Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) at 20:34, 7 March 2009 (→Employee accounts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

/Archives (from June 2003 to present)

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Active Admins & Crats

The top of both this page and the project page have "Current admin count: 1,625 (list all) Current bureaucrat count: 30 (list all)". I think that gives us a misleading background to the RFA & RFB processes as these figures includes long dormant accounts. If we have the appropriate bots does anyone object to replacing them with "Currently active admins: ??? (list all) Current active bureaucrats: ?? (list all)". I seem to remember there being a bot somewhere that counts admins who have performed more than a certain number of edits in the last 90 days, though ideally I'd suggest admins and crats who've performed an admin or crat action in the last 90 days. WereSpielChequers 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove the rights of inactive admins

It would be better just to remove the rights from users that aren't interested in using them. Majorly talk 20:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve? Not using an ability is not the same as misusing and ability so removing it would not be helpful.

I do think it would be a fine idea to mark the admins who have recently used their tools as "active" admins. 90 days sounds about right, not measuring edits though but the use of the relevant tools thenselves. Chillum 20:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, it would make the number at the top accurate. Tell me, what purpose does keeping dormant rights have? Majorly talk 20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Once an admin, always an admin. That's the rule here, except in the most exceptional of circumstances. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone will probably quite soon wheel out that tired old WP:PERENNIAL in yet another attempt to stifle discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. "What's the harm?" "They aren't abusing!" "They might come back!" "It'll cause a lot of work for the stewards!" Blah blah blah. They miss the point that they are simply decoration if not used. Get them if you need them. Lose them if you don't. Give them up if you're no longer trusted by the community. Meta-wiki philosophy, that should be brought here. Alas, it will never happen. Majorly talk 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, they should be desysoped if inactive for blank days, because if they're accounts are hacked then well you know.--Giants27 TC 20:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you know? No, I guess I don't. Why would an inactive account be more hackable than an active one? It's people who actively log in who create opportunities to have their passwords sniffed, cookies re-used, etc. rspεεr (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea that inactive admins should be desysoped has been repeatedly rejected, it is also not the topic of this thread. Dormant does not mean gone forever, people come back. Chillum 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because it has been rejected by the people who hang out on this page, doesn't mean it will be again. I really don't think someone who left in 2003 will be coming back. And if they did, I would not trust them in the slightest to be deleting pages - when they were active, the wiki was extremely different, and many of today's policies non-existent. I think I might propose it again. Majorly talk 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think what you'd find is that there are quite a few people who oppose the concept, but are content to ignore you each time you bring it up because it doesn't go anywhere. If it seems like it might go somewhere, those people will probably arrive to set you straight. I know desysopping people is your hobby on meta, but this isn't meta (and meta really isn't all that meta anymore... maybe it should be renamed bureaucracy.wikimedia.org or buro.wiki for short?). Speaking of meta policies, don't they require meta admins to be administrators on another content project? Avruch 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, it is not my "hobby" at all. Please keep your comments non-personal. Obviously, considering you have thousands of edits on Meta-wiki, you know much more than I do about it, so I'll take your word for it.

They'll "set me straight"? By giving me the tired old argument of WP:NOHARM? And your final point, yes, they do. Majorly talk 21:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be surprised at how many are in favour of the idea Avruch I'd certainly be lining up with Majorly, and you won't see me say that very often. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You could be right, Malleus, but I hope not. I think its a fantastically bad idea for a number of reasons. Proponents think it will be easy and uncontroversial; but it will be anything but. The smokescreen of "But would you want 2003 admins deleting pages in 2009" ignores the fact that after the first few weeks or whatever, any desysopping process would focus on people just past the minimum threshold of activity. A year, six months? So when they come back, all the fringe promoters and wingnuts they pissed off should get Round 2 at RfA, arguing over whether they should be resysopped? If you dislike RfA, and I know you do, you should cringe at the thought. I realize people have a visceral appreciation for admin bloodsport, and some folks just want as many admins as possible desysopped on the belief that it will only help... But confirmations and desysoppings will be difficult and full of drama, far more than its worth to solve some problem no one has really identified. Avruch 22:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is clear. A disconnect between those doing the work and those who believe that they are in charge of those doing the work, rather than believing that they are supporting those doing the work. If I ruled the World I'd desysop every admin right now, and demand that they went through a reconfirmation RfA. A 2009 RfA, not the nod and a wink stuff that used to go on. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also wondering what problem this is trying to solve? If there isn't a clear issue this is trying to resolve then it's just another unneeded layer of bureaucracy. And it's almost certainly going to add more drama with no corresponding benefit. RxS (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Rx. This is a solution in search of a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Let them eat cake springs to mind. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Counting actives rather than all

