As a side note, two non-admin areas I had some involvement in years ago, I considered returning to but decided against, because the process had grown too complicated for my taste. Maurreen (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So now the question becomes, will a reduced workload also mean a reduction in overall quality of the project due to work being thrown away? Or will it be an improvement because we will have more free admins available to work on content? I'm betting on the latter, however, either way we need to be careful when cutting corners in admin-related tasks. We need to make sure that what 'busywork' we get rid of will not have a negative long-term effect on the project. -- œ ^™ 02:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the question should be "why do we need more admins?" We can never have enough or too many. There is and should not be a set limit. The only pertinent question is, "Can we trust the user to benefit the project with the tools?" If the answer is yes, they should get the bit. The buttons are tools, and they exist to make the project better. Saying we have "too many" is akin to saying, "we don't have enough vandalism and articles in need of deletion." Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A few days now without any serious applicants. So WT:RFA, do you think it's time for people to crack each others skulls open and feast on the goo within? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

Yes I do, Kent. --WT:RFA (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had a dream last night that I opposed someone for RFA and then felt terribly guilty about it because we need at least a million more admins. What are you lot doing to me!? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you dream about Wikipedia is terribly odd. What have we done to you? :) —Dark 05:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But what does it actually mean?

There's an instruction in the article which says

"Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below this line."

Written by the Ministry of Silly Walks? Or Blackadder?.222.152.170.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC).

It just simply means add new requests for adminship under the line. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So why doesn't it say so? Guess you missed the point.222.152.170.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC).

I think "this section" should be "the section". I tried to change it but I can't. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. It was in a template. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. Huh. f o x (formerly garden) 21:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I think I got a bit blind there, well I get your point now. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me

i cant finish my nomneni step becus the page is bolocked can you help me--Radiago (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be harsh, but your request has next to zero chances of succeeding- read WP:NOTNOW and User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users. If you really want to run, you can- any user with 10 edits and who's been here 4 days can finish the process for you, but you should do so with your eyes open to your chances. My advice would be to totally forget about adminship for several months and a few thousand edits. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Radiago. As Brad says. You might also find User:Dlohcierekim/not now useful. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hard truth: Your RFA has zero chance of passing because you haven't written any articles or been here more than a day. It should not be transcluded.--Chaser (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bradjamesbrown, Dlohcierekim and Chaser. It's true that your request for admiship has an extremely near-impossible chance of succeding because your account is not old enough at all, your RFA (if you start it, which I'd recommend not to) will very likely be closed early per WP:NOTNOW. Sorry, but most Wikipedians say that you need at least five thousand edits and to have been on Wikipedia for half a year, two days and only a dozen edits is hardly enough. I would say, don't start it, don't. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Newpage patrol

On the "300 deleted edits" thing, I've been doing New Page Patrol for only about a month or so, and in that time I've already tagged around 400 articles for CSD (most of which were deleted) - the number of blatant CSD articles created every day really is very high. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes but this quantification does discourage thoughtful CSD taggers who may want to wait a few minutes. It is only really possible to quickly rack up 300 plus CSDs if you join in the CSD dog fight at the top of the new pages list and this is not something I would like to see encouraged by opposes based soley on the quantity and not the quality. Polargeo (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to encourage that, either. There's very little- other than G10's and G12's- that needs to be taken down a minute after creation. More telling for that candidate- though this really should be said on the RFA's talk page- is their patrolled page count; less than 200. I'd think anyone that wants to work as an admin in CSD (and that's closely tied to NPP) should have more experience in the field than that. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you for that RfA. I just think that prospective candidates must not be thinking they need to rack up lots of CSDs and we should push quality over quantity. Polargeo (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Hundreds of articles are speedy deleted every day, so tagging over a 100 articles for speedy deletion may not take much time. But it does take time to do it accurately and combine it with newby welcoming, categorisation or any of the other things that show a new page patroller is ready for the mop. That's why if someone has 100s of speedy tags I'm only really interested in the latest 100 - I know that many newpage patrollers go through an overenthusiastic patch, I want to know they have got beyond that before I'm willing to support them at RFA. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with quality over quantity-- it takes time to Google search a subject to see if the CSD problem can be remedied-- but I do it most of the time. Sometimes I come up with notability. When I don't come up with anything useful, I can feel more comfortable in deleting speedily. One must bear in mind that new pages are often created by new editors who only understand "Be Bold." They may not create even a viable stub with there first few edits, and may need a lot of help. Slapping a CSD tag on within the first few minutes can be very discouraging, too. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 13:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think saying 300 is low really doesn't help prosective candidates. 300 is not low. Some people simply do not have the time to hang around NPP all day long, and even if they would make a great admin, they are penalized for having a life. This is why some people refuse to run; they feel they are inexperienced, even though they are not.

Another point is that saying 300 is low may encourage people to rush the process and become thoughtless and tag articles inappropriately. I agree with others above that it's about how the person goes about doing the job, and the end result, rather than (excuse my bluntless) mindlessly demanding an arbitrary number without even checking the quality of usefulness of the taggings. Aiken ♫ 15:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "broken"

I keep seeing threads claiming that RFA is "broken". But what exactly makes it broken? Yes, we're at the lowest point ever in promoting admins. However, does that mean something has gone wrong? My question is, does RFA serve a purpose and is it not being fulfilled? My opinion is, yes it does serve a purpose - to create new administrators. The process may be brutal, it may not be fair, but it's what we have. The second point, I think the purpose is being fulfilled. There is no target or goal we need to get with regards to number of administrators. There is not a set number of positions that need filling. We appoint admins as and when candidates are approved. This is happening, though not as often as some would like, including myself. However, I don't agree that it's bad enough.

In short; RFA is serving the purpose it was created for and is not broken.

So what will it look like when it is broken? The answer is, probably like it does now! I think that RFA is often a "supply and demand" system, where we appoint more admins in times they are really needed, and fewer where perhaps they are not. At the moment, I see no critical backlogs, so we don't really need more (though more are obviously welcome). Once the "urgent" backlogs of AIV, CSD (attack pages), and even Did You Know which needs updating, are backlogged on a regular basis, perhaps the system could be considered broken - but only if admins are still not being appointed.

As long as admins are still being appointed (albeit rarely), and there are no critical backlogs, the system is not broken. Aiken ♫ 15:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC).

Much of the problem is that the project is not attracting and retaining contributors who have the leadership characteristics we would really like to see for admins and other people in positions requiring judgment and trust. However, the ever-escalating standards and the relatively low !voter turnout at RFA are, IMO, a problem. The sociological effects of RFA on the editor community are problematic. The activities and behaviors we reward through the granting of adminship change the character of the Wikipedia community in significant ways.

The reduced admin workload as a result of the "bot revolution" about two years ago has eliminated much of the backlog. There's much less work to do because bot operators, not admins, deal with most vandalism.

The real problem we have is that if we're only creating one or two new admins a month, we'll eventually run out of candidates to become arbcom members, bureaucrats, OTRS volunteers, etc. And at some point the backlogs will start to grow. I don't believe it is wise to wait for that to happen before making changes.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Much of the problem is that the project is not attracting and retaining contributors who have the leadership characteristics we would really like to see" - totally disagree. You are implying that the Wikipedia community has a nice neat set of "leadership characteristics" that we are looking for; this couldn't be farther from the truth. One of the salient problems is that the criteria people look for nowadays is so divergent and, in a lot of cases, the bar is set way too high. We're not hiring CEOs, but candidates increasingly have to have the resume of one.

