Simple proposal.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 245 | ← | Archive 249 | Archive 250 | Archive 251 | Archive 252 | Archive 253 | → | Archive 255 |
Ask people to use no more than 25 words maximum to give their "rationales" of any sort on the main page, and have "questions" about any such votes be restricted to the Talk page in the first place, and also restricted to twenty-five words or less. Keeping to "gists only" should reduce the tendency for extended colloquy. I note that very few people change their positions upon being confronted by those questioning their rationales. Net result should be much shorter "discussions" ab initio. Collect (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Not that this is currently a problem, but I recall seeing on occasion opposes premised on things like "this editor was involved in an edit war in 2009" or "I had a very abrasive encounter with this editor in 2007". Maybe three years would be better, or maybe ten years would, but I think that there should be some express limitation on how far back you can go to bring up negative information with respect to an adminship bid. People grow and change over time, and if an editor has done nothing comparable for the last several years, discussions should not be muddied with old grudges. I would have exceptions for circumstances where there is more recent misbehavior, and the older behavior is part of a continuous or repeating pattern, or where the editor has had minimal participation for the last several years, so the misbehavior is still within their last few hundred edits. bd2412 T 15:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a list of editors who got the ECP permission in June, July, or August 2017; either from making their 500th edit then, or making their first edit since ECP was introduced. (I've filtered out blocked users, users with <2000 edits, or users who registered before January 2010)
It would be impolite and excessive to litigate each of these individually, but there should be at least one of them who's a reasonable admin candidate now, right? Or will be in the near future? If not, maybe you should lower your standards. The project functioned for a very long time making people with this much (or less) experience admins, the solution to "why aren't there more new admins" is obvious. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
List of 165 editors |
---|
|
Comparing today's figure of 522 active editors to 12th Sept 2014 when we had 610 (Sept 2014 was close to the low point of the 2007-2014 decline in editing). Our number of active admins has dropped by over 13% since then, and with a replacement rate of barely 2% this would only be sustainable if our admins averaged 50 years adminship post RFA, and that won't happen unless we find ways to extend their real lives. Editing volumes have picked up since the 2014 trough, in the second half of 2014 we were taking over ten weeks per ten million edits. Editing levels now are up more than 10% compared to late 2014, with circa 9 weeks per ten million edits. 2018 editing levels ares more comparable to 2012 two years before the 2014 minima, but with fewer admins available per million edits taking place. If RFA was healthy you would expect that as the community stabilises we would have a growing proportion of admins and relatively few newbies. Instead we have a dwindling number of admins and an editing level that is stable or possibly growing and is currently more than ten percent above the 2014 lull. ϢereSpielChequers 11:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I noted this at the current RfA, but I’ll post here as well: I think both Jbh’s RfA and the Kevin’s RfA both had opposes based on off-wiki behavior, and twice it was linked to, both times by individuals who are either a current admin or eligible for the bit (courtesy ping to @Lourdes and Wbm1058:) WP:DOX covers this quite clearly:
I know that Jbhunley complained about this on his talk page, and while Kevin is gracious enough to try to explain it, it doesn’t change the fact that outside of RfA, similar material has been oversighted in the past, and really shouldn’t be allowed at RfA simply because it would be the definition of the Streisand effect to try to get rid of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be.
Off-wiki information should not be presented unless a candidate has made an explicit link to it on-wiki previously.could work. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
We seem to have consensus to do something, so let's start simple and before everyone forgets about this thread. TonyBallioni et al. suggested we add Off-wiki information should not be presented unless a candidate has made an explicit link to it on-wiki previously.
to the RfA edit notice. Formal discussion and vote? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
It is forbidden to post off-wiki information unless a candidate has already made an explicit link to it on-wiki.Enterprisey (talk!) 20:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
!Voters should not be punished for saying what they know and how they know it." - Um, what? If they violate DOX, then absolutely they should be. Whether it's "accidentally" or they deliberately perpetrate a vendetta-based smear-campaign, like the one we just witnessed at RfA this month, then they certainly should be "corrected" (since we dont call it "punishment") as per the block/ban policy.
The alternative would be worse - a back-channel whispering campaign with any accusations being kept from the candidate." "Worse" how? A couple of trolls blading someone via email, or on another site that can't be mentioned here anyway, can't have the same effect as some of the blatant, (and unchecked btw) bell-can't-be-unrung, Streisand-effect, RfA-tanking, worthy-candidate-sinking nonsense that has taken place here lately. So let's control what we can control. Post a stern warning for violations, and any unique situations that "CREEP" in can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. - wolf 14:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
only about Editors who have publicly tied their Wikipedia usernames to other online or offline activities.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
not? Because this is about WP:OUTING, not about links to information that candidates have disclosed on-wiki. Bradv 23:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
"It is forbidden to post off-wiki personal information unless a candidate has already made an explicit link to it on-wiki."
