Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Worm That Turned 2 76 0 1 100 09:47, 18 November 2024 6 days, 18 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 14:56:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Admins

We had 117 mops handed out in 2009 and 75 in 2010, and every time somebody makes a chart, the number of "active admins" has been trending downward, so obviously were losing faster than we're gaining, I estimate losing 10 active admins per month. Of course I have no desire to be an admin, but obviously I would propose it's a better idea to give the mop to the new and upcoming editors that will likely be here for years, instead of the old conglomerates that will likely fade off sooner than later. Monterey Bay (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of "fading off", simply because this is my tenth year here. Besides that, I have seen no evidence to support the notion that newer editors are likely to stick around for years. Quite the contrary, in fact.--Atlan (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree that a new user is more likely to remain active. If anything, an admin who has been around a few years has contributed a lot more and will be more dedicated to the project than a newcomer. Having said that, I agree in principle that newer editors could potentially bee good candidates for adminship. However, that is only my personal view and I understand views to the contrary. As it is not unreasonable to oppose a candidate on the basis of time spent here, I think we need to leave it up to each !voter. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that new users are more likely to remain active than old ones, and I generally disagree with any generalizations made about users on Wikipedia. Everyone is different, and everyone should be considered for adminship on a case-by-case basis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Wikipedia is in a admin drought, I think an experienced admin should go poking around Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, give advice, and hopefully theyll be able to shape themselves up enough for a successful nomination. Also, pay special attention to those who are afraid of nominating themselves. If needed, I, even thought Im not an admin, am fairly experienced with Wikipedia, I can identify and notify obviously bad editing patterns. Im fairly-confident it will work if you format your advice like a GA review. mysterytrey talk 02:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of any kind of drought? Some of us might argue that having fewer administrators is a good thing. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

By drought I mean when Monterey Bay stated that active administrators are decreasing at an estimated 10-a-month (only 117 mops were handed out, then 75), the evidence being the charts of active administrators. The how-to on more admins was merely a suggestion, however I do request your reasoning/explanation for it better when there are fewer admins. mysterytrey talk 03:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing periods of time during peak hours where vandalism reports are sitting unanswered at WP:AIV for an hour or more and page protection taking the same amount of time or longer. That alone is strong evidence that we need more active admins. We would never have seen such an extreme backlog in those two critical areas two years ago. Trusilver 03:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Trusilver has a great point. mysterytrey talk 04:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Mysterytrey I am firmly in the camp that the Devil makes work for idle hands. There is much that could be done to ease the burden on every editor here at Wikipedia, not just or even mainly for administrators, such as not allowing new users to create articles, but the idiocy has spoken. And let's face it Trusilver, most AIV reports are a joke. Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Please elaborate, Malleus, why are they a joke? Dayewalker (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Please Miss, someone was rude to me. Can you please block them?" Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It comes down to adminship really not being that big of a deal - in my opinion, a good number of admins would be admins jumping over each-other for blocks, deletes, etc. Adminship is little more than a set of tools which aid a user's ability to maintain Wikipedia - if vandals are going unblocked for up to 30 minutes during peak times as I saw a few days ago, then there is a problem. I actually agree with Malleus in regards to disallowing new users the ability to create articles, but as for adminship, I think that the more the merrier (assuming that everyone with the mop is competent). Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia ought to be looking to develop systems and processes that minimise the need for administrators, not trying to create more of them, but of course there's an entrenched hierarchy who resist any such moves to the death. As we've just seen with the new-user article creation fiasco. Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd ultimately prefer both more humans and more processes helping out. We could do a lot more in terms of expanding abusefilters, limiting new user abilities, working on an expanded editor that makes editing easier so that less good faith edits need to be reverted. But at the same time, we still need admins around for blocking, deleting, etc. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt we'll ever agree on the need for or role of administrators here on Wikipedia. My view is that the administrator role has just become a rag-bag of ill-considered "rights" to which every new "right" is thoughtlessly added. Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree with the more the merrier, but what do you mean by "admins jumping over admins"? mysterytrey talk 04:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

