In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Discussions on Wikimedia governance
User avatar
Kraken
Banned
Posts: 542
kołdry
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2024 2:44 pm

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Kraken » Sat Mar 16, 2024 1:06 pm

Well, its mid March and things are not looking rosy.

In absolute terms Wikipedia is down four Admins, or will be, but these are all for inactivity. Two slated for bot termination, the other two jumping before they were terminated.

So they're at net zero for the half month. As in not growing. Not keeping pace with article growth. And it's been a clear calendar month since the last RfA.

It's perhaps even a net loss. Arguably Nihonjoe is due to lose his tools, and should have lost them by now if it wasn't for the slow and stupid ArbCom. Possibly (absolutely) Awilley too. If standards are being maintained. If it matters that Admins should be trustworthy. If it matters that they lie to the community to hide their true motivations.

Primefac too. He's a fucking Section 8 right now. Desysop him as an act of welfare, before he hurts himself running with scissors, the silly bastard.

So that's minus three at mid March. Or it should be. But it is not. It's net zero.

One suspects the crisis in recruitment is forcing Wikipedia to retain Administrators who are not fit to serve, and not simply for inactivity. Finding excuses. Papering cracks.

New blood is needed. But who will answer the call?

Is Wikipedia so far gone that this is their next and last line of defence.....
OCRP wrote:....The most you've edited a single page is 18 times on Thomas & Friends: All Engines Go (T-H-L), and then 14 times on In the Night Garden (T-H-L)... is in second. While you've created an insanely admirable 2000-exactly user talk pages, you haven't made a single page in mainspace; not even one redirect either.....
....I fully expected the response regarding my actual editing history (or lack thereof) when reading the advice before submitting, but as I was wanting to continue on the path of antivanadlism I thought I would test the waters here! As I said, it has been my intention to branch out to AfC and AfD as well as start contributing to the building of the encylopedia, which I will begin to do once I have read through various guides and policies to ensure I do not make mistakes.....
FRESH MEAT FRESH MEAT FRESH MEAT

Seriously, someone, anyone. Sound the alarm.

Your house is on fire. You just don't seem to know it yet.

The floor is not warm because it's Spring and the sun is out.
No thank you Turkish, I'm sweet enough.

User avatar
Kraken
Banned
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2024 2:44 pm

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Kraken » Mon Mar 18, 2024 10:23 am

Kraken wrote:
Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:35 pm
I took a quick look at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active (T-H-L) and frankly the picture is probably worse than anyone can imagine.
I was bored so I took another sample. Combining the H's (9) and L's (11) gives a nice round sample size of 20......
Hammersoft (talk · contribs · logs)
Harrias (talk · contribs · logs)
Harryboyles (talk · contribs · logs)
Hey man im josh (talk · contribs · logs)
HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk · contribs · logs)
HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · logs)
Hoary (talk · contribs · logs)
Holly Cheng (talk · contribs · logs)
Hurricanehink (talk · contribs · logs)
L235 (talk · contribs · logs)
LadyofShalott (talk · contribs · logs)
Lectonar (talk · contribs · logs)
Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · logs)
Legoktm (talk · contribs · logs)
Lenticel (talk · contribs · logs)
Less Unless (talk · contribs · logs)
Liz (talk · contribs · logs)
Llywrch (talk · contribs · logs)
Lowellian (talk · contribs · logs)
LuK3 (talk · contribs · logs)
Obviously active Admins (just recognise them by name):

* Hammersoft
* Hey man Im josh
* HJ Mitchell
* L234
* LadyofShalott
* Lee Vilenski
* Legoktm 
* Liz

What should be quite noticeable, as I said previously, quite a few (3 of 8) are not ordinary Admins. Two are Arbitrators and a third is a Bureaucrat. My personal view is those people should be barred by policy from acting as ordinary Admins, for various reasons. But for the purposes of this analysis, I guess we can be generous and count them.

Active Administrators I didn't recognize were as follows....

* HickoryOughtShirt?4 (T-C-L)
* Lectonar (T-C-L)
* Less Unless (T-C-L)
* LuK3 (T-C-L)

They probably fly under the radar due to lack of participation at AN/I.