If you want to propose this change Majorly please do, it is a productive thing to do. I will contribute to the discussion. I don't think there is much chance of the idea being accepted but it is always good to know for sure. This thread is about an idea that has a good chance of being implemented which I support. Marking admins as inactive/active by a bot is a great idea. Chillum 21:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've split this into two threads because there are two very different proposals here - not least because I and expect many others would be loathe to desysop someone who took a four month wiki break. But you wouldn't really describe them as active would you? WereSpielChequers 22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(moved here per topic heading) Is there not a bot somewhere that calculates the number of active hierarchs? That could be parenthesised after the total figure. Skomorokh 20:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is a list of active admins somewhere. — neuro 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out the revision history of Misplaced Pages:List of administrators. Rick Bot updates it daily, so you can see how it varies. Useight (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That lists 945. — neuro 01:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I heard somewhere that there are 600 active admins, but "active" is subject to interpretation. –Juliancolton 01:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Active", at least for that number, means "has made more than 30 edits in the last 3 months". I wouldn't call that 'active', I would call it 'not inactive'. Certainly the number of admins actively involved in day to day editing is probably a good bit lower. — neuro 01:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

... although not yet low enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

30 edits in three months seems more or less inactive to me. –Juliancolton 05:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree in full. I've had periods of inactivity, but I've never had less than thirty edits in one month, let alone three months. Admiral Norton 19:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If anything Malleus, Misplaced Pages needs more admins not less. It is not a big deal you know? Chillum 05:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's not a big deal then why do so many clearly incompetent admins fight tooth and nail to avoid being desysoped? If it's not a big deal, then why is it such a big deal to lose the admin bit? Wake up, smell the coffee. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to answer the other question. Why does wikipedia need more admins exactly? Surely there are far too many as it is? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gee Malleus, you haven't said why we should not have admins. Frankly the vandals and trolls would just take over if we didn't. No there are not enough admins, we need more. So that we can manage the higher population of users. Now do you have any reasons(you know the things that convince people) why we should not have as many admins?

Who are all these admins that are so incompetent that they are fighting to avoid desysoping? I have seen less than a handful of such admins over the course of years. Chillum 14:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The archive from the last time the algorithm for how to count admins as active came up is at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 155. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original proposal

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 155#Depressing thought was an interesting thread that shows it might be difficult to get consensus for a different way to count how many active admins we have. In particular someone who retires after an afternoons editing would currently be counted as active for the following 90 days, an admin who only performs blocks and deletes would count as inactive if they didn't do 30 edits in 90 days and crucially this is not a binary divide as we have a few very active admins who spend time on wikipedia every day, and many others who might spend an hour a fortnight or less here. I suspect if the bot could also count admin actions such as blocks we could get consensus that an inactive admin is one who hasn't performed an admin action in the last 30 days, and a dormant account is one that hasn't done anything in 60 days. Giving us three groups of admins, Active admins, active editors with admin rights that they rarely if ever use, and currently inactive admins. But back to my original proposal to replace the current figure of number of editors with crat and admin rights with the number of "actives" however actives is defined, I haven't yet spotted any opposition to this even amongst those who disagree as to whether we have too few or too many admins. So unless anyone objects I'll make that change on Thursday. WereSpielChequers 09:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, maybe list both actives and all admins (like "945/848"). On the same thought, maybe Rick Block could change his bot to update that figure once a week (let's put it on a subpage to make it easier). And I agree with the idea to change the criterion of activity and change WP:LOA to reflect that (if we can have consensus on the variables and Rick makes the changes needed that is). SoWhy 15:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to list active and all as per SoWhy. WereSpielChequers 15:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We lost another admin today and I'm just sick about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Earlier today, I spent a good while reading an ANI thread about an edit war, and reviewing the history of the page in question. After some thought, I decided neither to block the editors involved nor to protect the page. Since then I was happy to see productive editing taking place and an apparent end to the edit war. I've still got eighty-nine days of the same activity to go until I make the inactive list, but it's a start. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I use the admin tools to view deleted pages to check that they were deleted properly & to e-mail copies of deleted articles to editors on request. I also close AfDs without deletion & refuse expired prods where further discussion seems in order. None of this shows up in the logs, but is all legitimate admin activity. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have issued at least half a dozen warnings to vandals today. None of this shows up in admin logs either. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I said that "it might be difficult to get consensus for a different way to count how many active admins there are", though I think all but SheffieldSteel's comment could be covered by broadening the bot to count blocks, deletes and other admin operations as well. SheffieldSteel has a good example in that sometimes no action is needed. However the chance that an active admin could be regularly doing that to the point of not doing 30 edits in 90 days does seem a tad low to me. Sheffield do you actually object to the change to the suggested change to the stats on this page? WereSpielChequers 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice this earlier. I have no problem with changing the criteria used by the bot. I am rather concerned that an automatic evaluation of an admin's activity might be used as a source of lies damned lies statistics that might in turn be used as the rationale behind any number of proposals, e.g. to alter RfA criteria or to desysop "inactive" admins. You can use statistics for a lot, and not all of that is necessarily justified. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

More RfA stats?