By that I just mean admins block-conflicting each-other while blocking vandals, or delete-conflicting when deleting a page tagged for speedy deletion, etc. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What does the devil makes use of idling hands mean? Also, if you think there is a lot of work to be done to alleviate the pressure on everybody, having more administrators to do the work auto-confirmed, confirmed and unconfirmed users alike arent able to do is greatly contributing to the cause. mysterytrey talk 04:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, the real work isn't done by administrators, it's done by regular editors who are lorded over by administrators who think they do all the work. But in reality all most of them do is pop onto AIV or similar venues for a few minutes each day, if that. After all, having won their badge, what else are they expected to do? The game's been won. Of course I don't tar all all administrators with the same brush, just most of them. Malleus Fatuorum 04:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So we remove the bad ones, putting more into office, then remove the bad batches of the newbies. I guess administrators do just review our/bots requests. PS:per the discussion here, today is a bad day to say anything bad about admins. mysterytrey talk 04:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe it was just a bad day to sling unwarranted personal attacks around for no reason. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever tried to remove a bad admin? Or do you believe that there aren't any? Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ive never tried but they do exist. Why? mysterytrey talk 05:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Malleus' philosophies aside, and notwithstanding the benefits of looking for efficiencies, it is troubling when there are backlogs in important areas. The truth is that the important admin work is not the "haha i'm an overlord" type stuff. If admin's tasks were distributed and some editors were called, say, "Vandalism Report Responders" or "AfD Closers", you'd probably weed out all the status seekers. Being an admin on wikipedia is not a resume builder. And speaking of AfD, we have an unusual number of post 7 day discussions still open -- up to 11 days old!, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

But why should it require an administrator to close them? Malleus Fatuorum 04:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with you completely, the Foundation's legal counsel has specifically opposed[1] any unbundling of admin tools. Trusilver 04:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Trusilver: Thanks for the link, I can understand Godwin's concern about unfettered access to deleted articles. Which answers Malleus' question as well, plus the fact that most editors are idiots. Even if most admins are also idiots, its a more controllable group. Its just like local politicians, we need them to do necessary governing tasks.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that admins, like the rest of the volunteer community, don't have a voice in the 'government'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr, go recruit good admin candidates, leave discussions Wikipedia political philosophy for dorm-room bull sessions.--Tznkai (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Insert the obligatory WP:You don't own Wikipedia, even if you're an admin. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Godwin's point supports unbundling, just not in the way that that particular proposal was worded. Specifically, if the legal concern is over the ability to review deleted contributions, then that is the "tool" that should be kept accessible to only a few people, possibly even fewer than have it now. But the perennial "Vandal Fighter Role" doesn't, for the most part, need that tool, and thus we could give that right to more people. All they need is the ability to semi-protect a articles and block users; if it works, software-wise, there could even be a strict time limit (say, up to 3 days protection maximum, 2 days blocking maximum). We could even limit the blocking to IPs and unconfirmed editors. That alone would significantly cut down on RFPP and AIV reporting. This keeps the deleted edits "safe" (legally speaking), allows us to set higher standards for Admins (I'd even be willing to risk being "demoted" myself if it were deemed worthy to re-evaluate all current admins under newer, stringent rules), and still gets the high-speed stuff done. I don't know that this is the exact point at which we should split, but I just mean to say that Godwin's point actually supports splitting off any right except for deletion, as far as I read it. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If we have average users getting blocking rights, even with limits, then I think we need to bump up the requirements for autoconfirmed. mysterytrey talk 05:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

They dont have a voice in the WikiGovernment? They do have the policy section in the village pump. mysterytrey talk 05:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That was a reference to a proposal that had consensus but was shot down by the WMF. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Godwin's posting goes no way at all towards answering my point, as he is specifically talking about viewing deleted pages, nothing else. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Then even the mean administrators serve a purpose if they help Wikipieda exists and not be drowning in vandalism. As to why autoconfirmeds shouldnt be able to close discussions: To prevent abuse. Its fairly easy to create an account. mysterytrey talk 05:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