stuff like discovering somebody is a paid editor, that is explicitly not a valid exception to the outing policy. As indicated at WP:COI, suspicions of that nature should be aired through the proper channels, via oversighters and arbcom. Posting explicit information about COI editing would only be admissible at RFA if it is confirmed on-wiki. — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that an informal "survey" among editors who watch here is not sufficient to enable the proposed changes. Maybe to determine the best proposal to make formally via a subsequent RfC, but not to actually make a policy-related change to the RfA page. If any such proposal is to be implemented, I think there needs to be a formal RfC, open to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not, which does not cover usernames on other websites. Bradv 23:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations (but see also Wiki: Linking to external harassment).It is not as BU Rob13 describes it above – and I think that Arbs and other functionaries as well as administrators, as a group, really need to understand what the policy is, because they are responsible for enforcing it correctly. The RfC described above as establishing consensus for linking in certain COI discussions did nothing of the sort. It was started in June 2016 and led to what was essentially no consensus, being closed as "stale" without a consensus statement that December: link. As of that time, the sentence said "on a case-by-case basis", and was tagged as "under discussion": link, as it was for a long time. Here is the edit, made by me in April 2017, that implemented the language about "specific situations": [2]. The subsequent edit that implemented the present-day language was made by me here: [3]. The talk page discussion that established the consensus for that language had begun in January that year: link, in response to the decision by the WMF to change the Terms of Use regarding paid editing. Discussion of that point continued on and off from January (Wiki talk:Harassment/Archive 14) through April (bottom of Wiki talk:Harassment/Archive 15). It did not really play out as a change from never post links to other accounts, to never post links to other accounts, except for one specific case about COI. It was a change from a longstanding but undefined "on a case-by-case basis" to clearer language that reflected how to deal with the ToU for paid editing. "Case-by-case" had been on the policy page since 2015: diff. Prior to that, there was a consensus that "posting ANY other accounts on ANY other websites" was not outing: Wiki talk:Harassment/Archive 2#RfC: should the policy extend harassment to include posting ANY other accounts on ANY other websites?. So: it is untrue that the community originally considered posting links to other accounts to always be outing, only to carve out an exception for COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose, per off-site harassment I have experienced from this user, the proof of which I have mailed to ArbCom. I'll ping User:ArbitratorX to confirm they've seen it.or something of the sort. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
What a complete and totally boring waste of time this entire talk page is. And this latest pettifoggery is a complete joke. Rfa, Rfa, Rfa....get a life! It's a pity that as much effort could not be put into improving articles and for admins., dealing with queues. Leaky Caldron 21:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there is certainly a possibility of false flags, but that is something an RfA candidate can clear up." - wtf? Isn't this precisely one of the things we're trying to avoid? Some 'opposer' makes an accusation about something off-site, it turns out to be wrong, (whether it is was a legitimate mistake, or worse, deliberate), the damage is already done, and can't be undone. The candidate is stuck defending against this "false flag", some people will pop in, see the initial accusation, oppose and leave without ever finding out the truth of it. End result; the RfA is tanked. Blackstone's formulation can basically apply here; Better that a candidate, who may have once done something inappropriate off-site, but otherwise has a great résumé for admin, be given the tools, than a worthy candidate who has never done anything wrong, be denied them because of mistaken identity. Lastly, I agree with Amakuru; simply posting a reminder of existing policy is not creating new policy. - wolf 15:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
or link toto your phrase
forbidden to post? I think we want to say that linking to where someone can find the information is just as bad as quoting that information on-wiki. I imagine the final product reading something like
It is forbidden to post or link to personal information unless the candidate has posted or linked to that information on-site.("Off-site personal information" is redundant: given the exception provided, applicable information is inherently off-site.) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, given this just sat abandoned for a week, and not doing anything would a be a tragic waste of a clear consensus to do something, would proposing this require another survey?
It is forbidden to post or link to a candidate's personal information unless he or she has previously posted or linked to that information on-site.