"The real problem we have is that if we're only creating one or two new admins a month, we'll eventually run out of candidates to become arbcom members..." - again, totally disagree. If the only "real problem" is that we run out of people to fill the overbloated bureaucratic roles, then we have no problem. Tan | 39 16:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I should mention I disagree with respect; there are other points you made that I agree with. Tan | 39 16:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tan. This is, primarily, an encyclopedia. Therefore, articles are the most important thing. Bureaucrats and arbitrators are extensions of the admin role, but Wikipedia would survive without either. It could not survive without admins, due to its open nature. However, we have sufficient numbers of admins and we are steadily promoting people. It's a low month, but this may be because there simply aren't enough people willing to stand. Next month could be the complete opposite. It's not something anyone can predict. Aiken ♫ 16:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if the process as you say "may be brutal" and "may not be fair" then I would say it needs reform. As for the number related argument, as others have explained more admins means we have a better chance of spotting admin mistakes. More admins means we put less pressure on those we have and hopefully avoid them burning out, or spending so much of their time doing admin stuff that they become detached from the pedia. If we allow the number of active admins to fall until we have backlogs then we are taking a bit of a gamble that those who volunteered to take on the admin role in the past will still be there when we need them. As for the idea that this is just a random low month and next month could be the complete opposite, I'm pretty sure that this low month at the end of a low quarter at the end of a low year is not just a random fluctuation, and sadly I predict that April 2010 will see the drought continue, with the number of admins appointed much closer to this months 2 than the December 2005 peak figure of 68. 22 would be the best result since the drought began in March 2008, but I'd be surprised if we even managed 14 - which was the best result for any month last year. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But it makes admins all the same, so it's not broken. I don't buy the "more admins means we can spot mistakes better" argument - surely more admins means more potential for mistakes, and more logs to be checking over? Any person can see and point out mistakes. Aiken ♫ 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We've had all these statistics being posted here the last few weeks while it's been super slow at RFA, but very little in the way of forward thinking ideas to actually change RFA. Even if we were to all agree that there is a problem, it seems nobody has a better idea that is actually workable and not directly contrary to Wikipedias fundamental principle of consensus based decision making. As I mentioned about a week ago, if we aren't willing to seriously consider very radical changes in the way RFA is done, then we are just spinning our wheels here. We can't hope to force a change in the attitude and expectations of RFA participants, so the only way to make any real change is to radically alter the process itself. I'm not sure we're ready for that, or that we ever will be, and I am sure that I have not seen any ideas put forward that could win the widespread support needed for such an overhaul. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

From looking at WS's stats, it appears that the larger recent slide is in the number of candidates, not the amount promoted. It's plausible that scouting for and encouraging suitable candidates would help mitigate any real or perceived shortages. Maurreen (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes very plausible but probably not helpful to our chances of achieving a solution. If you look back on this pages history to mid Sept 2009 we at one point had a fairly strong consensus for taking a package of changes to the Village pump for approval by the community. Crats ok'd the idea, we had project pages set up to refine the various ideas, and at one point I counted about 25 in favour and only 3 against any form of change. Then the idea of scouting for new candidates emerged as a compromise for a few very vocal editors who spoke out for the status quo. Such an attractive compromise that the reform efforts were almost immediately relegated to the back burner. With the benefit of 6 months hindsight, we know despite considerable scouting effort the active admin corps has continued to decline. But because the ideas so plausible its good to be reminded its doesnt fly, whenever its suggested when momentum is building for another go at upgrading RFA. On the specific point about the number of candidates declining, thats maybe related to the increasingly hostile personal comments candidates have to contend with – a lowering of the approval threshold would maybe be the most practical way to address that as it would shift the balance away from opposers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like to say that a system is broken, but...

Should it be considered a concern that we're going to close this month with only two successful adminship nominations? I haven't checked the logs, but I believe this is the lowest number of successful adminship candidacies in one month's time since this process was first initiated. Now I detest threads about how RfA is a "broken system" and needs to be fixed (which I think have decreased substantially lately), but I still wanted to mention it as something to consider. I'm wondering whether it's a simple coincidence that there's just very few editors currently interested in applying for it, or if it's more as a result of our reluctancy to assign admin rights without the user having an adept (if not insightful) understanding of all major Wikipedia policies prior to applying (even if it has no relation to their area of interest), or a combination of the two. I doubt RfA will become any easier to pass, as there are several editors who hold very stringent criteria for supporting. When newcomers to these pages see the rationales for opposition, they will learn to apply the same reasoning in their participation at a request, and it will therefore continue to be difficult to pass. Much as I'm sure the point has already been hammered home, the system itself is not the reason promotion rates have been on a decline for years (prior to my even joining this site), for it is the participants themselves. They will be the same people and will have the same opinion no matter what format we use to publicize the requests and subject candidates for scrutiny. So it's hard to imagine a solution beyond simply encouraging others to take a moment to consider if their opinion is at all relevant to whether the candidate will perform effectively as an administrator, or whether they have the competence to familiarize themselves with guidelines before involving themselves in a relevant area (or if they hold enough recognition of their limits to know when to say "no, but so-and-so might be able to help"). Opposing due to lack of experience is one thing, but opposing due to a lack of breadth of experience seems a bit imprudent. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just one more thought on that - While I don't believe the system is broken, some of the opposes (e.g. here) really make me think more admins are not wanted. "Oppose, only 300 deleted edits" without even looking at them. I mean, if it was 300 correct CSD taggings I would say "Wow, what a thoughtful editor"! It seems this particular AfD is not going to pass for many other reasons, but it is opposes like these that might give potential candidates a break. --Pgallert (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I was the first one to bring that up, I feel compelled to comment. 300 deleted edits really isn't that many- I have almost no interest in speedy tagging, and I've managed to accumulate nearly 800 of them just from wandering around the encyclopaedia. 300 deleted edits for a candidate whose first interest in question 1 is CSD is not many; a dedicated tagger could tag that many articles in a week- that many fatally flawed articles come in. The community still wants sysops- there were several this month that, IMO, sent a "not just yet" message, not "Mark RFA as historical" message. People have mentioned on this board here that standards are higher than they used to be relating to experience; whenever that happens, it will slow down until those who want to run are aligned with the community's expectations. Or maybe just no one wants to spend a week under the microscope, what do I know. But to extrapolate from one RFA that more sysops might not be wanted is a mistake, IMO. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But you have nine times the edits of that user. If s/he continues like this, there will be 2700 deleted edits by the time your edit count is reached, so I would indeed say the user is (a bit) more interested in CSD than you. But this one example was just the reason for me to drop this message, the problem as I perceive it is the sheer impossibility to get the right "mix" of edits. Too many X, too little Y, you know what I mean. With a four-digit edit count, CSD-tagging 800 articles in a week would lift the automated edit ratio into unacceptable regions, and if they are all successful there won't be a single main space edit among them. Heaven forbid, of course, that they are not all successful -- anyone picking 8 recently declined CSDs and combining them into an oppose will sink the RfA single-handedly, even if that is just a mere 1%. (I do admit 8 potentially deleted articles would be a concern, also for me.) --Pgallert (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