About 11 months ago, SoxBot II was approved to update File:Graph of RfA and RfB.svg weekly. It's almost complete, and it brings up some interesting points.

1. There was only 1 point where it reached 0 RfAs, which was January 2009.
2. The top number of RfAs was about 10 months ago.
3. An RfB hasn't lasted a full week since September 2008, and there were only 2 since then.
4. From a 1 month span from mid October to mid November, the number of RfAs hovered around 1-2 at the time.
5. The peaks are higher and more... jagged last May/June.

Is this a sign of decreasing RfAs, or am I just paranoid? Xclamation point 16:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, with the amount of new user registrations declining, it's only natural that there are less users emerging as potential admin candidates. And RFB is a h***hole anyway so I am not surprised that there are that few admins willing to risk it. SoWhy 16:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"This graph is based on Image:George W Bush approval ratings.svg". An ominous portent indeed... Skomorokh 18:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Can someone make this graph go way back, perhaps to some far back point on User:Bibliomaniac15/A history of RFA, by any chance? I imagine Majorly or NoSeptember's data would make this fairly easy. Comparing with new user registrations or article creations might be useful then. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I probably could. I don't know where the data is. :P Xclamation point 22:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You really ought to go back and reconstruct more of the historical record, your record as is hardly provides much context. For example, this period in May 2007 had 25 RFAs, and that's not the all time high. Yes things have declined, and a longer memory makes that even clearer. Dragons flight (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, there hasn't been a full RfB since September? Depressing. –Juliancolton 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is only one stat I need...

And it's here . Less than 50 per cent of admins are now "active". I saw Ottava recently saying on an RFA that we have about 1,000 admins to many. Well - that would leave us somewhat negative on the admin front. And before we go down any line, let's just remember that some poor sod has to delete the WP:CSD#G10's within a reasonable timescale if nothing else. Admins are leaving wholesale. The evidence is in the history of that diff. Pedro :  Chat  22:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a look through the history, and from March 1, 2008 to February 17, 2009; the number of active admins was hovering between 950-1020. That number suddenly falling to 724 is a dramatic drop after a period of relative stability, and bear in mind in March of last year we had less (though not much less) admins than we have now. Acalamari 22:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We need more editors with the technical ability that is confered by +sysop. We need more editors prepared to delete crap to keep this work credible. We need more people to block IP's and SPA's on a rampage. If you doubt this, get up early, or stay up late and simply check WP:AIV and C:CSD at 07:30 UTC. Unless, of course, we (by "we" I mean everyone who has a care about the larger goal) feel the work is doomed, that we no longer care about our FA's and GA's, the stubs we've written or the DYK's we've seen progressed. Pedro :  Chat 

This is a bit confusing... did the bot miscalculate, or did over two hundred admins just log on and edit just to prove you wrong? :D  GARDEN  22:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd hope the bot is inaccurate ... HOPE being the key word. Assuming a bot error - we are still at around 58% in terms of active admins. Pedro :  Chat  22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If the latest (and higher) number is the correct one, then that is a piece of good news. Acalamari 22:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The bot got something wrong after February 17; It has been fixed meanwhile with the number of active sysops in 2009 being ca. 950.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are perhaps about 1,000 admins too many throwing their weight around threatening and issuing civility blocks and other such nonsense, but perhaps 1,000 too few actually doing the drudge work of maintaining the encyclopedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Am in the negative 50 doing the drudge or the negative 50 throwing my weight around? :) Pedro :  Chat  22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You're definitely in there with the drudgers. Who in their right mind would choose, of their own free will, to spend time looking at CSDs others had tagged instead of working on an interesting article? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the diff where I claimed I was in my right mind... :) Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said that I believed you to be of sound mind. ;-) But I think there is a serious point which underlies these admin activity figures; I have the distinct impression that many editors view adminship as some kind of a promotion, not as an obligation to clean out the guttering, to abuse that tired old janitor analogy. Once promoted, job done. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Malleus, and some more stats for you all. From this source we see 6,565,762 admin actions. Even including MZMcBride's effort to hit 1,000,000 deletions, and the fact that this jumble of data gives us 1840 admin accounts ever, that equals a mean admin action rate of 3,568 actions per admin. User:Brian0918 has achieved exactly that figure, and 360 admins are in excess of this. Removing all admin accounts with less than 10 admin actions (total 184 accounts) gives us some interesting data;

