Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-30/Op-ed

Op-ed

Wikipedia needs more administrators

Contribute —

A brief history of RfA reform

We need more admins

Why?

“

... assuming an activity standard of at least 30 admin actions in 2 months ... only about 250 of our admins are active!

”

Wikipedia currently has about 1,330 users with the

sysop user right. At a glance, this seems like a large number. Therefore, some might say that we have more than enough admins. What's with all this fuss over the years about needing more? It is important to realize that the raw admin count is a deceiving number. Using the AdminStats tool, I determined that assuming an activity standard of at least 30 admin actions in 2 months (adapted from this standard

, except that I changed it to admin actions, which is more relevant, rather than simply edits), only about 250 of our admins are active! This means that of our 1,330 admins, only about one-fifth (20%) actively contribute to administrative work. To look at this another way, 80% of users who have the sysop bit are (semi-)inactive as admins. It may occur to some that we can fix this problem by getting inactive admins to return to activity. However, many users become inactive for reasons beyond our control, such as loss of interest or inability to continue editing.

Now, some might even feel that 250 is sufficient, but the size of this website must be considered. For a small wiki, 250 admins would be more than enough. However, Wikipedia has almost

WP:VOLUNTEER

service. It is more fair to all users to distribute the workload more evenly.

Stats

Since January 1, 2015, there have been 47 closed RfAs as of October 3, 2015. A mere 15 of these (about 32%) were successful, and 32 were unsuccessful. This means that, on average, RfA has been responsible for only 1.7 promotions per month. Such a low number was unheard of a few years ago. In fact, months with no promotions at all are becoming more common. The first month with no promotions in recent years was September 2012, and that was the first in over a decade. However, just over the past year, 3 out of 12 months (25%) have been without any promotions. The problem is simply becoming worse. If you look at

WereSpielChequers' chart

, you will see a total of four empty months under the "2014" and "2015" columns.

However, we have another method of getting "new" admins: when ones who have previously resigned request a

WP:BN

for adminship they had lost before the start of 2015, not counting the three who regained their adminship via RFA. So, by adding this number to the number of admins sysopped via RfA (10 + 15), we get 25.

But there are two other questions to be asked. Namely, these questions are: (1) How many admins have we

lost

? (2) How many (re)sysopped users are actually active admins? To answer to first question, about 65 users have been desysopped this year, for varying reasons. Secondly, it turns out that although 25 users have been sysopped, only about 20 meet the activity standard of 30 actions over the past 2 months. Therefore, we are losing admins three times faster than we are really gaining them. (After all, we really haven't gained an admin if they contribute very little.)

Back a few years ago, this was not a problem at all. For instance, a record

norm

. However, since 2008, the number of promotions has been perpetually declining. The chart at the top of this article, based upon WereSpielChequers' data that I previously mentioned, shows the number of RfA promotions per year since 2002. The number of promotions decreased sharply in 2008 and has been in a state of perpetual decline ever since. There has not been a single year since 2007 in which there was a considerable increase in promotions. The last year in which there was an increase was 2013, and even that was only by 6. The difference mostly seemed to be in February and March, which was when the reform RfCs were occurring. It therefore looks as if it may have merely been a brief surge inspired by the reform efforts.

What happened?

Why has this decrease happened? In my opinion, two of the most likely reasons are: (1) Higher standards; (2) Hostile/stressful environment. It could also be a combination of these two.

“

... the typical 2015 RfA candidate has around six to nine years of experience and 30,000–50,000 edits. If this really is the standard, this is much too high.

”

I will start with the first possibility. Current (Oct. 3, 2015) data from

less experienced user to run

.

However, simple tenure and edit count stats are far from being the only things measured at RfA. Some users who have even more edits and experience than the range I mentioned above have failed. Performance, such as scope of participation, accuracy rates, and

AfD

isn't good enough (how does a "hit rate" affect their ability to judge consensus?), or they haven't made (number) of edits to a particular administrative page (even if they don't want to work there, or have said they will proceed very cautiously). Some users have quite stringent requirements concerning content. This has been a rather major theme as of late, so I will discuss it in some detail.