2 new admins in one month is indeed the lowest monthly total since records began, and only a third as many as the previous low of six in one month . I suspect that we may also have set a record for the longest gap since we appointed an admin, the last was 18 days ago so we are going to have a gap of at least 25 days between successful RFAs. The number of very active contributors - those with over a 100 edits a month, is down a little from peak levels, but is still more than two thirds as many as at peak editing. So if believe that if RFA wasn't broken there would still be more than enough candidates to maintain admin numbers and possibly even maintain active admin numbers. As it is I've sounded out several candidates recently, all of them well qualified by historic standards, but it is very difficult to persuade people to run in the current environment. I appreciate that not everyone yet accepts that RFA is broken, or that we have drought at RFA, however I've done my best to measure this honestly and openly at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month, and I would welcome scrutiny there of those stats - especially from those who are uncomfortable that I and others regard this as evidence that RFA is broken. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See my thread below, 'Definition of "broken"'. Aiken ♫ 15:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's just not been much of a successful month for RFA, we've got no chance of a new admin in March now since all the three current requests end in April (unless one of the nominations is closed early, but that'll obviously mean failure). Hopefully this'll be the last of only two successful requests for a while. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Criteria

We have some recurring comments about criteria: that some perceive it as too high, some as arbitrary, some as contradictory, some as nearly impossible to achieve.

I realize that there are a number of pages outlining criteria that different editors use, and I think a page somewhere that is intended to summarize these. But it might be helpful to review criteria in general, at least to see whether the summary is still current. Maurreen (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Criteria change over time and a summary would most likely be misleading. Individual users often post their own individual RfA criteria in an attempt to be consistent with their votes. I personally don't wish to post my own criteria. I have some basics (minimum edits etc.) in my own mind but don't wish to be bound by them in the very diverse cases that arise. The advice to look at recent RfAs both successful and unsuccessful is a good one. Polargeo (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There are very basic criteria that are descriptive, such as a minimum of 2-3,000 edits, six months experience, and some experience in admin related areas, but other than that they are widely variable, sometimes even between RFAs that are open at the same time. If an opposer finds something stupid or nasty that a candidate did within a few weeks or months of applying, whether or not that one thing was acceptable or not can suddenly be the only criteria, whereas if there is no smoking gun or skeleton in the closet the opposers cold all have different reasons. Making a list more substantial than what I described above might give candidates the sorely mistaken impression that if they fit those basic criteria they're a shoe-in. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and for some, those n thousand edits will become a goal in themselves. Once the goal is reached, they will be of the belief they are ready. I think that we should avoid giving numbers as much as is possible, to avoid the idea that getting x number of edits is necessary for adminship. Codifying criteria is a bad idea, partly for those reasons, and also because it differs so wildly between people. Aiken ♫ 17:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Maurreen, I agree with you that people are never going to be wildly enthusiastic about running for a position when you don't know what the position requires. That has limited the number of admins, and of course many people think that's a good thing, and maybe it is. But only two promotions this month is a concern for me. I totally understand the reservations that people have about any system where people might have to endure two different voting processes ... Malleus and others feel that that's like asking people to go through hell twice instead of once, and sometimes it is. But I can't help thinking that the only way to get candidates more interested is to increase the success rate, which is only going to happen if what people are aiming for is clearer and more attainable ... and that means breaking off one or more pieces of what it means to be an admin. For instance at UAA, there are patrollers who I know do an excellent job and it would be easy to convince the community that they would make good calls on blocking at UAA. They would probably enjoy a thumbs-up from the community acknowledging their good judgment. We might break off this userright and give it to them, or we might not give them any userrights but vote them into a special position where the understanding is that they will make the calls and admins will do the actual deletions after a quick double-check. Worst case: people decide that once we've got these people working at UAA, we don't "need" to promote them to adminship, and we get even fewer admins. But my guess is it will be the other way around; it will be easier to succeed at RFA if someone has a solid track record of collaborating with admins. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dank, I see value in your idea. But I think any "deputy adminship" -- "not give them any userrights but vote them into a special position where the understanding is that they will make the calls and admins will do the actual deletions after a quick double-check" in a specialty area -- would be more likely to be accepted within a given specialty area. If it is accepted in one area, a few others might try it. If it continues to work, it could continue spreading. Maurreen (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

People already do that, per se. If a user tags an article for speedy deletion, it can be inferred that if they were an admin, they would have deleted it. If they make an AIV or UAA report, it can be inferred that they would have blocked the user. They are already making a call that us administrators double-check and perform the action. Useight (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, but they get no acknowledgement from the community that they're competent in the job, other than simply having their reports accepted, and the very occasional and not very meaningful barnstar. The lack of community feedback makes it very hard for them to help admins with a major part of the admin's job, the "care and feeding" of patrollers. Look at for instance User:decltype's RFA to see some of the responses he got when he made CSD calls before he got the mop. I agree with Maurreen that if anyone wants to push this idea of a deputy role, it would be wise to push it in specific areas and see how it's accepted. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

@Maurreen you should have read Wikimedia Strategic Planning Task forces recommendations. There are some stuffs that may interest you. --KrebMarkt 20:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dank, if it makes any difference to you, the "speedy award" you gave me was one of the things that convinced me I should go ahead and take another run at RFA, so don't be too dismissive of the meaning of acknowledgement. (of course some users will now hate you for encouraging me...) However I don't like the idea of unbundling the tools. Taking your example, as you know we have a lot of help at UAA from non-admin users who are well-versed in the policy. But often there is more to it than blocking the account, such a spam or attack pages that need to be deleted. So our half-admin would be able to block the user, but would still have to go ask a "full" admin to do the deletion. Thus we would require two admins to do what one can do now. Also, of all the tools blocking has the most potential to cause irreversible harm and if there were incremental degrees of adminship the ability to block should be the last tool granted, not the first. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. You more than earned a commendation for speedy deletion work and IMO more than earned the mop. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems with RFA as I see it is that it's basically a vote, with no criteria for who can cast a vote, and that there are plenty of editors around who will oppose RFAs for fairly spurious reasons, or because they have had a difference in views with the candidate in the past. Rather than asking themselves whether the editor in question can be trusted to use the admin tools with sound judgment and a steady hand, we get RFAs opposed because people are too inclusionist, too deletionist, haven't written a GA, haven't done enough of X and too much of Y, etc., etc. Clearly an editor needs to be able, via their contributions, to convince the community of their suitability to get the admin tools, and some baseline criteria may be useful here, but perhaps what we need is a process that takes into account genuine concerns and ignores those that are not relevant, much as is in theory the case with AFD discussions. Another issue is that RFAs seem to expect candidates to have a lot of knowledge of areas that they can only gain knowledge in by becoming an admin and using the tools. I believe good judgment, sufficient experience, a demonstrable understanding that we are building an encyclopedia here, and the right motivation in aspiring to be an admin are more important. If the RFA process could be made less of a free-for-all for any editor with a grudge to have a go at the candidate it may be more successful in attracting the right candidates - perhaps a pre-RFA review to identify potential concerns should be encouraged. Some agreed minimum criteria may also help to prevent snowball-in-hell RFAs from being started in the first place.--Michig (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the pre-RFA review is that we've got something very similar, WP:ER ... and I have to confess that I haven't peeked in lately, but historically the problem was that the advice that people hear there isn't a good predictor of what they'll hear at RFA. My guess is that, in order to get the same people to show up at a "pre-RFA review" who are likely to show up at the RFA, and in order to get them to say the same kinds of things they would say at RFA, it would have to be a serious vote of some kind, about something that is perceived as "counting". On your other point ... the Wikipedia way, rather than telling voters what to do, would be to build in some kind of feedback loop, and the simplest way to do that would be to have two voting processes of some kind ... any kind, really. I think this was a lot of the impetus behind various admin recall efforts, behind WP:VETTING (which didn't work because almost no one offered reviews), and behind efforts to get non-admins more involved in admin work. If you have two votes of any kind on the same person, then to the extent that the same voters participate, you've got a feedback mechanism, with candidates and voters talking with each other about what went right and what went wrong with the first vote. We have that already of course because some people go through multiple RFAs ... but there's always some kind of negative effect, and not just for the candidate, from a failed RFA, and it's a shame we have have to have that kind of failure in order to get something (feedback from the voters to the voters) that we really ought to be getting with every candidate. Besides, it negatively biases what we learn if the only time that we go back and re-examine are in the cases where something went wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Successful RFA gap