• 201 accounts have made <100 admin actions
• total 524 accounts have made <400 admin actions

Yes we grant the tools on the basis that even the smallest amount of help offered is useful. But one woul;d hope that candidates who offer to clear the backlogs in their Q1's at RFA would follow through. Pedro :  Chat  23:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In 2004, RfX was less of a big deal. Adminship was handed out more liberally than it is now. Back then, it was anyone who was good. Activity didn't matter, or whether or not they needed it. Cprompt hasn't used his crat tools at all, and he became a crat around then. Xclamation point 02:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, you've obviously given this some thought - your opinion on why this is happening would be valuable. It's one thing we can't blame on the RFA process as you're talking about people after they have been given the bit. Dean B (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the 201 admins with fewer than 100 admin actions, as are most of the 9 admins from the Feb 2009 intake, and we are all among the 524 with fewer than 400 actions. But I've been an admin for less than a month for part of which I've been on holiday, and if you think thats a disappointing start Mfield has only been an admin since the 27th. So I suggest that you ignore newbie admins from these sort of stats. Also you may find some admins who've moved the bit between their accounts which I suspect could lead to some anomalies where an admin has had two accounts over time, one of which has a low count. Bishonen/Bishzilla springs to mind. WereSpielChequers 11:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh - no need to "hold you hands up!". I don't think there's any value in some kind of hunt for editors who promised to clear backlogs at RFA and then don't. This is a volunteer effort after all :) I think my message is this; we see a lot of "we have too many admins" or comparing admin numbers against non-admin editor numbers and so on - but these claims often use the total admin count of over 1,600. In reality we have under 1000 active admins - and that definition of active does not cover admin actions - it covers editing. A more useful baseline is the number of active admins who are actively using the tools. Of course this then needs to be compared properly as well. By way of example;

• The ratio of the number of admins to the number of articles seems a pointless bit of data
• The ratio of the number of active admins using the tools actively as against the number of clear cut speedy deletions created in a given time frame would seem useful data

I think it's going to be tough to agree any stand out metrics, but I really do think just baldly stating we have 1,600 + admins is covering up the reality of how many people are performing the administrative workload. Off the top of my head I'd reckon there are around 650 active admins on en.wikipedia. Which certainly doesn't seem too many - particularly when I looked at the state of C:CSD this morning. Pedro :  Chat  11:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's going to be tough working out a metric. For instance, I believe I participate more heavily in CSD than my deletion count of ~500 would indicate - if only because I decline a lot of speedies. Admin work definitely, but not easily quantifiable by looking at raw admin count numbers. Lankiveil 08:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

Very good point - very often an admin action can be not doing something as well. This also leads me to a further thought - non admins who wish to assist in the Misplaced Pages namespace can help greatly by clerking at all the main boards - AIV, CSD, RFPP, AFD - even PERM. Pedro :  Chat  08:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

ah the good old csd... the place you avoid unless you're completely intoxicated. —Dark 08:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion, actually. I consider myself to have a (reasonable) grasp of CSD; I'll spend some time poking about and removing any tags that are clearly incorrect. Ironholds (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's acceptable. But honestly, I think I remember declining some of your taggings in the last days but on the other hand, you are doing quite a good job on it. Others create much more work. Pedro is correct, some non-admins who clean up after over-eager speedy taggers will help admins as well. SoWhy 22:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the pay like? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You get paid exactly the same(!!!) as us admins. How does that sound? SoWhy 22:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How will discussing this here improve things?--Patton 19:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Several good points have been raised in this discussion, actually. It's clear that the number of active administrators is—in general—dropping. Whether this is a Bad Thing or a Good Thing is up in the air. –Juliancolton 03:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Not now" versus "WP:NOTNOW/NOTNOW"

Recently, I noticed WP:NOTNOW cited as a reason for opposition on a few RfAs. However, it was being used on the RfAs of non-snowball candidates (that's worded terribly, I know). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that WP:NOTNOW/NOTNOW was for obvious snowball cases, and was created as a softer version to Misplaced Pages:Snowball clause when closing snowball-opposed RfAs. The way WP:NOTNOW is worded implies this.

Now I am not at all saying or implying that users who have been around for some time are "better" in any way to new or clearly inexperienced editors, but I thought that citing "WP:NOTNOW" as reason to oppose an "established editor" would be insulting to them (a reverse WP:BITE, if you wanted to call it that). I'll give an example: imagine a user has 2500+ edits, has been around for a year, and has a reasonable level of experience. Compare the following opposes to that candidate:

"Oppose - WP:NOTNOW. User doesn't have enough experienced in (some area)" or even just "Oppose - WP:NOTNOW"

Vs.