It has been becoming more apparent that lack of substantial content work will actually cause an RfA to fail. For instance, a certain user recently said, "The purpose of admins should be to keep the riff-raff away from the content creators." Although he is partially correct, this isn't entirely true. The purpose of admins is to keep order throughout the site. If this means blocking a content creator who is in some way causing disorder, that is also part of an admin's job. All good-faith editors have a beneficial function.

anti-vandalism

(including admins) do indeed keep the riff-raff away from the content creators' articles by reverting and blocking vandals who harm articles they have written. In the early days of Wikipedia, it is true, content creation was more important than anything else. However, as the website has grown in size and popularity, the importance of maintaining it has increased as well. Without admins, uncivil users would be unrestricted and could do or say whatever they wanted, vandals could just continue vandalizing articles no matter how many times they were reverted, etc. Without anti-vandals, the content creators would have to be online 24/7 to monitor all their articles. In short, Wikipedia would plunge into ruin. Now, before I'm misunderstood, I fully support content creation, but what I am opposed to is the notion that other user groups are unimportant. I fully appreciate and in fact admire the tireless content work of some users.

My ultimate point with the paragraphs above is that high standards do not do anything to fix our obvious admin shortage problem. If we are to gain more admins, we must not be so restrictive as to who becomes one.

If the !voters' opinion cannot be changed, one way to neutralize overly-stringent criteria is to lower the percentage bar for passing. This is a solution I very strongly advocate. I know this has been proposed and rejected several times before, but it's high time that we start again with fresh and open minds to seriously debate and consider it. Remember, RfA is currently in a condition drier than it has ever been in almost all the history of Wikipedia. We must face the facts: currently, our bar is unlike that of virtually any other group. In practice, it seems to be somewhere around 75%, since most RfAs which get more support than that tend to pass. 70–75% (and rarely, 75–79%) sometimes results in a 'crat chat (a decision by

oversight

tools, which can have serious privacy implications.

“

Oppose !votes currently carry about three times more weight than support !votes.

”

Even if the contrasts above are inaccurate for some reason or another, there is one final issue, which is arguably the most important. Oppose !votes currently carry about three times more weight than support !votes. For instance, for every six opposers, at least eighteen supporters are required to cancel them out. Why should opposers have so much power? We should

assume

that the candidate is running in good faith; therefore, why give so much weight to the negative side? It makes more sense for every !vote to be given equal consideration, which would mean a 50%+1 bar for passing. Or, to preserve the discretionary range, maybe the bar could be 60% with 50%+1–59% being the discretionary range. In any case, the point here is that in comparison to virtually every body outside us, our bar is very high, and in the interest of truly giving more equal weight to both opinions, our system should not give three times as much power to a single dissenting opinion.

But some people object that we cannot be more lenient in passing candidates at RfA, because if they misuse the tools or are abusive, it is virtually impossible to remove them. This is simply false. There are multiple venues by which admins can be

WP:HOUNDING

them), they can be interaction banned like any other user. If they are generally abusing their tools, they can be taken to ArbCom. ArbCom almost never completely dismisses a good admin abuse case. They can choose to deal with it quickly by motion, or they might choose a complete case in more unclear situations. Of course, realize that ArbCom doesn't have to desysop every admin brought before them, so the dismissal of some cases cannot be used as an example of "failure". They may, for instance, decide that the incident was isolated and not part of a general abusive pattern. We all make isolated mistakes. Now, I would prefer that the wider community have the ability to desysop admins, but since no one can ever fully agree on a satisfactory method, we'll have to use ArbCom for now. ArbCom may sometimes take a considerable time to authorize the desired result, but it is generally effective at holding continually troublesome admins accountable. Whenever evidence is requested from those who assert that there is no effective method by which admins can be desysopped, there never seems to be a clear answer. If the assertion was really true and worthy of consideration, its proponents should be able and willing to present real, solid evidence that ArbCom is chronically ineffective at dealing with patterns of abuse.