I'll argue it's an insubstantial modification of ALT2 (the clear favorite) for precision and tidiness, but someone may disagree. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Opabinia regalis that I don't see a particular need to single out this specific page, since personal information not revealed by the editor in question shouldn't be posted on any pages. It probably wouldn't do any harm, either, but does anyone honestly think having an edit notice with this message will actually change behaviour? I think we need to redact this info faster and, as Opabinia regalis alluded to, engrain it into the culture. isaacl (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding no excuse for not following it
: the point is for certain basic principles, English Wikipedia culture doesn't consider the absence of an edit notice to be an excuse. Once we start with one basic principle, then an argument can be made to include another, and so forth until the edit notice isn't sufficient focused to be useful. isaacl (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there a page that lists the total number of admins on en.wiki by year, or any other time period? The closest I could find is the graph under the "visualization" section on WP:Desysoppings by month, but that graph doesn't include the actual data, so you'd have to guess it (i.e. the number of admins in a given year) by eyeballing the graph. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 21:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I was going to say something similar to what MarginalCost said. If one takes a look at the archives of this page, a long time ago a similar issue was discussed. In nutshell, in the early days of enwiki, a lot admins were Jimbo's friends, literally "handed over". A lot of others were never active much. My point is, most of the actual admin activity has always been done by a very small number of accounts. But this discussion is not about activity or workload (the previous discussion was about that). The discussion is about after a certain time period, how many admins would be out there? I think, the users who became admins in last two years, wouldnt get inactive in near future. But thats just a personal opinion (not a hunch), based on observation of their activity. So - statistically speaking, the de-sysoping based on inactivity is expected to decrease, say two or three years from now. I dont know how many successful RfAs we would have in future, but lets just hope they are long term players. If the successful RfAs have current rate, and they are long term players, or at least "longer"; then I think we would never go below 300 admins. Thats roughly the number of "active" numbers anyways. (Iridescent says 524 admins were "active", and I agree with him; but thats a "technical" number. Loosely speaking, at a given moment we have ~300 (active) admins who actually do "adminy" stuff.) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
With the current rate, I think in 2018 we would have 30 RfAs at most; possibly even 25.The end of the year is closer than you think. We have only 3.5 months of 2018 left and we've only had 14 RfAs. I think around 17 or 18 total RfAs is a more realistic estimate, assuming we continue the trend of ~1 per month. Unless we add at least 5
...this is a page that is widely viewed by administrators so I thought I would post it here. I just happened to stumble across an obscure page, Wiki: Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Per-user page, namespace, and upload blocking, where I learned that the WMF is planning a major change in blocking. They are planning to introduce something they call "granular blocking" or "partial blocking," whereby we can choose to block someone from a specific page, group of pages, or category of pages, rather than from Wikipedia as a whole. (Site-wide blocking will remain as the default - I think.) Am I the only one who didn't know this was going on? They've been discussing it at the talk page since May, and are now into the phase of designing what the new system will look like. It sounds enormously complicated. I do hope that at least they are planning to provide some training to admins before they launch it. Maybe even some kind of trial or beta test? I know that isn't WMF's style. Comments? --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC) (yes, it's really MelanieN, just away from my regular computer)
Currently, the structure is in following order:
I have a few doubts/questions about that structure.
Even though RfA is a discussion venue, a new editor (and a lot of not-new editors) might think that the "discussion" section for general comments, as in gossip about the candidate. In the old days, the section "general comments" used to between "questions", and "discussion"; and they had ==== level header.
—usernamekiran(talk) 02:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Are any of you familiar with the h-index? It's a method for measuring contributions in academia, where h is the number of papers someone has published that each have at least h citations. It has its flaws, but I've had it in the back of my mind for a while as something that might be interesting if applied here. I've finally gotten around to writing up what I'm calling the s-index, measuring sysop activity. In this case, s is the number of sysops with at least s logged actions in a given period. I've embedded one image here that calculates it on a monthly basis, and includes the total number of actions, both with and without bots; there are a few other graphs at User:Amorymeltzer/s-index. I'm not sure that it tells us a whole lot new or interesting, or even much beyond the total actions, but perhaps it is useful regardless.
All data comes from XTools' AdminStats, so I am hugely grateful to User:MusikAnimal and the rest of the XTools team. There's a fair bit more explanation and prose at User:Amorymeltzer/s-index, and I'd welcome everyone's input and criticism of it. I have some additional features or options I'd like to add to it, but for now your feedback on usefulness, errors/bugs, or any suggestions (expanding takeaways and insights, design changes, etc.) would be most welcome. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
AdminStats includes (re)(un)blocks, (un)deletions (including revdels), (re)(un)protections, user rights changes, and imports. Anything else (edit filter changes, renames, merges, massmessages) isn't counted as a sysop action... other typical sysop activities, such as closing deletion discussions, are not counted. This is a common issue with sysop-related metrics.~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
[T]he s-index treats enWiki as the scholar, with each sysop as a paper and logged actions as each sysop's "citation" count.Sysops can do things like delete pages, but we can't do things that have their own measurements, so we're one level less deep than a researcher. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems obvious that RFAs are now a lot harder to pass than they were in the very early days of Wikipedia--as Fuzheado put it if you "weren't a bozo", you'd basically have a 100% chance of passing your RFA. [7] But what if you want to know long-term trends in the % of RFAs that are successful? I have compiled data on this topic from several WP project pages and analyzed it to see what the success rate for RFAs was in each year from 2004 to the present. It is clear that RFAs were much more likely to succeed in 2004 than they are now: last year only 53% of RFAs were successful compared to 79% in 2004. Nevertheless, last year's success rate was actually the highest since 2005's (64%). 2017's success rate is also much higher than the average rate (45%) and especially higher than the lowest year, 2012 (only 29%!). IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 00:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
My Watchlist is currently telling me there are two RFAs open for discussion, but I can only see Sir Sputnik's (and the last reported closure is for October 1st, so it seemingly isn't referring to some recent closure). So where's the 2nd Rfa? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
My watchlist is indicating there's an ongoing RfA, but I can't see any indication of it Nosebagbear (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Archive 251, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.