The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-09-30. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.
It's notable that we cover Walsh's editing in his (short) article, which, as I remarked on the talk page may well be WP:UNDUE. It's also of note that the article misrepresented what he had said, and it does not seem unlikely that the text was inserted by a political opponent. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 23:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
Thanks for looking into it. One of the downsides of Wikipedia, and of much Wikipedia reporting in the press, is that "politician edits own biography" is an instant headline, whereas "unknown political opponent acting under Wikipedia's cover of anonymity squats on politician's biography for months to make them look bad" isn't. AndreasJN466 00:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Another important point is that edit warring is newsworthy, but absence of edit warring is not. I monitor several thousand pages, and on those pages edit warring is pretty much non existent. So edit warring is very much the exception rather than the rule. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I too see little of it in my thousands, but seeing someone else being clearly, consistently vigilant is grounds for unwatching. Thus, I watch few controversial ones. Perhaps someone has formally studied a less biased sample. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Great news on the fundraising but only 4 days to announce and accept nominations for the WMF board? That's not how it's done. It should have been two weeks or two months. LizRead!Talk! 21:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. As for the fundraising success, it's striking that annual revenue has increased exactly fivefold in the space of five years: from $15.1 million in 2009/2010 to $75.5 million in 2014/2015. All along, donors are told that the money is needed to keep Wikipedia online and ad-free, even though less and less of the money collected is actually used to cover the costs of keeping Wikipedia online. AndreasJN466 22:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, having worked for some non-profits, an organization that relies on fundraising to meet all expenses and obligations can be very precarious and it is difficult to make long-term plans when you don't even know if you will meet your fundraising target a year from now. I hope that the surplus funds are being kept in a reserve account in case there is a catastrophic event or next year doesn't meet its fundraising goal. LizRead!Talk! 16:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly, Liz. Expenditure has risen as well, from $10 million in 2009–2010 to $56 million in 2014–2015, mostly as a result of the vast staff expansion. However, cash reserves have risen in line with expenditure [1]; in fact, the rising expenditure has been used to justify ever greater reserves. In other words, the tens of millions in cash reserves have been defended with the argument that it is "just one year's expenses", omitting to mention that expenses have also increased tenfold since 2008–2009.
In my view, the public needs to understand where all the money is going – and needs to understand that the donations drive is not about saving Wikipedia from blinking out of existence or having to host ads to survive, as the "keep Wikipedia online and ad-free another year" wording seems to imply, but about the fact that the Foundation has increased in staff size by a factor of 25 since 2007 and more and more money is needed to maintain that bulk. And donors have a right to know in my opinion what those Foundation staff are doing, and how it benefits the public. It shouldn't just be a blank cheque that increases every year thanks to bigger banners telling people money is needed again to "keep Wikipedia online". AndreasJN466 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikimania
Nice catch on the Wikimania scoop. Did you approach anyone at the WMF for comment? Nathan T 22:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
We did, but the timing of the news and the lateness of the already late Signpost made waiting for responses impossible. We will include any responses in a follow-up story. Gamaliel (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
A point of note: while the draft announcement itself did not mention my dual roles (as a community member and as a WMF staffer), the comments on the document mention that it needs to be made explicit (as you'd expect from a draft). That said, the Wikimania organization is definitely not made with my Staff hat on, and I very much doubt that my role in operations is considered and asset in event planning. :-) Some may recall that I was organizing Montreal's bid for 2011, so my continued interest in hosting the community in my hometown should come as no surprise to anyone. — Coren(talk) 23:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikimania 2017 in my city?? Now I no longer have an excuse not to attend!! :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