On to the second point, it is possible that potential candidates might be discouraged from running because of what they perceive to be a hostile and/or stressful environment at RfA. Some recent RfAs, such as that of Montanabw, Wbm1058 and Liz, were the subject of much contention and accompanied by very lengthy talk pages. Wbm's, in particular, was one of the most intense in a long time. Virtually all recent candidates have also been asked dozens of questions within literally a day or two. This environment might very well be a factor in our admin shortage.

How do we fix the problem?

Fixing our admin election system would be a three-step process. First of all, we must discuss, and reach a consensus upon, what the major problems are. Next, we determine how to fix the problems. These two steps, of course, might require a long time and several discussions per issue. But, if this discourages you, read the last paragraph of this section. I personally see three main solutions for reforming our admin election process: (1) Have the voters see that their standards must be changed; (2) Lower the passing bar, as I suggested above; (3) Completely change the process. Then, we implement the solutions. The current method is very disorganized (e.g., "maybe this is it ... well, maybe not/perhaps it is ... [discussion eventually dies]"). If anything is to be done, it must be in an orderly manner.

Secondly, what is done must be for the long-term. Last year (around this time, in fact), there was a surge of nominations following some discussion of revolutionizing the process. Short-term surges do nothing to fix the long-term issue. We always get into a vicious cycle: Discuss changes → More nominations → People say, "It really does work after all!" → Number of nominations dies down again → Cycle repeats. No, it is not working. The current condition of our admin election process is resulting in its long-term failure. We must not be deceived when brief rises in the number of nominations and passes come about.

Remember that the problem will simply grow worse if we give up easily; we must continue until we find a solution. Otherwise, we might not have time to undertake a organized, reasoned RfA reform process if the problem ever forces us to realize that there really is a problem and therefore take action in a relatively short period of time.

Notes

Almost all of the promotion data was taken from
User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month
.

