Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RFA)
Jump to: navigation, search
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 23:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 04:55:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Purge this page

Recently closed RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Uebelhoer RfA WP:SNOW 13 Jan 2018 0 8 0 0
Cameron11598 RfA Withdrawn 2 Jan 2018 20 23 4 47
Muboshgu RfA Successful 29 Dec 2017 193 4 1 98
Power~enwiki RfA Withdrawn 16 Dec 2017 3 21 4 13
Joe Roe RfA Successful 30 Nov 2017 169 2 7 99
TonyBallioni RfA Successful 19 Oct 2017 224 3 2 99
Rickyc123 RfA WP:NOTNOW 18 Oct 2017 3 13 4 19

Longest RfA hiatus on record?[edit]

Just wondering, since it's been a month now, what's the longest interval between successful RfAs? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Answering my own question from Wikipedia:RFA by month it looks like September–October 2016 were the longest dry spell. So a new question, what's considered a healthy annual replacement rate? BTW this might make it into Signpost if it's interesting enough ☆ Bri (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
You mean September to October 2014. I suppose technically September to October 2002 as well, but for very different and obvious reasons. I do find it interesting the gap between January 2018 and January 2017. Mkdw talk 02:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, I can actually read ... sometimes. It was the difference last year to this year that jumped out at me. I think some people were hoping RfA reform had performed miracles but now it looks like maybe it was a temporary glitch. Anyway Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-06-23/News and notes had some robust discussion, pinging Widefox ... anybody want to take this on as an op-ed? Or maybe it's all been done before? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
There's always a temporary uptick in RfAs surrounding any RfA reform talk, which subsequently serves to quash any momentum for reform because things look like they're working. That's what happened last January. You can see the progression in these archives - it starts with discussions about the course of ORCP and the RfA2015 reforms which had reached their first anniversary or so, then as the RfAs start rolling in, transitioned to mocking discussions about how everyone thought RfA was dead but is alive and well. Well, guess what, that month had more successful RfAs (9, plus 4 unsuccessful, for the record) than total RfAs in each of the 12 months following and preceding, including SNOWs and NOTNOWs. The last time there were 9+ RfAs of any kind in a month, except that one, was July 2015; the last time it happened two months in a row was the beginning of 2014. ansh666 03:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
At first I thought you were exaggerating, but wow. Here's a comment from archive 245 that looks prescient now: "I'm fairly sure that as long as our community continues to be numerous, and the 2007-14 decline doesn't resume...". Okay, the decline has resumed, now what? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
If you want to do this the classic Wikipedia way™, we'll need to discuss whether or not the decline is even a problem, then if we should even do anything about it or just let RfA die and replace it with something else, before we can even talk about what to do about the decline. I think that's a bit drastic myself, but it seems to be the way that these discussions always go. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ansh666 04:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Surely first we'd need to discuss what the longest (and shortest) period between successful RfAs without a post on this page asking about it has been? After all, if we're not properly introspective we'll get nowhere... -- Begoon 04:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Wait..if there's an uptick - new RfA reform idea - always talk about RfA reform! Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, that was suggested (mostly in jest) in the archives I mentioned, but it's of course unsustainable. ansh666 05:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah yeah ofc. It's the lack of successful rfas that makes people go and run rather than rfa reform talk. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't the number of "new admins", it's the number of new editors. The community will find a way to make more admins if administrative backlogs ever get truly severe. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Admins form the pool from which bureaucrats, functionaries, arbitrators, stewards, Foundation-level committees, and the community-selected board seats are selected. The lack of new admins isn't just felt in the length of the speedy deletion queue; there is a tangible decrease in enwiki users involved in movement-wide areas of work, and a significantly smaller pool of people available to run for senior community positions here. This means that the problem of systematically excluding new users from adminship compounds up. As an example, one of the most recognizable stewards from enwiki passed an RfA here in 2006 with under 6,000 edits, and was elected as a steward 8 months later. If that same user joined in 2014 instead of when he did, he would have been laughed out of RfA, and both enwiki and the broader Wikimedia community would have lost out on his perspective and expertise. You can devolve every last non-controversial right out of the admin group, but non-admins will still need to use that NAC template when closing a discussion and won't be able to contribute beyond that level. It makes a tangible ceiling for anyone that joined after 2010, one that can only be surpassed by editing Wikipedia like it's a part-time job for years. To me, that represents a bigger problem than whether the backlogs are cleared within x hours, and certainly something that is worthy of more than people joking about the perennial nature of these discussions. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Most of en-wiki population just does not care about everything outside en.wiki (which has been brilliantly illustrated with recent Wikidata-related events), and there is not a big surprise for me that "there is a tangible decrease in enwiki users involved in movement-wide areas of work". I would think it is not per se related with the RfA decline.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, there are many other factors affecting that trend. But I think the RfA decline is slightly related. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most stewards/global sysops/committee members become active in cross-wiki work after becoming an admin on their home project. But my main point here is to expand on my earlier posts regarding systematic exclusion, to show that the effects are perhaps best seen at the top of the technical access hierarchy. There is now a very small proportion of stewards and global sysops from enwiki, and the ones who hold those roles are mainly those who were elected between 2008-2012 (and became admins here between 2006 - 2010). The youngest steward from enwiki first edited in 2008, the youngest bureaucrat in 2008. There is one arbitrator who started editing in 2015, after that 2008. The average start date for users in all of these roles is roughly mid-2006. I also wonder if enwiki's under-representation in the global roles is one of the fueling factors behind the apathy you refer to. It's easy to stop caring when you don't see familiar faces involved. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
What you say is most likely correct, but as you know I am someone heavily involved in cross-project collaboration (which is reasonably easy for my due to the fact that I speak several languages), but here I see a completely different predominant attitudes. "Wikipedia" just means the "English Wikipedia" by default, and everything else is regarded as sometimes useful and sometimes annoying annex of the English Wikipedia. It would be great to understand whether there is indeed a relation but I would not know how to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
A couple of years back, I did some statistical work with the career paths of politicians. I could use a similar methodology here, though I'm not sure if it would produce useful results given the limited number of cases I could use. I definitely agree with you regarding the predominant attitude, however, and have noticed it myself. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Widefox; talk 21:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That data is up to August 2017, but active admins are today at 557, semi-active 470. The extrapolation predicted a crossover already, so I'm keen to add the last 5 months of data. This could just be the strong seasonal trend in active admins and semi-active with the first quarter being more active than average, last quarter less active than average (and the inverse for semi-active), so we'll have to wait another 6 months or so to see (or do better work and seasonally adjust). Did anyone realise admins are seasonal?! Widefox; talk 09:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Might be a bit too much work, but it'd be interesting to see if it was editors in general as opposed to just admins. ansh666 18:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
There are some stats from the Foundation: [1] [2]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