Interestingly, I was going to include Llywrch (T-C-L) as simply a recognised name, until I realized they weren't doing much. I saw no Adminny posts this year, and their last block and protection were both in 2022. A couple of others (LadyofShalott, Lee Vilenski) are barely doing anything or might only be using the tools for things they come across in regular editing, but as I've said before, I am extremely generous with my definition of active Administrator.

Like Llywrch, Harrias (T-C-L) has done nothing Adminny this year, and only issued two blocks and one protection in the whole of 2023. He has only used their Admin tools once this year for their own convenience leading to amusing/confusing log entries......
11:19, 7 January 2024 Harrias talk contribs deleted page User:Harrias/British S-class submarine (1914) (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND)
Harryboyles (T-C-L) appears to be an inactive Admin, but it's tough to tell given their sheer number of edits as they pursue some kind of WikiGnome agenda fiddling with project banners. They last deleted a page in 2023, seemingly in pursuit of this activity.

Holly Cheng (T-C-L) is an interesting case. They long ago stopped making blocks and protections, and don't seem to be an active Administrator simply by virtue of being in their wilderness phase of editing. However, they might technically be an active Admin due to a lingering interest in file curating activities. But even that feels like a drop in the ocean in that one specific area.

It's astonishing to see people like Hurricanehink (T-C-L) essentially being inactive Administrators, given their huge levels of activity in editing, and seemingly as a person interested in collaboration and curating. They last blocked or protected in 2020. They only now seem to use their tools for their their convenience, such as moves over redirects in their topic area. Lowellian (T-C-L) seems to be a less active example of this kind of inactive Adminning, their tools only used in page moves they already wanted to make.

Lenticel (T-C-L) is another bizarre case. Still a highly active editor, they have never blocked anyone and have only made one protection, in 2008. Their recent use of the deletion tool is just housekeeping. They do edit AN/I, but again only for routine clerking. They are very active in XfD and general maintenance work, yet it all appears to be only as an editor, not an Admin.

----

So on a sample size of 20, you can see only 12 can reasonably be called active Administrators, arguably only 10 if you ignore the two Arbitrators.

And perhaps contrary to common belief, the majority are known faces, not quiet community servants who eschew the limelight.

It yet again seems to be the case that Wikipedia has a serious problem with Administrators showing up as active, but whose tool use and soft power presence is either completely absent, or is seen in negligible terms, and now only in purist of their own editing.

Quite worrying is the sight of at least two of those eight inactive Admins (Hurricanehink, Lenticel) who, given their high levels of editing and the right kind of collaboration, perhaps could and should be doing more for the community as Administrators, but for whatever reason, are reluctant to do so.
No thank you Turkish, I'm sweet enough.

User avatar
Kraken
Banned
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2024 2:44 pm

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Kraken » Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:04 pm

Net zero for March 2024.

Four losses due to actual and presumed inactivity.

Two removed by the bot (Kbdank71, Kosack)

The other two (NrDg, TLSuda) resigned once the bot had caught their scent.

That said, it's never a reassuring sign to see this.....
curprev 17:33, 5 March 2024‎ NrDg talk contribs‎  18 bytes −587‎  retired undo Tag: Replaced4 March 2024

curprev 20:16, 4 March 2024‎ ToBeFree talk contribs‎  605 bytes +170‎  Notification: You've got mail undo Tag: Twinkle1 February 2024

curprev 00:36, 1 February 2024‎ NrDg talk contribs‎  435 bytes −1,133‎  Reverted 1 edit by JJMC89 bot (talk): Read and archived undo Tags: Twinkle Undo

curprev 00:32, 1 February 2024‎ JJMC89 bot talk contribs‎  1,568 bytes +1,133‎  →‎Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder: new section 
No thank you Turkish, I'm sweet enough.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12254
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Wed Apr 03, 2024 5:26 pm

Kraken wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:04 pm
Net zero for March 2024.

Four losses due to actual and presumed inactivity.

Two removed by the bot (Kbdank71, Kosack)

The other two (NrDg, TLSuda) resigned once the bot had caught their scent.
NrDg is the only one who was listed as current in my database, which is now down to 854. I assume the other three were sliced ahead of my putting that together.