In this issue

30 September 2015 (all comments)

Op-ed

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

What a good coverage of a very complex and contentious subject. I might add one other factor that exacerbates the "admin shortage" and that is that we seem to be returning to a growth in the editor corps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I read in several RfAs that a user was not trusted with the block button. Someone blocked is not dead, it can be reverted, - where is the danger? Can we lower the requirements - 66% percent support seem still a lot - but demand that for the first 6 months a new admin should not block without consulting a more experienced one? Same for other admin actions: more training on the job. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems far too restrictive. If the block is obvious the block needs to be applied. What about vandalism-only accounts or people making legal or personal threats? An admin should never have to ask a second opinion regarding blatantly obvious instances. In addition, blocks are always up for review with {{
talk) 22:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I tried to be short, as not to this point, sorry for over-simplification. Of course I meant blocks of users who deserve good faith, not vandals, as outlined here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are contentious blocks done by newish admins? I thought it was the relatively experienced admins who did the contentious blocks and unblocks. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean "contentious"? I said block (in general), and then - per the remark - excluded obvious vandalism. Looking at the example (which I observed): a user blocked without discussion for a talk page comment which allegedly violated an iban that didn't even exist, - how would that be contentious? I expected an apology from the blocking admin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment about whether it was a good block or not, I haven't look into the circumstances, but it was a block by an admin whose RFA was over 18 months earlier. Yes that makes him one of our newest admins as there have been very few appointed since then, but it wasn't a block by an admin who had been appointed in the previous 6 months, or who had recently returned after being desysopped under the two year rule. If you want to justify a six month probationary period you need to show evidence of a pattern of contentious blocks being done by admins who would have been in such a six month probationary period. Whether or not that block was contentious, evidence that contentious blocks are done by admins who would be out of a 6 month probation period is not evidence that a 6 month probation period would be helpful. If it was contentious and if there was evidence of a pattern of contentious blocks, then if they were from one admin I'd suggest arcbcom. If from multiple admins, I'd suggest you revive a past suggestion of mine - upbundling block regular to the crats and leave admins with the ability to only block IPs and accounts with fewer than 100 edits. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good overview of the situation, but it does not get to the heart of the matter. Lowering the bar will only get us more of the kind of admins the anti-admin brigade (especially the prolific content providers) is always bleating about. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that performance as an admin is related to or predictable from RfA score. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed your comment via the email thread. Thanks, --
  Biblioworm 02:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Opabinia regalis, when I went through 10 years of Signpost articles, I saw most notable cases when admins were desysoped for socking or cause (ineptness, misconduct, deceit, etc.) and it was remarkable when I looked back at their RfAs, how many of these admins had been elected unanimously without a single oppose. There was also a period of time years ago when some editors would run an RfA, succeed and then quit editing a month of two later! Now that is true hat collecting.
  - Of course, many of these editors became admins when there were a dozen RfAs running at the same time and most editors didn't have time to do due diligence. But I also think that you're right, some of our best admins squeaked through their RfAs. The measure of support isn't a predictor of administrative skill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - This might be one of those hard-to-read-tone-on-the-internet things, but it sounds like you're jumping to some unnecessary conclusions here. Why is "hat collecting" the first explanation that comes to mind when someone quits not long after a successful RfA? Surely more likely explanations are 1) they didn't enjoy being admins and it was enough to sour their experience of the project, or 2) they ran at a time in their lives when they had lots of spare time, but real-life circumstances changed.