WereSpielChequers mentioned above the active gap between successful RFAs. He said that we're at 18 days now, and we'll hit at least 25 to for a pass. I thought I'd check the archives for longer gaps, if any. Going back through 2003, here are all the gaps of at least a dozen days:

18 days: April 24, 2003 - May 12, 2003
18 days: March 11, 2010 - Present
16 days: September 28, 2003 - October 3, 2003
16 days: November 17, 2003 - December 2, 2003
14 days: March 10, 2003 - March 24, 2003
14 days: September 3, 2003 - September 17, 2003
14 days: December 21, 2003 - January 4, 2004
14 days: February 15, 2010 - March 1, 2010
13 days: May 18, 2009 - May 31, 2009
13 days: December 29, 2008 - January 11, 2009
13 days: November 26, 2009 - December 9, 2009
12 days: September 3, 2008 - September 15, 2008
12 days: October 1, 2009 - October 13, 2009
12 days: December 30, 2009 - January 11, 2010

It appears the month closest to March 2010 was September 2003, which only escaped having four candidates pass when six others made it through in a 24 hour span. Anyway, of the fourteen times, eight since Septembeer 2008, six before. Make of it what you will. Useight (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it'll be a gap of nearly a month, if that's the minimum. But we aren't required to keep adding admins. I don't see the problem. Aiken ♫ 19:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that the total net gain/loss for the month is –2. I don't think it's a big deal, though. WP:FAC and WP:GAN are as backlogged as ever, indicating that either we're rapidly losing our editorial base (unlikely) or the encyclopedia is still churning along just fine. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC and GAn, both important areas, are probably backlogged simply because there are not enough interested editors to work through the backlogs. Aiken ♫ 21:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't compare FAC/GAN with RfA. There's no status associated with being a reviewer, just hard work and earache. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC and RfA are both associated with distinct sub-communities each having its own culture, in-jokes and rites of passage—so to that extent they are are comparable. I would no more think of aspiring to work at FAC than I would expect to wield the mop. - Pointillist (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm very much mistaken you're all missing Julian's point. FAC and GAC are backlogged because there is still a constant flow of quality material feeding them; since quality material is continuing to be created without problems, and the quality material is the only part of Wikipedia which matters (with no disrespect to those who've labored lovingly on making them what they are today, nobody really cares about articles like Cuzorn, Chonghai Bridge, or Southborough, Bromley), then the alleged "lack of admins" isn't causing the sky to fall on anyone's head. – iride scent 22:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was replying to Aiken drum's point. Juliancolton should be blocked here a.s.a.p. anyway: IB exams start on April 30th and A levels in mid-May. No-one wants him to miss his university offers because he spent his revision time mopping up Wikipedia. - Pointillist (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's nobody's business but Juliancolton's. Aiken ♫ 23:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Julian lives in New York I can't imagine that English qualifications are any great concern to him… – iride scent 23:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent is right. I wasn't comparing content processes with RFA, simply noting that the lack of admins isn't having much of an effect on the encyclopedia itself as of yet. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what I've said consistently ever since this whole thing began. RFA is not broken until the encyclopedia feels the effects of lack of admins. Aiken ♫ 00:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree about measuring the purported lack of admins, and when "the encyclopedia feels the effects of lack of admins" I hope that a review of policies will precede any actions to attract new admins. - Pointillist (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a brief comment. Based on WereSpielChequers' stats, the number of new admins created in 2009 was less than the number of admins who became inactive, and the ratio of new admins created to admins becoming inactive has been decreasing since 2006. At the current rate, the number of active admins will be back to 2005 levels by the end of 2011. Whether or not this is a problem depends on whether or not there is leeway (more active admins than there is work for them to do), and whether or not there are efficiency gains to match the decrease in numbers. I'm also curious as to whether future changes, such as flagged revisions and methods to tackle unsourced BLPs, will increase or decrease the workload of admins. However, it seems unwise to wait until a problem eventuates before looking at how to fix it: if this does represent a future problem, tackling it early, before the effects are felt, may be worth considering. - Bilby (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I really agree with that view on things. Dusti's RfA looks to fail, so that will extent the guaranteed drought a few more weeks. It should be noted that admins can do more admin work based on newer tools, but there is no reasons admins must only work in admin areas. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 01:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, to avoid admin burnout it's a good idea to occasionally force yourself to take a break from admin work and just work with content for at least a day or two. It also helps keep you grounded, reminding you of why Wikipedia was interesting to begin with. (hint:it wasn't because discussing how Wikipedia functions was fascinating (unless you are a real loony)) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby and Beeblebrox. Also, I wonder if we are having effects and just not seeing them. I come across more pages with days old vandalism in them. Also, the speed of the tools also means you miss more old vandalism-- twice recently I've seen other users further rv when I thought I had it all. Is more vandalism getting past unnoticed? If so, what do we/can we do? And do we now have a shortage of admins despitee the automatic tools that increase speed Dloh cierekim 18:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like we just need more RC patrollers if you ask me. Huggle anyone? -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Scouting for candidates