NrDg came aboard 18-Mar-07 and got buttons 8-Dec-07, a interval of 265 days.

t

Beeblebrox
Habitué
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
Location: The end of the road, Alaska

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Beeblebrox » Thu Apr 04, 2024 10:01 pm

The thing with being an admin, and whether there are enough, comes down to one thing: like everyone else, admins are volunteers. So, they have to want to do the whatever it is they are doing, nobody has a job desciption because nobody gets paid, so when things don't get done, it is because nobody wants to do them.

Look at AFD. The debates with a few comments and a clear result get closed on time. Longer debates with people repeating themselves over and over and coming up with bizarre arguemnts stay open past their closing date because it isn't as easy, and it can be downright annoying reading some of the stupder arguments people make. There's literally no mechanism to make anyone do these things, so they won't get done unless and until there is somebody who wants to do it. Or someone who is paid to do it.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom

Ryuichi
Gregarious
Posts: 536
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:05 pm

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Ryuichi » Thu Apr 04, 2024 11:49 pm

Beeblebrox wrote:
Thu Apr 04, 2024 10:01 pm
Look at AFD. The debates with a few comments and a clear result get closed on time. Longer debates with people repeating themselves over and over and coming up with bizarre arguemnts stay open past their closing date because it isn't as easy, and it can be downright annoying reading some of the stupder arguments people make. There's literally no mechanism to make anyone do these things, so they won't get done unless and until there is somebody who wants to do it. Or someone who is paid to do it.
AFD is further complicated because only Admins can make "Delete" closes. I'd happily close more, if I could.

User avatar
Kraken
Banned
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2024 2:44 pm

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Kraken » Fri Apr 12, 2024 6:41 pm

MelanieN (T-C-L) has handed in her tools.....
Primefac's talk page wrote:No great problem or anything, it's just that I haven't been very active in recent years and have taken almost no adminship actions. When I do post it is in articles, and I intend to keep doing that, but I've almost forgotten how to be an administrator.... MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
MelanieN is by no means a legacy Admin. They didn't even seriously get into Wikipedia until 2009, and by the time she passed RfA (easily) in 2015, the complexity and status of the role was already becoming apparent.

Although she seems happy, all signs point to Wikipedia burning her out, in a subtle way. She steadily increased year on year, cracking 10,000 edits once in 2020, but dropped off rapidly year on year after that, falling to half the activity of her first year as a serious editor. This doesn't say changing life circumstances or natural disengagement to me. I think the Admin shortage burned her out.

She was not just a very good Admin but a prolific nominator of future Admins. Both Barkeep49 and GeneralNotability were her picks. I doubt she will have much interest in or even feel like she should be continuing to scout for new blood.

The loss of this kind of post peak Admin is set in stark relief when you realize Wikipedia is about to go two months without a single RfA, pass or fail.

The crisis is real, it is here, and it has been years in the making.
No thank you Turkish, I'm sweet enough.

User avatar
Yngvadottir
Contributor
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Yngvadottir
Location: Land of fruits and nuts

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Yngvadottir » Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:00 pm

Kraken wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2024 6:41 pm
MelanieN (T-C-L) has handed in her tools.....
Oh, damn, I am sorry to see that.

On the issue of the thread, I have complex feelings. I was made an admin—not entirely willingly, but I did enjoy my RfA—just before Dennis Brown, wasn't very good at it, saw some awful things and learned some things that saddened me, and then got desysopped by ArbCom for lèse-majesté. Already during the RfA, my impression that en.wiki admins tend to be rules-enforcement types who form a blue wall (I had made a statement in a Village Pump discussion about power corrupting them that formed the basis of some opposes) had been reduced—admins I'd never heard of came along and supported my unconventional candidacy (started on April Fool's Day, which IIRC was the basis of more opposes). But that impression has started strengthening again in recent years. Admins are not supposed to be the bosses of Wikipedia (nor is ArbCom), but the authoritarians and those who sought adminship primarily because they're ambitious have been more in the forefront in recent years. I remain convinced, as I always was, that en.wiki doesn't need a shit tonne of admins. But it has always needed a mix of admins both in backgrounds and attitudes (including some softies to offset the hardasses) and in the kinds of tasks they do. And the kinds of attrition and the statements being thrown around about the "admin crisis" all tend to favour increasing the groupthink in the admin corps.