    Similarly, it sounds like you think that lack of "due diligence" let through some of those subsequently desysopped admins. I never did get around to updating this, but IIRC the stats said risk of desysopping was highest in the third year post-RfA. While there are some bad apples in there, most of those people were probably productive admins for a long time before burning out or getting overinvested in some ongoing dispute. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great that this came out after another month without a new admin voted in. The day we actually fix RfAs would be something else. Don't know how that'll happen, though. GamerPro64 22:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think it's ridiculous that your RfA failed- you run FT, one of the featured processes! What kind of admin process turns down the people who actually run areas of the project?! I know I wouldn't pass if I ran again today- I've made at least one intemperate remark, spend too much time doing editing work instead of faux-admin work, and I can't explain without first looking it up how to do a history merge while simultaneously blocking socks for the exactly correct amount of time. --Pres N 02:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am more concerned about the "requirements" some editors have that have absolutely nothing to do with adminship. For example, people who insist that an admin have good or featured article work under their belt. Does having those things in any way affect an admin's ability to do their job? No. It is a plus for Wikipedia but should never be the deciding factor in an oppose !vote. Then there are those that require an admin to have a particular percentage of Wikipedia/Main/Talk posts. I have seen plenty of oppose !votes because the candidate has "too high a User Talk space percentage." That is nonsense. I could rack up hundreds of those posts in a Wikisession doing anti-vandalism tasks. RfA should never be a numbers game. It should not matter the number of posts to a specific section, but the substance of those posts. --
talk) 22:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The worst part of having "requirements" that have absolutely nothing to do with adminship is that it takes three people who have reasonable requirements to counteract one person who doesn't. The two problems feed on each other. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A useless article, as it fails utterly to grasp the extent to which the RfA process has been affected by the difficulty of removing inept or misbehaving admins. Until that problem is addressed, RfA will continue to be a trial by fire. Coretheapple (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence for this either. It's really way past time for the people who think we're drowning in bad admins to do something about their allegations. Pick a few of the supposedly inept or misbehaving admins and drop them a note describing your concerns. If that doesn't help, take it to ANI. If that doesn't help, take it to Arbcom. Show them your slam-dunk case for desysopping and let them prove your hypothesis by not doing it. If the greatest effort anyone is willing to expend on this problem is carping about it in comment threads, that is itself evidence of the seriousness (or not) of the issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course there is no evidence. One cannot provide evidence for something that has not happened. But there are strong arguments that if the mechanisms were in place , there might have been a lot more admins desysoped or reprimanded - or the regular bleating plaintiffs sent off with a brightly coloured boomerang for all to see. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I will reply once, and only once, to your comment, since I do not wish to get into any sort of prolonged argument. Of course, I expected these sorts of comments; it would have been plain foolish of me to have expected all glowing comments about an op-ed concerning such a controversial topic. However, to address your complaint, I dedicated an entire section to this issue. I will further elaborate on my position. Holding admins accountable is actually possible, if someone is willing to do it. The issue is that people are not willing to do it. First of all, not all instances of incivility and/or tool misuse by an admin requires a desysopping. They can indeed be blocked, either by a single admin using his personal judgement (ideally for very obvious cases) or by community consensus at ANI. There is historical precedent for blocking admins; they are actually at the same level as any other user when it comes to the issue of being held accountable for their on-wiki activities. So, the issue is not that it is impossible; rather, the issue is that some users have an irrational fear of attempting to hold admins accountable. Secondly, if there is a pattern of abuse, there is always ArbCom. If there is good, solid evidence that the admin is misusing the tools, and if you show that you have unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the issue elsewhere, they will very likely at least pay attention to you. Sometimes, in very egregious incidents, they deal with a case by motion; otherwise, they prefer to launch a full case. Off the top of my head, I can think of several cases where ArbCom dealt with a user who was unfit to be an admin. Sometimes, abusive admins are also pressured into resignation or even retirement, so sometimes official action is not even needed. Now, I would prefer a community-based process, so I agree with you on that issue, but even though we don't yet have that it is at any rate possible. And, as Opabinia mentioned above, please feel free to propose a good method by which admins will be desysopped. If the reply is, "all proposals fail", then we get into an endless circle which renders discussion pointless: We need a desysopping system → Without a desysopping system, RfA will be a trial by fire → But we will never get a desysopping system. Therefore, the logical conclusion is the RfA is unfixable and will irreparably and eternally be a trial by fire. In a sentence, the heart of the issue is not the impossibility, but rather the unwillingness of users to take action. I feel that I have addressed your objection to its heart here, so I will not in any way engage myself in a long discussion about this. --
  Biblioworm 02:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - @
    Biblioworm:Uh yes, all proposals do fail, which is why RfA is unfixable and will irreparably and eternally be a trial by fire, which is why I don't intend to get into an argument, prolonged or unprolonged, on this subject as it is waste of time. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Several reforms have happened, the unbundling of rollback being most significant, though each unbundling removes another qualification for RFA. There is a problem that many attempts to reform RFA get diverted into the very different subject of replacing/augmenting Arbcom by a different way of desysopping admins. But it is a debunked myth that all RFA reforms fail. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @WereSpielChequers: Just to clarify, I meant all proposals to streamline/improve the process for dealing with inept/abusive admins. Coretheapple (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry I thought you were talking about reform of RFA. This page is about RFA and the OpEd about it. Replacing or supplementing Arbcom is a a very different topic, unrelated in my view to RFA. If you want to look at the various discussions about streamlining/improving the process for dealing with inept/abusive admins you need to go through the history of Arbcom. Remember that Arbcom is a community based desysopping mechanism, and past Arbcom elections are very much about who the community wants, or no longer wants, to have the power to desysop inept/abusive admins. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        There is actually an arbcom case underway right now involving alleged administrator abuse. I hope that this case, which is such a major time suck for the parties, will convince the community to improve its administrator oversight mechanisms for the benefit of admins and non-admins alike. I do believe that if that is fixed, RfA will be much improved by alleviating the belief that people get their tools for life and are inordinately difficult to remove. Coretheapple (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        If admin appointment was for a fixed period, then required reappointment, the fear of getting stuck with someone who was less than perfect would be removed. People might be willing to take a chance - see how the person turns out, it's only for (say) a year for first term, maybe longer for consecutive terms. If there are no issues after a year re-election should be a shoo-in, if it isn't, well that's a warning to the person that they should reconsider their ways. This might be a bigger burden, or might not, is it worth a try for new admins?If it works for new admins, it could be retroactively applied to the existing admins, and they would have a year or two to clean up their act where necessary.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Opabinia regalis: I'm not entirely sure that painting a big (or bigger) target on one's back would help much. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - With all due respect, why should we give serious consideration to an opinion if those who support it refuse to give any solid evidence? Don't people see this? --
    Biblioworm 15:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Who has refused to give any evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Those who insist that our admin accountability processes are insufficient. Whenever asked for evidence to prove that it is indeed a serious problem, they immediately decline to give any useful details, since they say that, in effect, they would really be asking for it if they did so. How are we supposed to have any idea what the real problem is if we don't have details? Constantly asserting that there is a problem without giving real evidence of the problem is logically unsound. --
        Biblioworm 18:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  - @Pigsonthewing: There's a reason activists who want test cases pick people who are good at keeping their noses clean ;) IMO the impasse here is that there really aren't many admins who are genuinely inept or misbehaving, but there are quite a few who are heavy-handed, quick to judge, overly rules-driven, or jaded and unsympathetic toward other users. Those people don't need to be desysopped, by Arbcom or any other mechanism. Their behavior isn't an individual performance problem; it's a community culture problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was stunned to learn that 65 admins were desysopped this year. This is a huge number compared to the number of admins and, especially, the number of active admins. The processes in this area are working just fine. Gamaliel (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The processes are working Gamaliel, but to avoid any misunderstanding I think we ought to clarify that only 5 were actually desysoped for cause. The rest were natural attrition and the majority were absolutely not active. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like everyone to also realize that this op-ed is far from the end of my efforts to contribute to RfA reform. A new series of discussions (and eventually RfCs) will begin in the order I specified in the last section of the op-ed. --
Biblioworm 02:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
- I tend to pop in on these discussions to complain about evidence and statistics. But there's one thing about the history of RfA discussions for which there is abundant, overwhelmingly convincing evidence: a series of discussions and RfCs does not actually do anything. It may be a net positive anyway, in providing a place for people to vent and possibly in stirring up interest in running, but it is definitely not going to produce a solution, or even an agreement on what the problem is, and it will probably feel like a complete waste of effort. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is true that all previous attempts have failed, and there might be even more failures in the future. However, there is no point in complaining about the problems with RfA if no one take the initiative to do (or at the very least, try to do) something about it. [1] --
    Biblioworm 18:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