"Oppose - not now. User doesn't have experience in (some area)"

Note the citing of "WP:NOTNOW" (implies snowball candidate, even if the user is clearly not in that category) versus saying "not now" (meaning "I don't think this user is ready yet", but doesn't imply the candidate should be snowballed opposed and speedy closed). Are some people confusing "WP:NOTNOW" with "not now", is this just a difference of opinions and interpretations, or am I reading too much into it? Thoughts on this? Thanks. Acalamari 18:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading NOTNOW, it does not overtly say to the failed requestee that they did not have a snowball's chance, but rather that they may have failed to reach basic minimum standards. That to me refers to things like very little experience in admin areas, low WP space contribs, and a low score, attributes uncommon in established editors. Principles aside, I wonder whether there have been many incidences of NOTNOW opposes on Requests that did not end up snowballing, and if there have not, perhaps NOTNOW ought to be expanded to cover editors who, while established, clearly fail to meet conditions that while not basic, are de facto requirements. Skomorokh 19:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of making a topic about this myself earlier - specifically, it was SoWhy's oppose on Camw's RfA that made me think about it. While the rationale for the oppose was entirely reasonable and made a lot of sense, it began with a link to WP:NOTNOW even though that essay didn't, to me, seem to apply at all. There really is a difference between "You are not ready now" and WP:NOTNOW when it comes to a candidate that's been around a while but doesn't have experience in the areas you are looking for at RfA. ~ mazca 19:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think some people are confusing WP:NOTNOW with something they should use in place of just coming out and saying that a candidate isn't meeting that specific voter's arbitrary qualifications for passing RfA. So yes, "not now, because you fail to meet my criteria", should probably be avoided, but "not now, because you fail to meet this set of criteria common to all successful RfA candidates" would probably be a good place to use WP:NOTNOW, even with experienced editors, but only so long as the specific reasons for using WP:NOTNOW are given. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a common trend that I've seen, and it's annoying. If I ran for RfA a second time when NOTNOW was in existence, I would not want to be opposed for that. It's insulting, cold, and heartless to the people who are experienced, but not experienced enough. Xclamation point 21:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Often on Misplaced Pages we see essays being cited by title not content - because it fits. Classics include;

  WP:FORGIVE being used as "well, you made a mistake but we'll forgive you"

  WP:NLT when an IP says "but surely that's illegal?"

If people read the essay then they might realise when and where it fits. People don't. WP:NOTNOW was simply a considerably less WP:BITEy version of the WP:SNOWball close, with some useful links. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only purpose of NOTNOW is to state "I like what you're doing, but your RFA won't pass" as opposed to "You haven't got a snowballs chance in hell mate" - i.e. not discouraging good faith editors early on. Pedro :  Chat  22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the WP:POINT you're making here? That's probably the misuse I dislike most. ;) ~ mazca 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep - dead right - that should have been on my list above - a classic example of using the title, not reading the essay. I actually saw an AFD citing NOTNOW on the basis that the subject might become notable in the future.... my oh my.... Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On the flip side, there are some shortcuts that make very little sense to their redirect (points to WP:X and WP:DRAMA). "Please don't make WP:DRAMA. ShortcutAbuser (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)" "You don't want me to make another ANI? Hell, many people will thank me for not making another hellhole like that. FutureWikiCleb (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)" Xclamation point 01:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Back when I first read through the essay, I interpreted it as more of a "Thank you for volunteering for the position, but I'm afraid you don't quite meet the community's expectations for adminship just yet, but don't feel discouraged" thing. It appears to be intended for n00bs who probably haven't even heard of RfA before, and found the idea of helping interesting. It is more for those who don't even understand what adminship entails than it is for people who don't meet personal expectations. WP:NOTNOW speaks for the community as a whole in a polite manner. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've been concerned about this for a while now. WP:NOTNOW applies, in theory, to candidates who have little or no experience. Citing the essay (which I note is just that: an essay, not an official criteria) for an oppose on more experienced editors is simply derogatory. Even so, all opposes, regardless of the candidate's level of experience, should be able to provide more in terms of sustenance than an arbitrary bluelinked title. –Juliancolton 03:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that WP:NOTNOW is for clear cases of people not having a chance of passing, whereas "not now"(english, not acronym links) is a more general term that can refer to anyone who is not ready now. Chillum 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I find the above rather boring. Who cares? We might as well just switch it for "Thank you, try again later". >.< Ottava Rima (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm..... Ottava shall we replace WP:NOTNOW with WP:FUCK-OFF-WE'RE-BUSY undermining the whole point of a less bitey SNOWball clause at RFA? I find it odd that people above are debating the real meaning, or their understanding, of an essay whilst basically ignoring the post of the bloke who wrote the darn thing :). Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You have my full permission that, when bored, you can replace my user page or any of my opposes with the second one. Save this diff if someone questions you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I always thought WP:I-VOTE-NO-CUZ-I-AM-AWESOME would be a good substitute as well. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CAN-YOU-DEAL-WITH-THAT-LOVE is my personal winner .... ah sorry, my real life slips in to WP.... Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