So off I go to drop Melanie a note.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31844
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:50 pm

You're a god damned delight.

I am so glad you joined.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12254
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Sat Apr 13, 2024 1:18 am

Vigilant wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2024 10:50 pm
You're a god damned delight.

I am so glad you joined.
+1

User avatar
Yngvadottir
Contributor
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Yngvadottir
Location: Land of fruits and nuts

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Yngvadottir » Sat Apr 13, 2024 2:42 am

(Eep)

Thanks. I remain of course one post away from proving myself to be just as bad as I'm portrayed over on Sucks.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9967
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Sat Apr 13, 2024 4:35 am

Yngvadottir wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:00 pm
I remain convinced, as I always was, that en.wiki doesn't need a shit tonne of admins. But it has always needed a mix of admins both in backgrounds and attitudes (including some softies to offset the hardasses) and in the kinds of tasks they do.
Do you think that adding all the additional roles like "rollbacker" and "reviewer" and "extended confirmed" has helped any in that regard? I suspect a lot of us have always assumed these are just baubles to keep newer users interested and invested, but if admins are having to do less scut-work because of those baubles, I suppose that might reduce the need for more admins.

User avatar
Konveyor Belt
Gregarious
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:46 pm
Wikipedia User: formerly Konveyor Belt

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Konveyor Belt » Sat Apr 13, 2024 6:00 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2024 4:35 am
Yngvadottir wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:00 pm
I remain convinced, as I always was, that en.wiki doesn't need a shit tonne of admins. But it has always needed a mix of admins both in backgrounds and attitudes (including some softies to offset the hardasses) and in the kinds of tasks they do.
Do you think that adding all the additional roles like "rollbacker" and "reviewer" and "extended confirmed" has helped any in that regard? I suspect a lot of us have always assumed these are just baubles to keep newer users interested and invested, but if admins are having to do less scut-work because of those baubles, I suppose that might reduce the need for more admins.
Rollbacker used to be important because it allowed you to use automated anti-vandalism tools like Huggle, but from what I remember the last time I checked RecentChanges, Cluebot has gotten so good at detecting vandalism that it's not super important anymore. New page reviewer was created to restrict who can patrol pages, which was mostly done by non-admins before, so it doesn't decrease admin work. Pending changes reviewer is occasionally useful but applying pending changes has largely fallen out of favor. Autopatrolled decreases the work for new page reviewers, not necessarily admins. Mass message sender and event coordinator don't decrease admin work since most admins don't send mass messages or coordinate events.

The four rights that I think do help decrease admin work are account creator, file mover, page mover, and template editor. Page mover and file mover handle a lot of simple move requests that clearly don't need someone to have passed an RFA in order to handle them, so they prevent admins from having to work on these menial tasks. Account creator involves learning to use an offsite portal, which many admins might not want to do, so having a separate role prevents them from needing to. Template editor allows editors who are trusted not to break anything the ability to edit heavily used templates. Again, most admins might not want to learn the deep wizardry involved in editing templates, and if you ask the average admin to edit a complex template they'd probably horribly break something. As with account creator, it's better to let the people who actually know their stuff do it.
Always improving...

User avatar
Kraken
Banned
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2024 2:44 pm

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Kraken » Sat Apr 13, 2024 6:20 am

From what I can tell having researched this thread, Wikipedia still does have a decent spread of Admins, across personality, approach and interest. The issue is, they just don't have enough. And those they do have are becoming less active, or are already de facto inactive. Retaining the tools only for their own convenience (or simply for the privelages, such as viewing deleted material).
No thank you Turkish, I'm sweet enough.