Well, this developing issue won't help much when trying to evaluate future candidate contributions. Calmer Waters 00:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We can always use Wikichecker or one of the other tools out there if need be. Hopefully Toolserver gets their act together. If not, i'm sure someone will write a script that runs through a users Special:Contributions and assembles them in much the same ways. Since the contribs are released under CC-BY-SA/GFDL, there's really nothing anyone can do to stop people from searching and sorting contribs. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I should comment here also. I personally don't think of running now (SNOW) or later (mostly real life situations, and not enough edits). I have a good understanding of most things that admins need, but I never encounter a need for them (as of now). Other candidates much more experienced than me are not running for the same reason. I suggest we start some admin-scouting program, by extending the list of most edits to about 3,000, and reviewing editors that manage to appear on that list. Any thoughts? Buggie111 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:EDITS is not an ideal hunting ground for potential admins, not least because it contains large numbers of both admins and inactive users, but doesn't have a filter to remove either. Extending it from its current 4,000 editors who've made >9,900 edits to all editors who've made over 3,000 edits would make the page extremely unwieldy, and I say this on behalf of my PC which has crashed several times updating that page. wp:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits would get round some of those problems, but it needs updating as the current version is from last June. Alternative sources of RFA candidates include autoreviewers, especially those who also have rollback; and "not yet" candidates from last year. To pick up on Mike Cline's point, I think it should be possible to run a toolserver extract for likely candidates. I suggest >3,000 edits (better still >3,000 edits after ignoring 80% of any automated ones), including at least 100 in each of the last couple of months, tenure > 6 months, clean block log for > 12 months, no RFA in the last 3 months and not currently a bot, admin or a declared alt account of an admin. It would be interesting to know how many editors fell into that group, and what proportion of them would be acceptable to the community. I'm aware that some people would oppose candidates who barely met one or more of those criteria, and there are several other hoops that can harm or help a candidate. But it would make it easy to trawl for potentially successful candidates, and would also help give an approximate idea as to how many potential candidates are out there. I'd also suggest an exclusion for anyone with that userbox, and we ought to have an opt out list for people who don't want to be listed. There's no guarantee that such candidates would pass an RFA, but a high proportion of them would IMHO be taken seriously as candidates (there are several other reasons why an RFA might fail, but I'm not sure they would lend themselves to a toolserver query). Ϣere SpielChequers 17:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe I meet those metrics. Been here better than 5 years, more than 40,000 edits on all WMF wikis/accounts, never run for adminship, here, although I am an admin on Wikisource. I'm a developer, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you've disagreed with people and taken positions that were unpopular prior to being annointed an adminstrator. Please create a new account and make 6 months worth of mostly-worthless, non-controvercial rv vandalism edits and hang out on IRC - and join MillHist. After five months, pick an article about an ancient military battle, go to the library and find out all about it. Improve that article to FA. When promoted, you can do whatever-the-fuck you want. Hipocrite (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"you can do whatever-the-fuck you wanted do". And that's EXACTLY what ole Jack will do. Don't enable him any further! I strongly oppose this guy as being an admin here and with his track record I don't see how he could last half a day through a RfA. He games the system, makes pointy edits, wikstalks (something he's been trouble with at ArbCom), a ton of sockpuppets (now dead, but who in the WORLD needs that many accounts?). No, I don't support this at all. —Mike Allen 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Who pissed in your chips? – iride scent 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I did. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: That would be a violation of my ArbCom terms and break several promises I've made, So no, I'm not going to follow that route. I'm well-aware that it could be successful. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what pissed my chips off. It's how you were (and still are) acting while the discussion was taking place. —Mike Allen 00:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quickie summary

There is disagreement about whether we need to promote more admins.
Some people believe we don't have the best info, or type of info, to determine whether there is or will be an admin shortage.
There is disagreement about whether RFA is broken.
Ideas for reform usually haven't gained much momentum. An exception might be from September 2009.
Unbundling, other than rollbacker, has never gained much support.
RFA has rising standards. Rising standards might be linked to fact that adminship is relatively permanent, hard to undo.
Standards are not very standard. There is disagreement about whether this is a problem.
Scouting for potential admins has been proposed.
"Admin lite" has generally been opposed.
Surveying potential admins (much experience, clean block log) about why they don't run has been proposed with no objection. A few have responded.
Lowering the threshold for bureaucrat discretion has not been opposed.
Some type of "pre-voting" has been proposed.
There might be potential in a better feedback loop, about !votes to !voters.

Did I miss anything, or does this list need other ajustment? Maurreen (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unbundling: agreed, if unbundling means unbundling everything, or unbundling anything without a lot of prior discussion and experimentation. Threshold: occasionally the threshold is lowered by crats; see here for a list. If crats decide that a candidate got less than 70% because of a hidden campaign or some really unfair and off-target misconception, I believe there's consensus that they should promote, and that's what they've done, in rare cases. But if the vote is not exceptional in some way, the current lower end of the discretionary range is 70%, although that seems like a "soft" consensus to me, there are many who want it a little lower, and still more who don't care much but trust the crats enough to believe that no great harm would come from giving them more flexibility. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's pretty close. I'm assuming the "exception" in the "Ideas for reform" refers to 'Cda' or 'Community de-adminship'? You might make that a bit clearer, if so. (I do not propose to discuss Cda here again, but that's the "adjustment" I would make.) Jusdafax 15:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that lowering the threshold for crat discretion or lowering the threshold generally has been opposed by some in the past, though I'm personally not averse to the idea. If we are listing the possible reforms, I'd also add;

Admin elections, setting a number of active admins and electing enough new admins each month to make up the numbers
Upbundling - moving some of the most heavy weight admin functions such as closing complex or close discussions to being a crat function.
Admin coaching, which seems to have fallen out of fashion but still has interested candidates.
Admin training and retraining - including potentially "pass this training module to use this unfamiliar admin function".

I'm tempted to put a citation needed on the idea that rising standards are related to the alleged difficulty to desysop people. Though I'd agree that every time we discuss editcountitis and the general drift to voters being more picky, the discussion gets sidetracked into the theory that making it easier to get rid of admins would somehow get people to only be as picky as they were in 05/06, despite desysopping being harder to do then that it is now. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, you are making sense on WT:RFA. This goes against everything this page stands for and you must desist immediately. — Coren ^(talk) 18:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would accept "Requests for De-adminship" with a requirement of current consensus level of 75-80% for passage. I don't think that lowering the bar on consensus for admining would work out. 18:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

OK Coren, I'll take a day off. WereSpielChequers : Chat 00:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

4 minutes in...

...and no joke RfAs? I'm disappointed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Has there ever been a joke RFA on April 1? IIRC, there was a rather nasty situation last year when someone assumed a real RFA was a joke and posted a bunch of inappropriate comments on it. – iride scent 00:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Some real RFAs would be nice. But probably inadvisable on a day like today. Aiken ♫ 00:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would not be nice to have your RfA candidacy, which you've worked so hard on, be assumed to be a joke!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

see blewo for User:The Thing That Should Not Be/AFRfA. Dloh cierekim 02:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Will someone nominate User:Willy on Wheels please? (natit citsejam • klat) dE— 04:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willy on Wheels –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh. guess he's on the inactive list. Dloh cierekim 04:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn. Anyone for Cool3? ;) (natit citsejam • klat) dE— 04:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

New Bureaucrat School

Hello everyone! I formed a Wikipedia:Newcratschool. It's the counterpart to WP:NAS. Enjoy and Happy April 1st. Useight (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:The Thing That Should Not Be/AFRfA

Not sure I'd've transcluded/untranscluded this !RFA but as it is !transcluded at present I present the link here if anyone else does not want to vote on it. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AI Editors

Jut to keep people in the loop, there are some implications for RFA in this policy proposal. WereSpielChequers : Chat 09:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha nice one! Theresa Knott | token threats 09:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you missed the obvious reference from Inteligência Artificial da Guiné-Bissau... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A modest proposal

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for supreme power. Please do not modify it.