"with the rise in mobile readership unable to make up for the rather greater loss in desktop pageviews" ie. mobile makes us dumber. -- GreenC 01:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Would have been nice if the committee and WMF had kept Meta informed, the place where every previous bid process had taken place up 2016 to on the changes. m:Wikimania_2017 as for being a good choice we now have London, Mexico, Italy and Motreal I see Europe, North America, Europe, North America the last time it was outside of that was Hong Kong in 2013. For the record I have spent the last 3 months working a bid following that process so has a number of other people. Gnangarra 01:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Having Wikimania in West/North/South Europe and U.S./Canada two thirds of the time? Really? If you really want to spread the conference around, it should rotate through all the six continents – including Oceania where its never been before, and now won't be until at least 2021, or 2024, or three years later, or three after that, etc., under the proposed system. Seems like the system is more about keeping Wikimania locations inline with the "Donations by continent" image in the top story, rather than ignoring less of the world. - Evad37[talk] 02:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
While acknowledging Gnangarra's good work, the decision is well-thought-through from the perspective of costs and carbon footprint. Next, we could change the allocation of travel subsidies to give greater favour to the global south and diversity. Tony(talk) 04:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Ignoring the efforts so far... in fixing the schedule like this it ignores other windows of opportunity, with the A$ compared to US$ 2/3rds of what it was at its peak, Perth on the end of mining boom, an over supply of accommodation, the economics that excluded Australia previously have altered dramatically but for how long. Even more concerning is the loss of community choice and input in the process the level of BIAS this will foster in wider community by ensuring that contributors outside of the NA & Europe are treated as second class with little relevance to collecting the sum of all knowledge. Gnangarra 04:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
last year not one Australian got a scholarship and I doubt that's about to change. They may as well close the door and say 'give up now, you're not part of our community'. Total absence of communication and allowing people to proceed along with deals that have no hope of succeeding thus damaging credibility and possible future projects is just typical of how some at the WMF have been operating these days.
Also ... Montreal? Wtf? I've been there and I hope that whoever is making the decision factors in the social hatred and frequent deliberate small scale fraud targeted at English speakers there. Most unfriendly city I've ever been to and no plans to go back. Then again this is what happens when a secret closed shop decides the event without input from the community. Orderinchaos 08:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I am indeed the person who shared those documents to the Wikimedia-I list (I'll be glad if the Signpost can give credits to me). I have to emphasize that they are just drafts, and I'm still waiting a reply from someone who works with the Foundation. In the original mail I never confirm that Montreal will held Wikimania 2017. Also, personally I don't feel that this year's bid process will be forfeited, though there's possibility that the bid process will be abolished for further Wikimanias. --Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 04:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I boldly added your name to the story. From those documents, however, it's pretty clear that the current plan is to discard the old bid process and give Wikimania 2017 to Montreal. While I don't disagree with the former, it is highly unfortunate IMHO that this was all conducted behind closed doors. (this is my volunteer opinion, if that wasn't already clear) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 07:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking on behalf of the Manila bid team for Wikimania 2016/2017, please note that we are currently discussing a plan of action regarding our current bid, and that at this point the bid team was seriously taken aback by this leak/future announcement. As I said in my e-mail (and it would be great if the Signpost could link me to it, please! :P), my faith in the process is visibly shaken, and so is the faith of the rest of our team in said process. --Sky Harbor(talk) 13:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Done, but unsure whether my edit use a right way to give credits. --Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 14:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems that as early as July (not August), the Wikimania steering committee have already decided on Montreal as the venue for Wikimania 2017. (Their initial choice for 2018, on the other hand....) --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Rather than be prescriptive about regions it would be good if we could be prescriptive about rotation and visas. I think you could cover both with two rules:
Each location to be no closer than a longhaul flight from the previous one and a medium haul flight from the one before.
Wikimania will sometimes be in countries where visas are difficult for many wikimedians. But not two years in a row. ϢereSpielChequers 19:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed. The old process certainly had its problems, but this new system is clearly far worse. I've followed the Wikimania bidding process out of interest for a long time, and I was a witness to the creation of the Wikimania Committee. The impression of myself and others at the time was that it was just there to keep things running smoothly, particularly with assisting the jury, and I had no problem with that. It was not created to take control of the entire process, and nor should a body with no serious transparency or community mandate do so.
