Wikipediocracy

Scottywong (T-C-L) has put together a chart of active users with a script-generated "score for each user that indicates their readiness for adminship."

I see our own Randy from Boise is number 3. Maybe he should run! Oh, wait...

Lots of familiar names on that list, including many active Wikipediocracy regulars: Jayen466, Volunteer Marek, Mathsci, Silver seren and even Tarc. Heck, Malleus's new account even made the cut!

OMFG, Milowent and Baseballbugs. That'd be a hoot.

TungstenCarbide wrote:OMFG, Milowent and Baseballbugs. That'd be a hoot.

If 5% of the people on that list decide to run, I will be instructing my stockbroker to move a substantial share of my portfolio into Jiffy Pop.

I have seen that before it was changed. Originally it was based off a category and Milowent was still there. Now the criteria have been changed to basically "OMIGOD, does any long-standing editor who is still here wanna have special powers?! We're desperate!"

The whole admin/editor dynamic has been in shambles for years. You have a few elitists who have and want to keep their wikisuperpowers and refuse to listen to any ways that would improve that dynamic. Wikipedia needs to abolish the admin role and break the tools out like they did with Rollback and Filemover. There might be some that need to be controlled like deleting and blocking but for the most part the vast majority should be unbundled. There is absolutely no valid argument for not allowing a long time editor to be able to implement changes to a protected page, to pull in more than 25000 articles into AWB or to do any number of other things. There also is no reason to tell someone who has been there for 5 plus years that they cannot possibly be trusted with the ability to see deleted changes or to see guarded reports like unwatched pages. Not to mention needing to remove the tools from a couple dozen jackasses that have let the power go to their heads or are just flat incompetent.

I notice that the very first criterion for inclusion on this list is "10,000 edits".

Once again, Wikipedia affirms that it's all about quality, not quantity (right, Mr. Buckner)?

Mason wrote:...and even Tarc.

Mason wrote:Scottywong (T-C-L) has put together a chart of active users with a script-generated "score for each user that indicates their readiness for adminship."

I see our own Randy from Boise is number 3. Maybe he should run! Oh, wait...

Lots of familiar names on that list, including many active Wikipediocracy regulars: Jayen466, Volunteer Marek, Mathsci, Silver seren and even Tarc. Heck, Malleus's new account even made the cut!

Note: Silver seren does not have a named account on Wikipediocracy. He has denied having one under another name.

Zoloft wrote:Note: Silver seren does not have a named account on Wikipediocracy. He has denied having one under another name.

"Regulars and avid readers" might be better, then.

Tarc wrote:

Mason wrote:...and even Tarc.

Don't get me wrong, I'd root for you. But the idea of you sitting patiently while various patrollers pepper you with "optional questions" about [[WP:CIVIL]] an [[WP:AGF]] and whatnot makes me chuckle.

I would note that although its a reasonably good start at identifying editors who would be interested, its hardly based on facts or any kind of reasonable scientific analysis. Most of the users on the list wouldn't run, most of those who would likely wouldn't pass, that leaves us with only about 10-20 that might stand a chance. Most of which have attempted to run before. I'm going to stop short of naming names but there are only a few I see that I think would want it, who qualify and stand a chance at passing the RFA Gauntlet.

I also notice that there are some names like Rich Farmbrough on it and couple others that have basically been run out of the site, so its clear to me at least that this list needs a major overhaul before it can be taken seriously. My opinion still stands that RFA is a hindrance to the project and needs to be scrapped altogether.

Which is not at all coloured by your repeated failure to pass of course...

Mason wrote:

Zoloft wrote:Note: Silver seren does not have a named account on Wikipediocracy. He has denied having one under another name.

"Regulars and avid readers" might be better, then.

Tarc wrote:

Mason wrote:...and even Tarc.

Don't get me wrong, I'd root for you. But the idea of you sitting patiently while various patrollers pepper you with "optional questions" about [[WP:CIVIL]] an [[WP:AGF]] and whatnot makes me chuckle.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tarc (T-H-L)

It'd be a gonzo-fest not seen since the Battle of Aspen.

That's an interesting concept — machine analysis of so-called "qualifications" for Adminship.

My own view is they need to split the Admin tools package in half, with the "ordinary" tools granted on a No Big Deal basis and the blocking and revision deletion buttons given to only carefully scrutinized candidates. A machine-generated decision on "ordinary" tools might be one way to solve the "How to Make No Big Deal Really Mean No Big Deal" problem.

In any event, the only way I'd accept such buttons is if some sort of fundamental reform like that took place — my recent very specific and focused RFA notwithstanding.

RfB / Carrite / Tim Davenport

Randy from Boise wrote:My own view is they need to split the Admin tools package in half, with the "ordinary" tools granted on a No Big Deal basis and the blocking and revision deletion buttons given to only carefully scrutinized candidates. A machine-generated decision on "ordinary" tools might be one way to solve the "How to Make No Big Deal Really Mean No Big Deal" problem.

Wikipedia's culture is dysfunctional because its leading members are dysfunctional. No amount of procedure or rule tweaking will fix this.

thekohser wrote:I notice that the very first criterion for inclusion on this list is "10,000 edits".

Once again, Wikipedia affirms that it's all about quality, not quantity (right, Mr. Buckner)?

The average has been going up for a long time. The woozle effect in action, I guess, with a big dollop of groupthink on top.

Tarc wrote:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tarc (T-H-L)

It'd be a gonzo-fest not seen since the Battle of Aspen.

"Number of page watchers: 6"

All right people, own up.

Hex wrote:

Tarc wrote:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tarc (T-H-L)
It'd be a gonzo-fest not seen since the Battle of Aspen.

"Number of page watchers: 6"
All right people, own up.

Ignore that man behind the curtain.

Anroth wrote:Which is not at all coloured by your repeated failure to pass of course...

Oh sure I think I should have passed. Even if I was a bad admin I would be in good company as there are no less than 20-30 bad admins already.

Kumioko wrote:there are no less than 20-30 bad admins already.

There are probably more than that!

What's most striking to me is the meteoric rise and fall of WP admins corps.

Nearly all of the most powerful admins (or perhaps those most visible on ANI and other boards) have gone down in flames over the last few years.

WP is a breeding ground for the Stanford Experiment and it gets played out over and over again. The only difference is that everyone seems to have to take a turn as a prisoner.

Vigilant wrote:Nearly all of the most powerful admins (or perhaps those most visible on ANI and other boards) have gone down in flames over the last few years.

It would be very interesting to see a timeline of the activity of various admins (I leave the choice to others), showing, where appropriate:

• arrival on WP
• RFAs (successful or not)
• arbitrations
• desysoppings
• departure from WP

The timeline feature (see Help:Timeline) would be ideal for making it. What patterns would emerge?

Hex wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Nearly all of the most powerful admins (or perhaps those most visible on ANI and other boards) have gone down in flames over the last few years.

It would be very interesting to see a timeline of the activity of various admins (I leave the choice to others), showing, where appropriate:

• arrival on WP
• RFAs (successful or not)
• arbitrations
• desysoppings
• departure from WP

The timeline feature (see Help:Timeline) would be ideal for making it. What patterns would emerge?

Here's what I would do if I weren't otherwise busy:
* Pick several dates a few years apart.
* Take a census of admins who show up on ANI over the course of a week
* Sort by most active
* Backtrace and forward trace their "careers" by edit count, FA/GA, RFA, defrocking

Post the results