How to report Administrators[edit]

Thank you! ~ Winged BladesGodric 11:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have to make a complaint about two Administrators who are misusing their privileges and tools in distorting facts. They should be stripped of their Administrative rights as they are not following Wikipedia rules and policies. Their abuse of administrative rights is effecting the Authencity of Wikipedia. Please advise on how to report them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnavlamba (talkcontribs) 22:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

How to report Administrators - Please write a section on this

I have to make a complaint about two Administrators who are misusing their privileges and tools in distorting facts. They should be stripped of their Administrative rights as they are not following Wikipedia rules and policies. Their abuse of administrative rights is effecting the Authencity of Wikipedia. Please advise on how to report them. ~~Arnavlamba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnavlamba (talkcontribs) 22:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Arnavlamba: see Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances_by_users_("administrator_abuse"). — xaosflux Talk 22:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnavlamba (talkcontribs) 22:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Arnavlamba: I don't see any abuse here other than the users on your talk page politely informing you about the requirement to provide reliable sources. Take your complaint on the talk pages of the administrators involved if you want to. Esquivalience (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
And you can knock this off right now; we take an extremely dim view of legal threats. (I don't know why you'd think RTI would be relevant, given that Wikipedia is neither a government department nor in India, but your intent to create a chilling effect is clear.) ‑ Iridescent 22:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Who's debating with you. You knock this off! ~~Arnavlamba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnavlamba (talkcontribs) 23:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

XTools Edit Counter now available as wikitext[edit]

I noticed we often copy/paste XTools results on RfA talk pages, so I wanted to advertise that you can now export the results as wikitext. For example, see xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Jimbo_Wales?format=wikitext. More at WP:VPM (peramlink). Regards MusikAnimal talk 18:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MusikAnimal! :) — sparklism hey! 07:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Great job! Thanks a lot for adding this. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)