It's perennially proposed that we require admins to run for reconfirmation after some set period of time; however, this would lead to a large number of such RfAs every week and it's been argued that this would clog up the process. I have an alternative plan which I hope you'll consider. Let us deem every admin to be elected only until the end of the decade. After that their term ends, and they may reapply or not as they wish. So, to pick an example entirely at random, everyone given the bit before 1 January 2010 would be immediately desysopped on adoption of this policy (I'm against including a grandfather clause because my grandfather isn't even an admin). Some advantages of this change would include:

In this world of rapidly changing technology (see the above thread) and rapidly changing RfA standards (see 50% of previous threads on this board), it's unwise to stock our admin core with old fogeys such as this. While some may cry reverse ageism, I think a forced renewal will help keep the core young and sprightly.
Democratically elected politicians are always given term limits, so it seems fair that we ought to as well. Of course Wikipedia is not a democracy, but even political systems which we resemble more feel the need for major overhauls every few years - and I can't see any potential disadvantage to emulating them.
The oft-remarked-on drought of RfA nominations (see the other 50% of previous threads) would be very suddenly eradicated if we forced 1,702 of our admins to reapply.

While I feel that the above are clearly enough reason to pass this change immediately, I will admit to seeing one small disadvantage. Ruthless application of the policy would result in Jimbo himself being desysopped, leaving a substantial power vacuum at the helm. However, an ingenious solution presents itself. Without wishing to diminish Jimbo's contribution to the project and our profound gratitude to him, I would venture to say that his role as 'founder' essentially just means "admin with the longest tenure" (indeed, Wikipedia:User_rights#Founder confirms that it is 'largely a status symbol'). Thus, it's only natural that his bit and associated political power would pass to the 'oldest' remaining admin. In the interests of strict neutrality I haven't checked who this noble, long-suffering and no doubt attractive new saviour would be, but I'm sure finding out wouldn't be too hard. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Finally, an April Fools' I actually chuckled at. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This proposal is so sensible and obvious I don't think we need to even discuss it further. I for one welcome our new overlord. ~ mazca ^talk 10:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Support I thought Olaf already was our overlord -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong Neutral Whether we measure decades conventionally or in terms of ten years from the founding of the pedia, our first decade has yet to end. So whilst this proposal has its attractions, implementing it would not make Olaf our new Founder and we wouldn't be reduced to just fifteen admins. - At the end of either this calender year or on the tenth anniversary of the founding of the pedia all admins would be desysopped, and normal services would be suspended until we had handed out a few more mops. WereSpielChequers : Chat 11:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment Although the interpretation of 'decade' favoured by ~~Pedro~~ WereSpielChequers is specifically mentioned at decade, I'd like to point out that that page is not actually a policy. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Well it jolly well should be. I don't object to giving you founder status, but I do object to definitions of decade that incorrectly assume the existence of year zero. WereSpielChequers : Chat 14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Better idea -- To avoid any disruption to our services, we need to ensure suitable admins will be available after 2012. I propose that a new set of admins be chosen each year by lot. Maurr een Skowran talk contribs 12:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose This would effectively give all admins approved after January 1, 2010 tenure until the end of time. --(ʞןɐʇ) ʞıɹıɥs 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Question. I was 'cratted after the January 1 cutoff. Would I lose my adminship but retain my cratship? Useight (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Only if you promise not to re-sysop yourself when no-one's looking. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Lottery We could always determine who has to go up for RfA by any number of various and fair lotteries. (see both links =D ). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose All sysop flags will be reset on 21 December 2012 anyway, this is redundant. Franamax (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose When I read the title, I was ready to support, but then I saw that the proposal wasn't to have non-admins sell their children to admins for culinary purposes. Oppose. Steve Smith (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment: What is the protocol on
Special:TravelToDate
which recently became available to sysops? Are we allowed to use this power to extend our position? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
You're a dick JC, I tried to click that. :P (natit citsejam • klat) dE— 16:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Gahh... (cue "Another One Bites the Dust") Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I said no grandfather rule, Julian. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Clearly you used the Special: page to go back in time and insert that statement. The proof is that it's already in the page history. This is your final warning not to mess with the past, including past events you have not changed yet. Franamax (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - prima facie indications of power hunger from Olaf. (natit citsejam • klat) dE— 16:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
400kb of bickering over this !vote moved to /dev/null Olaf Davis (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Suppose Such matters should be discussed on the secret cabal mailing list first. Reach Out to the Truth 19:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
~~You have been removed~~ If there were such a list, you would have been removed from it for revealing it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
may I be added to the list? I believe I have sufficient power hunger. Dloh cierekim 22:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April Fools RfA and Technical Reasons

Ok, when Kurt did his classic RfA a few years ago, the RfA was moved to Kurt's user space for "technical reasons". I am not familiar with those technical reasons, but wanted to know if we needed to do that again with Keegans?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Keegan does not exist, therefore he does not need to be moved. —Dark 06:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Potential admin candidates who may have been overlooked

The recent lack of new admin nominees has me a bit worried. Here's a few candidates who I think would be definite shoo-ins for a successful adminship; however I haven't spoken to any of these users, so as far as to whether they actually even want to be an admin I do not know, but I'd say it's a safe bet: Ebyabe (talk · contribs · count), Bleaney (talk · contribs · count), Polylerus (talk · contribs · count), Saga City (talk · contribs · count). There's many many more out there, but unfortunately because of the stigma attached to self-noms they're not coming forward. We really should be nominating each and every good candidate, no matter if we've not collaborated or interacted with them before. -- œ ^™ 13:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT? Get nominating if you've got some good candidates! No need to wait for someone else to do it. ~ mazca ^talk 13:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very careful. The way RFA has gone, you might not be doing them a favor. Will try to make time to review them. Dloh cierekim 13:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would support all as they handily meet my standards. However, supporting per my standards doesn't count for much anymore. Dloh cierekim 14:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also be happy to support all of them. But where are the noms? NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 14:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think there's such a stigma against self-noms anymore. The current RfA Polargeo is running is a self-nom; it's cruising to an easy pass. Kurt isn't around anymore; I haven't seen (or at least noticed) a power hunger oppose in a long time. Tan | 39 14:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for candidates to nominate and am happy to receive emails from potential candidates who consider that they meet my criteria for nomination. But I'm not happy with public discussion of named potential candidates unless they initiate the process - if only by posting one of the appropriate userboxes. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that names should not be discussed here. However, I think there is still a stigma attached to self-noms. I also think that some of the more recent RfAs became dangerously unintelligent: Totally inappropriate extra questions, unreflected drive-past supports, and blatant character assasination by the opposers. A British Army promotion board is less humiliating than what our current process has become. It's hardly surprising that the number of candidates has dropped.--Kudpung (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Madokhn 2

Doesn't appear to have been closed. Editor is indef blocked and RfA expired on March 11. Has it been closed and I just can't see it? SGGH ^ping! 18:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Was it ever transcluded? Tan | 39 18:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to just delete the thing? Dloh cierekim 18:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 18:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - RFA candidates should be strongly recommended to OPT-IN

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.

Changes made to RFA/Nom 7 08:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The new toolserver privacy policies mean that some RFA candidates (including one today) may end up running without letting users see their per-month counts and their top articles edited. Without starting a big debate on whether or not these are critical items for evaluation of a candidate, can I propose that we recommend that a potential candidate add a WP or meta optin to allow whatever preferred edit counter to do it's full review.