User avatar
redbaron
Critic
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:41 pm

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by redbaron » Sat Apr 13, 2024 7:04 am

Konveyor Belt wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2024 6:00 am
Midsize Jake wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2024 4:35 am
Yngvadottir wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:00 pm
I remain convinced, as I always was, that en.wiki doesn't need a shit tonne of admins. But it has always needed a mix of admins both in backgrounds and attitudes (including some softies to offset the hardasses) and in the kinds of tasks they do.
Do you think that adding all the additional roles like "rollbacker" and "reviewer" and "extended confirmed" has helped any in that regard? I suspect a lot of us have always assumed these are just baubles to keep newer users interested and invested, but if admins are having to do less scut-work because of those baubles, I suppose that might reduce the need for more admins.
Rollbacker used to be important because it allowed you to use automated anti-vandalism tools like Huggle, but from what I remember the last time I checked RecentChanges, Cluebot has gotten so good at detecting vandalism that it's not super important anymore. New page reviewer was created to restrict who can patrol pages, which was mostly done by non-admins before, so it doesn't decrease admin work. Pending changes reviewer is occasionally useful but applying pending changes has largely fallen out of favor. Autopatrolled decreases the work for new page reviewers, not necessarily admins. Mass message sender and event coordinator don't decrease admin work since most admins don't send mass messages or coordinate events.

The four rights that I think do help decrease admin work are account creator, file mover, page mover, and template editor. Page mover and file mover handle a lot of simple move requests that clearly don't need someone to have passed an RFA in order to handle them, so they prevent admins from having to work on these menial tasks. Account creator involves learning to use an offsite portal, which many admins might not want to do, so having a separate role prevents them from needing to. Template editor allows editors who are trusted not to break anything the ability to edit heavily used templates. Again, most admins might not want to learn the deep wizardry involved in editing templates, and if you ask the average admin to edit a complex template they'd probably horribly break something. As with account creator, it's better to let the people who actually know their stuff do it.
I'd probably add edit filter manager to the list. Not every admin knows how to set up filters, so again it's better to leave it to those (admin or not) who know what they are doing and can be trusted with private filters.

User avatar
ScotFinnRadish
Regular
Posts: 492
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:13 pm
Wikipedia User: ScottishFinnishRadish
Actual Name: Stephen Root Vegetable

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by ScotFinnRadish » Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:01 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2024 4:35 am
Yngvadottir wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:00 pm
I remain convinced, as I always was, that en.wiki doesn't need a shit tonne of admins. But it has always needed a mix of admins both in backgrounds and attitudes (including some softies to offset the hardasses) and in the kinds of tasks they do.
Do you think that adding all the additional roles like "rollbacker" and "reviewer" and "extended confirmed" has helped any in that regard? I suspect a lot of us have always assumed these are just baubles to keep newer users interested and invested, but if admins are having to do less scut-work because of those baubles, I suppose that might reduce the need for more admins.
The role we actually need more of is "passed rfa to demonstrate they have the trust of the community and is willing to deal with the opportunity cost involved in making anything less shitty." Most of the button pushing isn't chronically backlogged, it's everything that involves having the pin you wear on your lapel that says "70+percent of editors at RFA trust my judgement" that is falling by the wayside.

User avatar
Kraken
Banned
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2024 2:44 pm

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Kraken » Thu Apr 18, 2024 8:05 pm

We're now past two months with no RfAs.

It's not hard to see why.

Here's a rookie recruit (233/4/1, June 2023) asking for help from his colleagues.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... th_ARBECR?

Doesn't really inspire much confidence. Should rookies even be trying to help in such dangerous areas?

Must be terrifying for potential candidates, imagining being grilled regarding their knowledge of rules like that in their RfA.
No thank you Turkish, I'm sweet enough.

Beeblebrox
Habitué
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
Location: The end of the road, Alaska

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Beeblebrox » Thu Apr 18, 2024 8:25 pm

Some rights being "unbundled" from the admin toolkit made perfect sense. Rollback being the obvious one as it does not require and admin to recognize vandalism.

I had a minor part in the genesis of the template editor right. As I recall, I was looking through reuests for edits on proteced items, and came across one from our old friend Kumi, and I answered honestly that the request was so technical that I couldn't tell whether it was a good edit or not. This set Kumi off ona tirade about why admins wouldn't know such things, and I replied that knowing extremely technical details of template parsing actually is not admin work at all. That conversation eventually led to the creation of the template editor right. That was also a good idea s it allows review of such requests by people who actually are expected to know the ins and outs of template code.