I've noted that poor communication is a recurring theme when it comes to Wikimania bidding and related activities. I have repeatedly pointed out cases where communication from those leading the process was poor or problematic (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), and I believe others have too. Then there's the Esino Lario related chain of events, in which I was told one thing by the WMF while they told the Signpost something else, among many many other issues. From my perspective, this incident is clearly just the highlight of a long catalogue of failures when it comes to communication with the community.
There now seems to be an emerging talking point from some parties that it was some kind of secret that Manilla and Perth were planning to bid again, in order to explain the decision to give Wikimania to Montreal. I do not accept this at all. It was known by a large segment of the community that these bids were in progress (including by WMF employees), and it appears that both bids contacted the WMF at least once about their plans, with Manilla in fact receiving encouragement by the WMF to bid again after their previous failure. There is no excuse for the Wikimania Committee not to have known, but even if there was, the bid teams deserve no criticism for following instructions left to them on Meta in which nobody had bothered to spend five minutes updating.
I happen to be friends with people involved in both of the discarded bids, and I've witnessed the negative consequences of the Wikimania Committee's actions, to which I'm sure there will be many more. They are angry about how they have been treated, and have every right to be. A serious and unconditional apology to both bid teams by the Wikimania Committee would mitigate, though unfortunately far from resolve, this incident. As of yet, one has not been forthcoming. Sadly, this seems to be reflective of the path in which Wikimania has been put on. A path where Wikimania ceases to be a serious community conference, perhaps to be become a WMF showroom event instead, and as a result, ceases to command any respect from the volunteers which make Wikimedia projects what they are today. I don't think it is fair to write off the merits of a Montreal Wikimania at this point, even if like Orderinchaos (talk·contribs), I have my reservations, but there can be no doubt that Wikimania 2017 is off to a very poor start. I personally have very little faith in Wikimania-related processes any more. CT Cooper ·talk 21:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Personally? I wouldn't have minded if the process was changed, just that...they should have told us earlier. (It would have been easier for the Manila team to just restart the bid as most of the suppliers we contacted are ready on short notice.) If the Wikimania steering committee was planning to change the process all along, then Ellie shouldn't have told us (via Josh) to bid again. And certainly, they should have told the community before Bali and Perth put their respective bids as well. And if they want a consultation with the community regarding the proposed changes, it should have started much earlier, and certainly not next month. And certainly not when (as it seems) the key decisions have been voted on to be pursued. ---Tito Pao (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Fundraising emails
"Readers submit their email address for future communications when they make a donation..." This reader/editor strongly objects (and has done so explicitly by e-mail for the last few years) to receiving unsolicited e-mails in response to a donation. Even if it's from WMF, it's still spam. I hope there is an option to not provide an e-mail address and/or to opt out at the time of donation (not by unsubscribing after you send me unwanted e-mails) of future e-mails (other than a receipt for the donation), otherwise I shall simply not donate next time. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
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: RichFarmbrough, 21:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
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)
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 {{unblock}}. If a block is contentious there are avenues already set up for review and reversal. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
Are contentious blocks done by newish admins? I thought it was the relatively experienced admins who did the contentious blocks and unblocks. ϢereSpielChequers 21:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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. ϢereSpielChequers 20:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have addressed your comment via the email thread. Thanks, --Biblioworm 02:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
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. LizRead!Talk! 23:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. --PresN 02:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
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. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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. ϢereSpielChequers 21:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@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)
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. ϢereSpielChequers 20:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [2] --Biblioworm 18:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
That's not my perception, and I've been watching RfA for 10 years now. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Why would anyone in their right mind want to be an admin on Wikipedia? • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 06:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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 (123) 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 k6kaTalk to me!See what I have done 20:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 19:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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.) Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 17:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