To test the badge theory it would be interesting to survey successful RfA candidates from the last 12 months and see how many are still highly active. Anecdotally I think the number would be surprisingly high. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we already have a script somewhere that can already do that with a minor tweak. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't like the badge theory - I think that basically all admins are mature enough to understand that what they hold is a mop, not a trophy. I rarely see an admin bragging about their sysop flag, whereas I quite often see users bragging about rollback/autopatrol/accountcreator flags. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, although I do mention my on-wiki "status" when describing my role(s) to non-wiki (i.e. real-life) people, I've never seen anyone do that on-wiki. Consider how having that extra permission bit gives you the ability, and to some degree a sense of obligation, to look at first-hand evidence of the very worst behaviour imaginable, sometimes as the last non-supressing editor involved, and sometimes getting back out of bed to check on something - who wouldn't want that wonderful prize? I think the desire is more powerful than the outcome of attaining the goal. Franamax (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to escalate one part of Malleus's comments to a (off-topic) higher thread level: "most AIV reports are a joke". Not because many of those reports are frivolous or self-interested, that is easy enough to spot and dismiss or redirect - but rather because of my own experience. I did frequent WP:AIV for a while but then stopped. I would see genuine reports and watch the editor contribs to see if they kept on beyond the final warning, allowing for the one-minute possible gap in edit timing, so I could be reasonably sure they'd actually read the final warning. What I found was that those editors got blocked anyway, perhaps by someone determined to "clean up" the AIV page. Once (pre-admin) I found an IP editor who had committed 4 vandalisms and asked them in informal wording to cut it out, and indeed they followed that advice (or study break ended). Then I watched as 4 escalating warnings were added to their talk. The explanation from the tagging editor was (paraphrased) "they always keep going, so I'm setting the stage for a block" So yeah, AIV is a bit of a joke, and part of the "I'm more poweful than others" mentality, just not the way Malleus said. And yes, I'm aware that if I have an issue I should be goiong to WT:AIV to discuss. But the way existing admins deal in a cogent fashion with noticeboard issues is related to the question of why an editor would seek adminship anyway. Is it all about a competition to see who shoots first? Franamax (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite honestly, a few changes need to happen in countervandalism here. First, the youhavenewmessages bar for anons needs to be changed so that it provides more info (such as "Please read these messages which have been directed to you" or something). Second, we need to take the focus off of warning every user four times and start using more common sense. If an IP has gone and replaced the content of five pages with "LOL you got vandalized", which makes more sense; warning or just reporting for a block? Likewise, if an IP has gone and changed the word cake to caek, which makes more sense; a vandalism warning template, or a personalized message telling them that their test worked and that they should use the sandbox instead. Instead, we get the countervandalism game happening, with users fighting for reverts and AIV reports. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

During my RFA it was pointed out that I'd not done much at WP:AIV. True. My policy has always been to select something suitable from WP:USETEMP - either level 1 or level 2 depending on how many unsatisfactory edits they'd made, wait for it to happen again after warning, and escalate as necessary. I think I only took it to level 4 twice; I only reported to AIV twice too, and these were for cases where a level 4 had already been served and the bad behaviour had continued. For me, therefore, AIV was a last resort, not first. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the vast majority of vandal fighters do use AIV as a last resort. Any user with a habit of issuing four warnings at once, as in Franamax's example, would find themselves blocked eventually. Tools such as Huggle have features which prevent vandals being warned if they haven't been given enough time to read their previous warning. Epbr123 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there are many editors that would maliciously issue four warnings at once. I do want to point out that there are certain circumstances where someone who is inexperienced and/or inattentive CAN issue multiple warnings on Huggle within a very short amount of time. It's just something that is good to be aware of, especially among new Huggle users that can be lured into a false sense of security. Huggle is NOT foolproof and it still requires the vandal fighter to have a strong awareness of their surroundings. Trusilver 15:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you miss my point - I believe the editor who issued those serial warnings was acting in utter good faith and genuinely believed that was the right way to deal with vandalism. As noted above, it is the potential for competition to file a report that leads these behaviours astray. In particular (as also noted), counting AIV reports here at the page for consideration of adminship requests as any sort of measure of competence in vandal-fighting is misguided. Look through my own contribs and I think you'll see that I am very successful at spotting bad edits, and looking at the entirety of what the particular editor has recently been up to. I've successfully intervened on a thousand or two occasions now and when I stood for RFA I had approx. 2 WP:AIV reports. And the record will also show that I've never ever used a user warning template either (tho' I do sometimes use templates for block notices), it's 100% my own words. That approach is so effective I've never considered using automation. I've never bought into the "institutional" approach to vandalism, I don't think AIV reports should be used as a metric here, and I think existing admins could set a better example with more critical examination of AIV reports, and followup education and tip-sharing with the editors who are bringing less-than-clear-cut violations to AIV. Admins need to show leadership (as do all other experienced vandal-fighters), and that is how we will persuade other editors to join the admin ranks. Franamax (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• If I have read correctly, what Malleus was trying to say is that instead of us trying to hunt for more new admins we should actually start thinking how to cut red tape for a change. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ill reiterate some stuff thats probably been said already, adminship is no big deal period. If maintenance starts lapsing though more admins will be let in naturally, or more likely, greater automation will simply evolve to make decisions easier (cutting that red tape so to be in a way). I personally feel so much of the fixes today are automated anyway today versus 5 years ago (even vandal aiv reports are so stream lined....) and thus i beleive more active admins back then were probably needed than today (just my feeling). Though i do find automation has created a cold bleak gap that chases away new editors anyway. But thats just my biased look at wikis future, probably something will change to be more optomistic. Meh just some rants Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Request to close

Would someone consider closing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ankitbhatt 2? I don't think it's to the candidate's or anyone else's benefit to keep this open the way it's going. 28bytes (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll close it up. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 28bytes (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)