erm... –Juliancolton 22:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was thinking, too. Useight (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Which bit? Pedro :  Chat  22:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to Juliancolton's "erm", but as for the rest of the conversation, my take on the matter is that WP:NOTNOW should only be quoted in SNOW-esque situations. Useight (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Err....err....er... Julian would do well to remember that communication in a text only medium needs a bit more than "erm..." as a comment and edit summary. If I wanted to read primeval grunts I'd be over on Misplaced Pages Review. Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh, you might have stirred the bees nest and we might be subjected to some of their annoying buzzing. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

From Wikiquote: "Used in hesitant speech, or to express uncertainty; um, umm." So I suppose "erm" could, in this context, mean "I hope that wasn't intended to mean what I think it did..." –Juliancolton 02:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So, for my own personal edification, what was it that you thought it meant? Pedro :  Chat  07:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

just seemed a bit risque, is all. :) –Juliancolton 16:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. :). Pedro :  Chat  16:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• WP:OMG! - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Badgers and bullies and pricks, oh my!

Regarding Cryptic's RFA: how much do we know about someone's personality from looking at a few diffs? When we reject a candidate, is it better to point out some perceived character flaw, or that we notice that the candidate doesn't pick up on it and fix it when people have a bad reaction to things they say? Also: sometimes supporters get genuinely angry that a fine candidate that they've worked with is getting beaten up by the opposition. I think we have to accept that people get angry when their friends are attacked, as they see it, and say things that get labeled as badgering the opposition. So ... where do we draw the line? When does it cross over from sticking up for your friend to insulting the whole RFA community? And if it's sometimes okay (or at least okay enough that we don't have to make a big deal of it) to badger the opposition, is it ever okay to badger the supporters? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In the case of your oppose vote in Cryptic's RfA campaign, you voted against him with a somewhat shifting rationale that included being against his quick, over-simplified answers to the RfA. You explained the "quick, over-simplified answers" bit only after a little badgering, because your initial oppose vote was itself quick and over-simplified. In cases like that, badgering isn't a bad thing. Now, if in the course of that badgering someone clearly began labeling you with insults, then that would be where this crosses the line. For the sake of this example, me calling your oppose vote quick and over-simplified is not an insult. However, if I called it stupid, without explaining why, then that would be insulting, as would be my calling you stupid for making that oppose vote... All that said, for the sake of clarity, I am not actually calling you or your vote stupid.Hiberniantears (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and this thread is partly about inviting criticism of my own actions, which I welcome and will do my best to respond to. But the primary purpose of this thread is to invite people who were dissatisfied, on either side of the aisle, to express their views, now that the RFA is over and Cryptic won't get caught in the crossfire. (Judging from his talk page, he seems to be fine, but I generally like to give people some space after a tough RFA.) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of additional clarity, a vote cannot possibly be stupid, and to claim that it was would clearly be intended as an insult to the voter. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly the point I was making. A vote can definitely be stupid. I've made stupid ones. But calling them stupid is generally insulting, although I can think of some notable exceptions to the rule where it becomes informative. In any event, one should avoid calling a vote stupid unless the vote is one voter's crusade against some great RfA evil, real or imagined, or at least until giving the voter an opportunity to back up a baseless claim. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a myth on Misplaced Pages, that questioning a comment left by someone on an RFA (often an outrageous, personal attack on the candidate) is "badgering". Please do not get sucked into the silly idea that questioning dodgy vote reasons is a bad thing. Feel free to do it as you please, for supporters and opposers. Majorly talk 17:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Recall initiated against MBisanz

Brrryce (talk · contribs) has instigated an administrator recall request against MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), alleging that his deletion of African Americans in Davenport, Iowa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) constituted an abuse of his admin tools. I have been asked to clerk this process, and am posting this notice here pursuant to MBisanz's recall policy. This policy stipulates that if five administrators meeting specified criteria endorse the recall request within 48 hours, MBisanz will either resign adminship or initiate a reconfirmation RFA. As I am posting this notice at a number of locations, I would suggest that all discussion be centralized at User talk:MBisanz/Recall. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Status of admin coaching