But clearly yours truly cannot be trusted with the tools... but unbundling would be cool. Montanabw(talk) 15:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
It's interesting that we routinely delete redirects posed in the form of a question. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 23:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
The search fucntion is pretty amazing, actually. I will find articles I added content to just seconds earlier, content that included what I was searching for which wasn't there before.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the head's up about Graham Hubbs and his chapter about teaching with Wikipedia. He was not on our radar at the time, but I've sent him a note to gauge his interest in participating again down the line. I appreciate your recommendation to Wiki Ed! Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The "Editorial Bias in Crowd-Sourced Political Information" article went through a lot of work to basically discover we have a policy against contentious material on biographies. This research really raises serious ethical questions. Took me a while to find it, but the sockmaster for them was User:Bill922. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought Flow had shuffled off this mortal coil and joined the choir invisibule?--ukexpat (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
No, it's just dropped on the priority list. Some wikis do already use Flow, for the record.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
ukexpat, there tend to be "communication problems" with the WMF. I've spend a lot of time on the WMF wikis, and I've spoken with the executive director, the Flow project manager, and others. Here's what's really going on... for starters the executive director said she's converting her own talk page to Flow. When I posted a crazy list of catastrophic problems with Flow(*), she took it as a bug report and thanked me for helping us get the software to where it needs to be, and it is a process of constant tuning and eventually getting it ready for prime-time. The programmers hate having to support wikitext, and they believe wikitext is scaring away millions of new editors. They're working towards a Glorious New Future where wiktext is *gone*.
The WMF announced that Flow development was being put on hold.... here's what they really meant. The Flow-chatboard features mostly-work, so that work is now titled "bug fixes" instead of "development". In addition, the Flow team is shifting to development of different Flow features under the title "Workflow". See how simple that is? The WMF said development of New Flow Discussion Features was put on hold, and obviously everyone in the community just has a reading-comprehension-problem when we thought the Flow-Train came to a halt.
(*)Note: When I said "catastrophic problems with Flow", I meant copy-paste mangled content. Reverting an edit mangled the original post. Switching between Flow's two editing modes mangled what I had typed in. The result displayed immediately after a save was different from what everyone would see in the future, when the page was properly loaded anew. Flow uses top-posting for some comments and bottom-posting for other comments, which turns large discussions into incomprehensible spaghetti. Flow is made of various subsystems, there's the editing interface and the parser and the back-end storage system.... each of which independently crashed on me at various times. There's no proper history of the discussion, clicking a history-date shows you ONE comment, entirely out of context. (And some history links would just crash). Oh yeah, and during testing some of my private info accidentally got sucked into a copy paste.... and they never implemented oversight. Instead of oversight, one of the devs had to basically hack into the database set it so that Flow would CRASH if anyone tried to view the deleted post. There were various other problems, but as I said, these are just some of the "catastrophic" ones.
One big reason for many of those issues is that Flow doesn't actually support wikitext, it pretends to support wikitext. If you type wikitext into Flow, Flow throws it away and stores something completely different. Then when you try to look at the code for the page again, Flow tries to invent a new blob of wikitext that (hopefully) resembles what you had there originally. Yeah yeah, I know... that sounds insane... but the important thing is that the programmers like it better.... and none of it will matter anyway once we can get rid of wikitext completely. You know, because we'll get millions of new editors jumping on board if we can get rid of all this scary wikitext.
Oh yeah, and they are finishing up a new system that will let people opt-in to switching their UserTalk page to Flow. The current plan is to only enable it on wikis that approve it. Alsee (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
A couple of quick clarifications.
They're working towards a Glorious New Future where wiktext is *gone*. This is not accurate. They are working to make both systems available as options, for the diversity of humans who might prefer one or the other. Wikimarkup is powerful, and appreciated by many of us, and there are no plans to remove it. Please don't start baseless rumours.
they never implemented oversight - This is not true. 3 other oversighters tested the system immediately after this bug report, and found it to work as expected. The particular instance that you are talking about, is currently attributed to either a brief caching problem, or human error.
I will not rebut some of the other points, but thank you for clarifying that Flow is not dead, and the team is simply refocusing on other aspects and extensions (particular Echo) for some time. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)