Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on Adminship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copy of my comment on RFA talk

I think that excluding users that do not think change is needed is a mistake. As long as users are willing to stay on topic, all users should be encouraged to participate. FloNight talk 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Move this page, please

This is not a WikiProject, because it's not about articles. We don't want a standing committee to argue about adminship; you should move this to a policy proposal instead. -- SCZenz 17:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, the multiple subpages are only going to make it harder to follow changes. Please rewrite it as a single page and tag it with {{proposed}} once you feel it's ready to come before the community... -- nae'blis 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit late for the claim that WikiProjects are only about articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I welcome discussion of the proper place for this. Since there have been other WikiProjects related to community issues, I had thought this one would be appropriate. If not, it certainly could be moved elsewhere. In any case, though, I think that it's important to recognize that this is a community project focused on seeking input from those of similar mind rather than an essay or proposal. I do believe that it is important to keep the page hierarchy in place, as I have chosen it to make the discussion more managable.

I realize that many people feel that RFA should remain the way it is. Some of them feel that way very strongly. I respect that and I believe I understand their reasoning. They're still welcome to edit the pages here in the WikiProject, but I'm trying to make the point that the purpose of this WikiProject is for people who are friendly to the idea of RFA change to come up with the best proposal they can without the distraction of people saying "hey, let's take a vote on whether RFA is broken or not in the first place." I think that we can work together and build a proposal that's compelling, and that once that's done, the people who are strong advocates for the RFA process we have now can decide whether or not we've made an improvement. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I view that as a backward process. Without identifying what is wrong with RfA, any solution you come up with will most likely miss a target because you've not identified any targets. So, a relevant question is indeed whether or not RfA is broken, and if it is exactly what is broken about it. You can't measure success if you have no idea what the test is. --Durin 01:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Perfect illustration of how process-wonking is killing our project. So long is this is not in articlespace, it really doesn't matter where it is or even what it's called. It's a really good idea to talk about adminship and since nobody really has a clear idea what needs to be done, there's not much point hoping that whatever comes out of this discussion will be a policy proposal -- or a song, or a new process page, or a letter to the Board. We just don't know yet. So it really doesn't matter what we call it or where we put it -- now.

It is important that we have the discussion. There are two ugly threads churning on WP:BN about this very issue, both of which should probably be moved here. The subject of adminship -- its state as an institution, the question of whether it is broken and how badly, and whether it can be fixed -- is pretty important to us as a community and to our project. We need to talk about it and I cast an extremely jaundiced eye on anyone who attempts to suppress the discussion under cover of "proper process". John Reid 02:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Then cast your jaundiced eye. Large numbers of people have been coming up with all sorts of proposals to "reform" RfA. None of the proposals currently underway has any understanding...any...as to what the true goals of RfA are and the extant problems. Any notion on how to "reform" RfA that does not do this basic, decision supporting effort will just as likely cause massive harm as any good they may cause. This isn't process wonkery, and I strongly, forcefully, emphatically deny that it is. It's about trying to redesign a wheel with having a clue as to whether there are requirements for it being round. It's about making a reasoned development decision. --Durin 15:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mission statement

First a copy of my comments at RFA Talk As with all the recurring debate on RFA the comments above don't fill me with much confidence that it'll actually come up with something useful. In order to identify a robust and defensible selection mechanism (RFA currently being neither) then there needs to be a clear, pithy, statement of what Administrators are actually for. That is lacking at present and therefore the guidance is open to interpretation by the candidate and the voters. Until that requirement is nailed down then any discussion of the process is moot. Notwithstanding that if the project actually comes up with a Statement of Need to propose to the wider community then that is a useful step, and should mitigate for the endless tedium of 'RFA is broked' discussion. RFA being broked is merely a symptom of the more fundamental issue.

Therefore I would suggest that the mission statement/ vision be developed to look at what is required from Admins, rather than merely look at the ritual of identifying admins.ALR 09:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, hasn't rfa changed a LOT? I'm surprised anyone would think it was unchanged. <looks puzzeled> Kim Bruning 04:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think RFA evolves in accordance with the current fashion and most vocal contributors to the surrounding discussion. The most common complaint recently has been related to the steady escalation of editcountitis, as you reasonably sttate on the discussion page that takes no account of the quality of edits, merely volume. Whether that evolution has developed in a meaningful and appropriate direction or not is a better assessment than whether it has changed.

personally I don't think it has evolved in a sensible direction, as you point out there are some for whom admin status would be useful who would be unable to get through, or unwilling to go through the ritualised dissection of their history.

Mind you, it could be said thatn I'm biased. I don't roll over when things get confrontational, so I'll never get through in the current 'fluffy bunny love in' climate.ALR 10:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: RFA is not a vote- Tony's section on RFA talk today

Proposal: RFA is not a vote. Then I say we remove the voting section and allow "outside" views to the proposition that user:foo be an admin. Views limited to 30-50 words and responses to them go on the talk page. At the end of 7 days the bureaucrats make the call. Run it like an RFC....what good do a bunch of "supports" and "opposes" do when the validity of the augments behind then are the only thing that matters? Then there's no more questions about voting and numbers. Rx StrangeLove 20:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's do it. Of course it's more work for the bcrats but it sounds like it would help them for the controversial cases. David D. (Talk) 20:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a little, but most of the RFA's have pretty clear outcomes. Rx StrangeLove 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