See Misplaced Pages talk:Admin coaching#Status. Cenarium (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree, if you look at the request page hsitory there are 3-4 edits a day, lots of current requests, so lack of requests is not an issue. Lack of coaches are, if more coaches contacted the people asking for coaches then the requests will be fulfilled and maybe the coachees realize hey this is too much work, thanks but no thanks. --Giants27 /C 03:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No activity by coaches, all the 'students' I checked abandoned their coaching. They are still a few long-unanswered requests for coaching that may reduce the chances of those users to pass RFA. Those request are due to the fact admin coaching is still advertised on a handful of rfa-related pages. We shouldn't give them false hopes. Cenarium (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must agree with Giants27 here. Admin coaching remains an active part of the adminship process, and tagging it as historical would be a rather abrupt change. –Juliancolton 04:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If admin coaching disappears here, we still have it over at Wikiversity. Plus, we can allow people to work as a trial admin for a month with a mentor. Aren't we special? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My only current coachee (Richard0612) has completed all the questions that I've asked, and I'm just observing his edits. Even though there's no more paperwork to fill out, I'm still an active coach. Xclamation point 05:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Employee accounts

I'm bringing an issue here that hopefully we won't have to deal with that often, but would be nice to tie up as a loose end. Jasonr (talk · contribs) was Jimbo's personal assistant when he was an employee at Bomis. In 2003 when the servers were crashing on a regular basis, he was given adminship by Ed Poor to assist with technical fixes. Back in those days admins could do things like SQL queries and database locks using the software interface. However, my research indicates that Jason is no longer employed by the WMF or Wikia (or Jimbo for that matter), and he only has four edits to Misplaced Pages. I've checked with Meta, and he has SVN access that he hasn't used since mid-2008 and anyway, isn't tied to his enwiki adminship. The prior case for employees having access is Danny (talk · contribs) who resigned the bit when he ceased to be an employee of the WMF. I don't want to rush right into a vote per m:Polling is evil, but I would like to sound out thoughts on this topic. MBisanz 08:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as a side note to all this, Jasonr was not my personal assistant. He was the head of engineering.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Side comment: User:Danny would appear to remain an administrator. Skomorokh 08:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

He re-ran RFA several months after he resigned as an employee and was re-sysopped. MBisanz 08:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I thought there might have been an oversight somewhere as the user is not listed here. Skomorokh 08:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because he's on the semi-active list. Majorly talk 14:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Danny became an admin/bureaucrat long before he became an employee. That he was one is irrelevant. Majorly talk 14:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the only way someone ought to get admin status other than through RfA is from the Foundation and its agents. So I'm not sure if we have any say in the issue. Skomorokh 08:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• WP:PEREN. We can't possibly remove inactive admins, as has been shown many times before. Where's the benefit here? Where is it? Is he doing any harm? Don't we have better things to do? Yadda yadda etc etc. Thought I'd say that before the usual people turn up and do so, I'll save them an edit. Majorly talk 14:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

@Majorly: Did this user ever go through a RfA? If not, why not removing the bit straight away or at least creating a reconfirmation RfA? — Aitias // discussion 14:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

@Majorly: Also, regarding your question: The harm is that the user does not have the community's trust, but the bit. — Aitias // discussion 14:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:PEREN shouldn't be a reason not to discuss the issue. In 2003 being a sysop may have included different rights that aren't included in the logs, but the logs don't show any administrative actions. Is there any harm in the account retaining sysop rights? Probably not, but looking at the issue from the other direction, if he were to run an RfA now, it would be a complete failure. Nev1 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm works horrendously on here. Most of the "regulars" here know I very much would like inactive admins to have their rights removed, for the reasons you both give, and more. I'm simply saying what is always said at times like this. Just ignore my comment. Removing inactive admins is a great idea, especially ones created out of process. I am just warning that some people will turn up here and make a silly protest against it. Majorly talk 15:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My comments were not meant to be sarcastic... but completely serious. — Aitias // discussion 15:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? It was me being sarcastic, quite obviously. Majorly talk 15:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, sorry, okay then. I guess I simply understood that wrong. Sorry. — Aitias // discussion 15:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose a new policy: WP:NOSARCASM, it's too confusing when just reading text. Case in point: see above (although I should have picked up on it as I should have remembered that Majorly is a supporter of inactive admins being desysoped). Nev1 (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ask Jimbo about it - he may remove the admin bit himself if the account only had it because the user was his assistant. Avruch 15:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The community decides who is promoted to sysop, so they should decide when to reverse the situation. Why defer to Jimbo in this case?