The example warning message from X!'s tools is: User has not yet opted in. If you want to see graphs, please create User:__UserName__/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you can create meta:User:__UserName__/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across all Wikimedia wikis. Perhaps this can be included in the instructions page. If no objections I can do it myself, or feel free to jump in (signing off soon). 7 13:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


I created a mockup of suggested changes to the Instructions page here - feel free to edit it directly or make comments here. 7 00:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest making it simple suchlike Special:Mypage/EditCounterOptIn.js or meta:Special:Mypage/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js. Maybe even a preload so all they have to do is click "save page". –xeno^talk 13:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it "OptIn", not "OpIn"? - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops! [3] –xeno^talk 13:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I say go ahead. Clearly not mandatory, but I find it helpful when beginning to review a candidate (and doing namespace tool + wikichecker is more work); they've been used on every RfA so we might as well continue. That being said, I can also (if this persists as opt-in) see this as a desired trait in a candidate, in a similar vein to having email enabled. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur - I opted in the other day, its a simple process and the graphs certainly make evaluating a candidate much easier.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it should be encouraged, although I don't like strict requirements. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this could be useful, but I'd like to see it accompanied with something along the lines of "at the end of your RFA feel free to opt out again by tagging meta:User:__UserName__/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.jsas ~~{{db-author}}~~ {{delete}} and blanking the month info from your RFA talkpage. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Meta doesn't have "db-author"; I just used "{{delete}}" to get rid of the one I created via misspelling though. –xeno^talk 14:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good spot. Now fixed Ϣere SpielChequers 16:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Preload was a good idea - included in the mockup above. 7 00:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree - I'd feel better inclined towards a candidate who opts in, though I'd also support the suggestion of reminding a candidate they can opt out again once RfA is done. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The only issue I have with making this an 'official' suggestion is that, historically speaking, what is a de jure recommendation/optional at RfA tends to become a de facto requirement. Take the so-called optional questions; while they are, and remain to this day, optional as the instructions state they still provide ample grounds for opposition. A candidate who declines to answer a majority of the "optional questions" is going to have a very difficult time passing an RfA successfully. If this becomes an "official recommendation" it will only be a matter of time before we see "Oppose, candidate has not opted in to the edit counter". If we are going to require candidates to opt-in then let us call it what it is, a requirement, rather than pretend it is a recommendation that will nevertheless be required for any candidate who wants to pass. Shereth 17:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Shereth - that's a fair point about recommendations creeping their way into becoming de facto requirements, but I'm not sure how to fix the issue. Do you feel that this suggestion should not be mentioned to a potential candidate at all, or do you feel we should go the route of making it official policy? Optional seems more sensible to me, and I suspect that most people are simply unaware that their edit stats (while public data) now need an additional bit to be flipped to allow aggregation. Other than clearly stating that some reviewers may find it beneficial to be able to see such data, and that the candidate is free to turn it off at any time I can't think of any gentler way to put it. 7 22:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I say we just be honest with them - no need to be gentle about it. If we are going to invent a "suggestion" knowing it will evolve into a pseudo-requirement, then let's put it to the candidate as simply and honestly as possible : "While anyone can be a candidate for adminship, successful candidates are expected to opt-in to the edit counting system in order to facilitate a more thorough review of the candidate's contributions. Candidates who choose not to opt-in, at least for the duration of their nomination, are not likely to be successful." Something to that effect - say it like it is, not sugarcoated. Shereth 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose so the standard we're wanting to create is that invasion of your privacy must be permitted if we're to trust you? The justification being it's important to see how many edits a month you made and which are your most frequently edited articles? How in the heck does that help evaluate a candidate? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
What is an invasion to you is transparency to another [me]. These edit counters have been used at RFA for… a long time (and this particular formulation at least a year). While that alone does not make them okay to use or not use, it does show that most haven't cared about them in general, or that they've put up with it as just another thing at RFA. And, as Boing! points out, it need only be suggested for a period of seven days. And it would be optional. Etc. The figures the edit counters put out are a quick way to judge the candidate; to get an initial grasp on what he or she does on the wiki.
That said, I think "strongly recommended" should be a straight up "optional", as the questions are. If that. --Izno 19:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
If it's not an invasion, then why is there an opt-in in the first place? If you can't get a grasp on a candidate without counting edits, you're never going to get a grasp on the candidate. This creeps me out. It's like the people say "Why should you use the 5th amendment? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!". When is opt-in for IP address revealing going to happen? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It's opt-in because it violates the Toolserver Privacy policy [4]. "Invasion" is a subjective concept. This same data could easily be harvested with Special:Contributions, X! just made it a (heck of a) lot easier. –xeno^talk 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Well then I'm sure nobody will have a problem with people doing the same work without the toolserver in the middle of it, right? So just dial up contributions &limit=X for whoever you want to generate data on, then post away here. I'm sure nobody will feel their privacy has been invaded. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
They're the ones asking to be admins. If they want the job, but don't want to opt in, how about they manually aggregate the data and post it on the talk page?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
They're not the ones asking for the edit counting as some means of be able to better evaluate a candidate. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not just the count. It's also the most edited pages; which can be useful to see how the user conducts themselves on their pet projects and the like. The monthly data also shows activity levels and such. –xeno^talk 19:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
So again, create the means to do so without the toolserver in the way. All those idiots in the EU going on about privacy are off their rocker. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but as far as I know without the same structure as the toolserver (i.e. cloned database) it would take far too long or be too much of a load on the API. Or something. –xeno^talk 20:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you have to opt-in to this now? Is data aggregation really such a sensitive topic, or are we going to ban viewing of other users' Special:Contributions pages as well? Gurch (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to opt into the pretty pictures and graphs and the "most-edited" and such. Basic data (such as number of edits in sum) can still be obtained without an opt-in. --Izno (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(re Gurch) This is due to a German law and the fact that the toolserver is owned by Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. –xeno^talk 19:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I guess that explains why it is done. That seems like an odd law though... if I were German, would I be breaking the law if I sat down with the contributions list and a pen and paper and made a graph myself, or are you only not allowed to do it on the internet? Gurch (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe if you started doing it en masse =). See User_talk:X!#Edit-Counter for more. –xeno^talk 19:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't know how this information can be used to evaluate a candidate? It is key. It allows you to quickly see what areas they have/have not worked. Gives you a quick way to get an overview of the candidate and figure out where they have spent the most time. Gives you a way to identify which articles/subjects they care the most about---so that you can then look at those edits.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