While I've only been with Wikipedia since spring of 2014, here are a few ideas that may or may not be helpful additions to this RfA discussion.

• Suggestion: At the March 9, Tip-Of-The Day and (Sept. 9) Becoming an Administrator it mentions three key Admin functions: Deleting, Protecting, Blocking. So could there be created 3 Admin-sub-functions rather than just one Admin with all these rights? • Suggestion: since Wikipedia already has in place to help new editors the Welcoming committee and Wikipedia:Co-op for mentoring, would it be possible to create similar for Admins? And perhaps a new title such as "Adminstrator-Trainee"?

In the past, I had attended a "Creative Problem-Solving" session where they mentioned that there is no such thing as a dumb or stupid idea. I'm hoping the above are neither and invite discussion of these ideas. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that expectations at RfA re edit count and content creation have risen sharply over recent years, and as regards at least the first of these are now much too high; expecting FAs is also ridiculous (speaking as someone with almost 150K edits and 15 FAs). One practical measure that it should be possible to agree is for the community to set benchmark levels expected at RfA for these two factors. Rather than opposers just saying "too few edits" they should then be expected to talk in terms of the benchmarks. I know automated edits and other factors complicate these counts, but there are ways to quantify what the overall community expects. I don't really like lowering the pass % much - though I seem to see this is slowly happening anyway. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a new idea --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They haven't risen sharply John. This is a false rumour at the root of which are just a couple of relatively new regular voters to RfA, some of them are relatively experiencd users, some with little understanding at all of the process, who have been demanding ridiculous high edit counts and silly numbers of FA and GA. Fortunately their votes have't impacted on the results. Obviously (and it's my own famous mantra) 'if users want to police pages they should know how to produce them', and that's not hard to do if they've at least created half a dozen medium sized articles in squeaky clean condition. None of the regulars editors who have been voting for years are going silly with their demands. I fail to understand the motivations of those who impose excessively strict criteria,it's not as if it will get us a better class of admin. In fact it will just scare many more candidates away. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not my perception, and I've been watching RfA for 10 years now. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone in their right mind want to be an admin on Wikipedia? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pondered that for years, actually. Having just finished the process, I can't say I have an answer yet. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor can I, to be honest, having finished the process myself a few months back. (For the record, I realize I am a very quiet admin - I don't have many actions under my belt - but on balance I see great benefit from some of the tools to which I have access.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I think you have provided the number one reason the number of Admins is down. Being an Admin is often a burden & a time sink, & only comes after passing thru a gauntlet. -- llywrch (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a "fanatic" vandal fighter myself, as well as a sysop on other wikis outside of Wikipedia (or any Wikimedia project, for that matter), I can say the only thing that really holds me back from nominating myself at RFA is, well, RFA itself. As I've mentioned thrice on my talk page already (1 2 3) RFA's the thing that's holding me back from even considering a nomination. Need evidence that the absurdly high and strict unofficial official requirements for passing an RFA is scaring potential candidates off? I'm one of them. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 20:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above, it's safe to say that RFA no longer works and it should be discarded. In its place, tools should be debundled and rights devolved onto already existing users who need or require them in specific areas. I think the evidence also shows that the generalist approach doesn't work with a smaller set of active users, while specific toolsets given to users already active in narrow areas will achieve the same goal. The strange insistence that the site must be run like it's endlessly 2003 is symptomatic of the OCD-like behavioral traits we see far too often. We need disruptive innovation to move us forward, including a site-wide interface redesign that isn't stuck in the early 2000s. Many admin tasks can be automated and run by neutral bots who monitor feeds. Everyone knows this but it's virtually anathema to discuss it. You're just not needed anymore. Old timers and power hungry game players will fight that idea tooth and nail and will ride this thing till the wheels come off while rearranging the deck chairs as the site collapses upon itself like so many before it. Nothing lasts forever, but this site won't have much of a future until you stop doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. Goodbye RFA, we hardly knew ya. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside my personal hobby horse, which is to streamline desysopping, I think unbundling the tools is the way to go. For example, giving rollbackers the power to block IPs and vandalism-only accounts under limited circumstances, perhaps. (Excluding, perhaps, the ability to block IPs suspected of being socks on that basis alone.)Coretheapple (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hear, hear! I have long refused to become an admin for various reasons (RfA gauntlet, many admin tasks of no interest to me, not being paid for the work) but as an 11 1/2-year Wikipedian with nearly 90K live edits and 1 decade-old block, and interest in using select tools, if you can't trust someone like me to use them, who can you trust? On top of that, I've never found GA/FA work to be the most important wiki-work, but instead I see broad, reasonably complete coverage of notable subjects and connectivity (links, categories, etc.) to be that.
  Talk • Work 19:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - In Liz's recent RfA she got a lot of criticism and downvotes simply because she had expressed the opinion that people who create GAs and FAs should be treated the same as people who fix typos, revert vandalism, or add citations. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow. As if perfecting a small number of articles is more important than everything else that makes this site work. (I imagine what I said right here will be brought up if I'm ever the subject of an RfA, but I stand behind it.)
      Talk • Work 17:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Hah! As Wikipedia's newest administrator (promoted over a month ago), I just deleted Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Topic icons, which had been tagged for speedy deletion on 16 September 2013 – over two years ago! My eyes did a double-take when I noticed that! Wbm1058 (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- But clearly yours truly cannot be trusted with the tools... but unbundling would be cool. Montanabw ^(talk) 15:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - One could expand the rollover permission so that its owners have the ability to block IP and new user vandals. That's a relatively simple task, and requires far less of a complex grasp of the rules as for admins generally. It also would deal with a serious problem. If one is not a total idiot using that tool, I suppose one could then submit oneself to the trial by fire required to pass the full RfA. Mind you, the rollover tool itself, even without blocking permission, can be subject to abuse, and should be removed in a fair and not-to-dramatic fashion if abused. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I'd love just to have the filemover permission expanded to be article mover. The other issue is that responsible use of a smaller toolset could then become a criterion that is clearly identifiable as something to review if someone sought full RfA. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is looking for new talent.

Home

About