Agreed. — Aitias // discussion 15:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it might be simpler than trying to create a whole new process and convince 'crats its viable, or asking for an ArbCom vote? Plus Jimbo is the founder, is entitled to some consideration, and asking him first is just polite. Avruch 15:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If Jimbo were the one that had given him the bit, then that would make sense, but apparently it was Ed Poor. Maybe he should be asked for his opinion on the matter? (I see he's already been asked and doesn't remember the details.) --Tango (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

People that were given the sysop bit without community approval (either via RfA or its predecessors) and are not employees of the Foundation should have the bit removed. Adminship implies you have (or, at least, had) the trust of the community, that clearly isn't the case here. --Tango (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the above discussion and WP:BOLD I have just created Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Jasonr (reconfirmation) and transcluded it. — Aitias // discussion 15:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to inform Jasonr. Nev1 (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do that in a minute. — Aitias // discussion 15:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done (). — Aitias // discussion 15:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal in general, but a reconfirmation so soon? Surely we would have been better off with a couple days of discussion, and maybe a note on {{cent}}. Juliancolton (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve, other than to waste everyone's time? Why would it need any advertising? Majorly talk 15:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I presume it will still be open for a week, plenty of time for people to voice their opinions, as with any RfA. Discussion can take place at the reconfirmation RfA. Nev1 (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly acceptable to me. No fuss, no drama, just do it without timewasting discussions that are simply not needed. And they call us process wonks! :P Majorly talk 16:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Majorly. The only way something can be assessed is if we see it unfold. When discussions become redundant and circular then what we need is for someone to just be bold and do it. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 16:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you not considered that the reason the discussions are "redundant and circular" is because the community does not actually want such a process? Esteffect (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to be speaking on behalf of the community? What do you know about this? Majorly talk 17:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I could ask you precisely the same question. There's no consensus for any such process. We don't delete articles with no consensus aand we don't create administrators with no consensus, and so we shouldn't implement 'policies' with no consensus (or even discussion) either. Esteffect (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed JasonR's bit, and this should end the matter. I'd like to ask that people not engage in POINTy actions like this in the future, when just being friendly and asking someone about it is the right approach. There seems to be an incorrect assumption and undercurrent here, though, which is some notion that the community has the sole and sovereign right to determine who is given the admin bit. This is not true, has never been true, and will never be true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(de)adminship?

This is an RfA, such things surely do not belong. If there is to be a second RfA, fine. However, there is no "reconfirmation", no "deadminship" here, or anything like that. Why is Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Jasonr (reconfirmation) even there? The user has not respond in acceptance of it, so it would suffer the same problems that the nominator claimed existed in the original.

If we want desysopping procedures or the rest, we should create protocol. However, this is going against most of the structures of the system. Can this be removed by any viewing Crats? If only on the basis that Jasonr did not put an acceptance of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

See the above discussion. Such things do not require acceptance. Majorly talk 16:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ideally we would create detailed protocol through lengthy discussion, but we've seen time and time again that the methodology just doesn't work. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 16:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Jasonr's acceptance would only be required if he were applying for adminship. If he stated that he did not want to lose it, that would not be enough reason to close the discussion as we're assessing whether he has the trust of the community to remain an admin. Nev1 (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• We don't have a desysopping procedure. Thus, any claims to this is completely wrong. This is the very definition of a point violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly. In fact, Aitias - an experienced user - should be using the avenues at Misplaced Pages:RFDA#How_to_request_someone.27s_de-adminship. We have had de-adminship processes suggested before, and the community has never reached a consensus - Going against consensus isn't being WP:BOLD. Esteffect (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We certainly do have a desysop procedure. It is called arbcom and you can present arguments and evidence there and they can desysop if it is found needed. Chillum 16:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A perfect dramainducing exercise, and a brilliant way to drag it out even more. Great idea. Majorly talk 16:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change. Some people refuse to accept that. Majorly talk 16:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Then build consensus to get a desysopping procedure created, okay? I would support that. But doing this at RfA in such a manner is uncalled for. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus certainly can change, it just hasn't yet. It also does not seem to be showing any signs of changing in the recent future either. Chillum 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Only because certain people are so stuck in the past, they refuse to let anything like it past, loudly declaring "no consensus" before the discussion has even started properly. Majorly talk 17:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts)I agree with the decision to create this RFA but agree that it's sort of inappropiate in WP:RFA, then how about creating something like Misplaced Pages:Requests for administrator reconfirmation?--Giants27 /C 16:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ask at WP:VPP. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding all this, I must ask why everything happens while I'm asleep. Useight (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've brought my suggestion over to WP:VPP.--Giants27 /C 20:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)