<<EC>>Concur, per Boing and Mike Cline This is a Wiki. Viewing stats of a user's editing are not an invasion of privacy. I believe in the openness of the project. I would have a hard time trusting someone not willing to opt in. Dloh cierekim 19:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. Tools like that edit counter (with its complete information) are important for reviewing an editor's contribution history. Will Beback talk 20:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - J.Delanoy has offered to host a clone of the tool on his university account, eliminating the need for an opt-in. Once his university gets back from break, he and I are going to get the new, free, slower (urgh) tool uploaded and modified to his server. (X! · talk) · @889 · 20:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Whoops, looks like I misunderstood. (X! · talk) · @186 · 03:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. I don't think we could "require it" but I do think we can "strongly recommend" it... and guess what, I don't care if it turns into defacto requirement. If you are too concerned with privacy to be open with the community about your edits, I have no problem with somebody opposing. What are you trying to hide? You can always opt out after the RfA.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment I don't have it all that well documented, but I have a Windows application called uContribs that uses the live en:wiki API and can be as intrusive as it wants to be, since it uses publically available information. Adding month counters to it would be a snap (and monthly edits are useful for looking at overall activity and non-activity patterns). If anyone wants to volunteer to run uContribs for every RFA candidate (and run Windows, which is slightly more onerous), let me know. An example is here, which data I'm not aware any rule or policy prevents me from generating and sharing. Franamax (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Support per Boing! said Zebedee. I agree that users after the RfA should be allowed to opt out of X!'s counter. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Support since it is not mandatory, the wording strongly recommends makes sense. This kind of information is very useful to get a quick overall picture of how active a person is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Editors coming to RfA really shouldn't have much to hide so I can't see much harm in recommeding that they opt-in. As pointed out above, there would be nothing to stop users opting out again after the conclusion of the RfA. Big Dom 22:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. If anyone has a genuine reason for not opting in, which is quite conceivable, they are welcome to say so in their RfA. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment Yet one more reason for people to avoid running for adminship, in an era of seemingly ever declining requests. Brilliant! --Hammersoft (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hammersoft - I don't think anyone is ignoring your comments about privacy - I think the points have been about the fact that this is all public data already, and that the tools may help people more quickly evaluate whether the user is a steady user over a long period of time, or a user who created an account a long time ago but who recently started using automated tools and quickly racked up the majority of their edits in the last few months. Given enough time each of us could sort through all the pages of the users contribs and see the same details (and then some). The laws in Germany have changed, so we can either adapt to them if we find the edit stats useful or we can decide to ignore this aspect of a candidates history. 7 00:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. People can take this into account if they want to already. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. You mean that everyone knows about this change already? 7 08:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Not having the guideline tells you more about the candidate, in my view. If they choose not to provide the information, or do not know about it, it is useful information. FWIW, here's mine. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, your profile is a good example of the sort of profile that shows sufficient breadth of edits but is very likely to tip people to oppose an RfA due to few edits since 2006. I disagree about the expecting people to know. Wikipedia is a big complex place and we should be welcoming in giving full advice to candidates who rarely or never take part in the RfA process. Polargeo (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You haven't taken into account the server lag though ;-) Seriously though, I agree it's important that people should know this stuff about admin candidates. But if a candidate can't even find out what an RFA is all about, how are they going to handle being an admin? And your feedback could help me if I am nominated for RFA again - thanks for this :-). PS Congratulations. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Support - it's not a requirement, it's a strong recommendation. I can't see a downside. f o x 12:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
But absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence ;-) Traditionally, we have let the editors of the time decide what they want from their Admins. Any suggestions have been of the sort this is what editors have been looking for in the past. We don't know what the flavour of the month will be in six months or a year. Now, we are potentially decreeing what future editors should be looking for - it is prescriptive rather than descriptive. This is a subtle but important difference. Stephen B Streater (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
You're losing me a little, mate. But I maintain that if future RfA !voters do not wish to look at this data (hell, I don't) then they are well within their rights to completely ignore what is given to them. You go to a buffet, you don't have to take any salad. f o x 14:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The question is not whether they should include this information, or whether people should read it, but whether we should tell them to include it. It's just more clutter in the instructions. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Support The latest "opt-in" requirement for this tool is clearly ridiculous; none of it is privacy violating, because everything everyone does on Wikipedia is public. X!'s tool just makes it quicker. Any person can copy and paste someone's contribs into a spreadsheet and create graphs out of it. Despite the claims, nothing about your editing is private. The only thing that remains private is your IP address and your browser/agent details, and they aren't even available except to checkusers. One final point: we expect (no wait, demand) our admins to be open and honest about what they do, and their editing and history should be open for all to scrutinize. Aiken ♫ 15:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree about the privacy, which is why I don't bother using a pseudonym. On the question here, there are dozens of things you may want in an admin, but these are not all listed. I am in favour of a minimal list. Let the editors of the day decide what they want. If an admin can't work out what people are after from looking at other RFAs, they're probably not going to make a good admin. Stephen B Streater (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mock up and comments on it


I created a mockup of suggested changes to the Instructions page here - feel free to edit it directly or make comments here. 7 00:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Nice job. Dloh cierekim 00:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Very nice. I don't see this as a problem. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I would still like to see the language more direct. This kind of language is very noncommittal, almost as if it were an afterthought. I guess I am just really not looking forward to seeing people opposed over an instruction that tells them to "consider" doing something, something I expect would happen. I guess I just don't see the need to dance around the subject; if we want candidates to opt-in, we should just say so rather than asking them to maybe, possibly, kindly consider doing it. Shereth 03:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That can already happen. RfA questions are optional, but I wouldn't have much hope these days for a prospective admin who refused to answer any of the questions people posed to them. -- Atama頭 21:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely the point I made previously, and precisely what I would hope to avoid again. We whould be explicit that this is an expectation and not a mere suggestion. Shereth 21:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked it more to emphasize your point. Please take a look. 7 23:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's still not how I would have worded it, but that's what compromise and consensus is all about. I am OK with the current wording. Shereth 20:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked it slightly to make it clear that they may also blank the report on the RFA talkpage. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Looking good. I read the first version last night and liked it, but was pondering whether it should be more explicit about opting out after RfA - and this morning I see WereSpielChequers has tweaked it appropriately. But as Shereth suggests, perhaps strengthen it a bit as it's inevitable some people will expect RfA candidates to opt in? -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked it more to emphasize that it is "expected" per comments above 7 23:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) Thanks to everyone for their comments, and thanks to WSC and Bebblebrox for making changes. I think things have calmed down a bit so if there are no other complaints within the next 12 hours or so I'll implement the changes. 7 09:50, 8 April 2010 (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.

Something to compare us to

I have no desire to kindle more it's broken/it's not broken fanfare (taxes are calling) but for those who may not have seen it (myself as of a few moments ago) m:Administrators of Wikimedia projects/Wikipedias is actually pretty interesting. I think it provides a framework for our position in terms of other projects, whether good/acceptable/bad. I'll note that the ratios listed are made counting all sysops, not just active. The conversions are trivial. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, why does :es have 134 b-crats? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

They seem to have effectively merged admins and bureaucrats over there:

Actualmente casi todos los bibliotecarios activos de Wikipedia en español, son también burócratas.

Which translates as Actually almost all the active administrators of the Spanish Wikipedia are bureaucrats as well. —Soap— 00:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't see why that isn't done here. After all, has there ever been an abuse of bureaucrat tools? We get problems with admins (at least, allegations) on a daily basis. Aiken ♫ 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Back in 2005, I think User:Ed Poor renamed someone he was in a dispute with as an abuse of crat tools, other than that, I don't know of any actual abuse that has ever occurred. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

5 years ago, by somebody who isn't even an admin anymore? I think that tells us a lot. Aiken ♫ 00:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that in order to be a bureaucrat, you have to show that you're someone who won't do these types of things. That's probably why there hasn't been much crat abuse... (X! · talk) · @057 · 00:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The same goes for adminship though. I don't see why it's a split job, or even why it's harder to become one. Aiken ♫ 00:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the specialization is a natural evolution of any organization, especially one that is growing rapidly. A startup company often starts with a very few people (founder(s)?) and as it grows, departments are formed. In the early going, the same person may perform many duties, including accounting, advertising, hiring, facilities, and..oh yeah, whatever it is that actually brings in the money. As a company becomes more prosperous, it will branch out as and how it can. Why should we think of Wikipedia any differently? Frank | talk 02:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)