AFD's aren't a vote either, but users still provide a 1-3 word summary of their views for the benefit of the closing person. But the longer explanation is important too, so that if only one person votes Oppose, but that person's reasoning very clearly shows that the candidate will harm Wikipedia, then the candidate may well not be promoted. --Interiot 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we have enough newspeak.Geni 23:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I note that this isn't what the 'crats were "elected" to do (though I can think of at least one (failed) RfB where this appeared to be the candidate's "platform"). Secondly, many of of them are so inactive as such that they either don't make any promotions, or are controversial in and of themselves when they "come out of retirement" to do so. If we were to go over to such a system, I'd at a minimum want to start with a "clean slate" of bureaucrats newly-minted for the purposes of doing exactly this. (Assuming non-Bs still get to have more than 30-50 ignorable words of input into RfB.) I believe Angela at one point also suggested "terms" for 'crats, which would appear to be strongly indicated if they're the sole people making the decision. Alai 17:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

New proposal

I added one of my subpage proposals. If anyone is interested, they can copy it to a project subpage, where it can be heavily revised edited by this project and what not.Voice-of-All 01:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

ensuring their enculturation

What the hell does this mean? Use plain english please. Catchpole 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you on that one. It almost sounds like a euphemism for brainwashing! It always bothers me that a common catch-all response to a problem is "education" (as opposed to advocacy). It presupposes the viewpoint of the proponents of change are correct. The statement seems to imply that successful candidates aren't part of the prevailing "culture". If a nominee for adminship isn't already "encultured", I doubt they'd do well in a RfA in the first place.

This leads me to the real reason for my comment: the mission statement is a bit too vague: there is a little too much conjecture or assumption. Yes, circumstances have changed, what with the increase in the number of participants. However, that does not necessarily mean a pre-existing process is flawed or cannot handle the change. Correllation is not always causation. It's also a bit worrisome that there is an implication in the mission statement that the best people are not being selected, or those selected are not the best people. I suspect that most of the successful candidates are suited for the task and that very few well-suited candidates are not accepted. Of course, there are a number of examples of where the process lead to controversial results, so there is no denying the impetus for reform; however, I don't think the statement helps in that process. I can't think of a system that doesn't have its flaws. In addition to the other suggestions, consideration might be given to changes within the current mechanism but maintaining the existing framework. Agent 86 01:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

follow up: of course, you always see these things after the fact. The subpage called "tweaks" really didn't stand out at first, but I see that is sort of what I had in mind. Agent 86 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Catchpole, there is a Wikipedia "way of doing things" which is getting ever more lost in the growing sea of process and instruction creep. People have to understand the "way of doing things" to be effective here, and by and large, most RFA candidates do. But it takes time, and that is one of the things behind the ever-growing adminship standards. We are using experience as a proxy for enculturation because it's easier to measure. There are also IMO some key values of the project that are getting lost, particularly the fact that judgement and discernment are at least as important as process. Another value that gets lost is the principle of constant respect; WP:NPA is really a sort of an edge condition that the best contributors should rarely if ever consider as a limitation simply because the principle of constant respect is so much narrower a behavioral guideline.

Regarding Agent 86's comments, I believe that there are discernment problems with RFA -- particularly in that people are turned away (or never apply in the first place) because of legitimate involvement in controversial areas. I also believe that there is a growing risk of bad-faith candidates being promoted. That is, we may well end up promoting candidates who deliberately game their Wikipedia participation in such a way as to get adminship despite the fact that their reasons for participation are at odds with the project goals. There are several accounts believed to be like this that are being privately watched, but we may miss one because we don't have in-depth interactions with adminship candidates -- we're promoting on people we don't know on the strength of the fact that they use edit summaries and have racked up the necessary number of months of experience and edits in the proper namespaces without being involved in controversy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Training

Many potential Admins fail the RfA review.

Administator approval standards vary. Requirements enforced in one season fall out of favor the next. Early "voters" sway the outcome, especially if articulate. Small issues can dominate the discussion.

There is no easy way for a potential Admin to determine whether they are likely meet the current standards.

We should provide potential administrators a reasonable opportunity to assess themselves & prepare themselves.

For those who want to be administrators, Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs/Admin coaching is great and provides excellent assistance, but the coaching backlog is long—there are too few coaches.

We should provide aspiring administrators with an administrator qualification guide (a set of exercises which if completed would substantially improve their probability of success).

Any interest in helping develop an Administrator Training subpage?

Williamborg (Bill) 05:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wheel wars

I think there's one aspect of history that's getting insufficient attention: "a growing reluctance on the part of the admin community to reverse the actions of its members". I don't want to see a return to wheel wars, but maybe there's another alternative. Imagine if admins were bold in reverting each others' actions, and admins whose actions were reverted sought community support (e.g. by waiting for a different admin to re-revert) if they disagreed. You could think of it as a 1RR rule for admin actions. After all, if it's the right thing to do, then someone else will do it. (Normally at this point I would add "Wikipedia has no deadline", but I concede that admin actions are often time-sensitive. Fortunately, there are already several venues to seek urgent admin assistance.)

A lot of the toxicity surrounding controversial admin actions is exacerbated by the delay involved in getting them reversed, and the feeling of a slap in the face when someone reverts someone else. I suggest that my proposal could de-escalate both, not only by correcting mistakes swiftly, but also by treating admin controversy as an opportunity to discuss and learn. We might avoid turning a single instance of poor judgement into a life-long enmity. We could reduce drama over "admin abuse" and make it easier to be a good admin.

I apologize that this isn't a proposal to reform RFA. Bovlb (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. This is actually a good litmus test: if an admin gets bent out of shape over having an admin action reverted, they're trying to own their actions too much. This is harmful. All editors need to act as a check on each other, admins included. We should not be so convinced of our infallibility that we're unwilling to be reverted. Friday (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this could be changed by unilateral action. I have made a modest start with this user box. We could set up a pledge and ask other/new admins to sign it. We might be as successful as Grover Norquist. All we need is a snappy name. Bovlb (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)