Autopatrolled never should have been an automatic right for admins. While there are many admins who create content, content creation is not an admin task either, and being an admin does not guarantee you can whip up an article that doesn't need any attention from others out of thin air.

It's when people suggest unbundling tools that actually are related to admin tasks that I see a problem. In particular, protection, deleting, and blocking are the core admin tools. An admin is expected to know which is appropriate in any given situation., If you only have one of them, you'll only use that one. This is why I will always oppose proposals for "admin lite" or whatever it is called the next time it comes up.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom

User avatar
Konveyor Belt
Gregarious
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:46 pm
Wikipedia User: formerly Konveyor Belt

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Konveyor Belt » Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:03 am

There was also the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk (T-H-L) where he had to request adminship solely to edit citation style templates.
Always improving...

User avatar
Yngvadottir
Contributor
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:35 pm
Wikipedia User: Yngvadottir
Location: Land of fruits and nuts

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Yngvadottir » Fri Apr 19, 2024 1:10 am

Beeblebrox wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2024 8:25 pm
Some rights being "unbundled" from the admin toolkit made perfect sense. Rollback being the obvious one as it does not require and admin to recognize vandalism.

I had a minor part in the genesis of the template editor right. As I recall, I was looking through reuests for edits on proteced items, and came across one from our old friend Kumi, and I answered honestly that the request was so technical that I couldn't tell whether it was a good edit or not. This set Kumi off ona tirade about why admins wouldn't know such things, and I replied that knowing extremely technical details of template parsing actually is not admin work at all. That conversation eventually led to the creation of the template editor right. That was also a good idea s it allows review of such requests by people who actually are expected to know the ins and outs of template code.

Autopatrolled never should have been an automatic right for admins. While there are many admins who create content, content creation is not an admin task either, and being an admin does not guarantee you can whip up an article that doesn't need any attention from others out of thin air.

It's when people suggest unbundling tools that actually are related to admin tasks that I see a problem. In particular, protection, deleting, and blocking are the core admin tools. An admin is expected to know which is appropriate in any given situation., If you only have one of them, you'll only use that one. This is why I will always oppose proposals for "admin lite" or whatever it is called the next time it comes up.
Add to that, rightly or wrongly the WMF are immovable that seeing deleted edits, and therefore being able to delete/undelete, requires a vetting process equivalent to RfA. I imagine it's the same with block/unblock. I believe en.wiki is indeed down to core functions now, with no more that can be pared away; I note that file movers use a sequence of moves to placeholder names to get around not being able to delete existing redirects, so a mop-holder has to clean up after some such moves. And histmerges will still be admin-only. (I did figure out how to do histmerges.; I think the disagrams have changed since my time.)

However, part of the admin role is defusing conflict and avoiding blocks, if only by explaining the applicable PAG or adding a warning with admin authority behind it. (Of course unblocking is also an admin task.) I think it was Floquenbeam who said that avoiding blocks was the most important function of an admin. Maybe more than one person said it, and declining a speedy deletion nom is also an admin action. I've objected several times to the view that an admin's activity should be judged only by logged actions. But the air of authority that comes with being an admin—and some new editors insist that they'll only listen to an admin—is where we get into the weeds, IMO. SFR puts it in terms of stepping up and doing the hard stuff, or at least I think that's the main force of his post:
ScotFinnRadish wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:01 am
The role we actually need more of is "passed rfa to demonstrate they have the trust of the community and is willing to deal with the opportunity cost involved in making anything less shitty." Most of the button pushing isn't chronically backlogged, it's everything that involves having the pin you wear on your lapel that says "70+percent of editors at RFA trust my judgement" that is falling by the wayside.
And SFR makes a lot of difficult closes. But it's not just either making that kind of decision, or brandishing the big stick more or less threateningly (Dennis Brown, for instance, is very good at wading into a section at AN/I and cutting off the bickering without any brandishing or even badge-flashing.) Some admins throw their weight about and act like school prefects or worse; some would-be admins get the message that that's how admins are supposed to act; the size of the project and admin specialisation, as well as expectations about how admins act, makes it quite common for an admin who isn't throwing their weight about to be discounted as not an admin, or a "legacy" admin who's effectively retired, or just not one of the power admins. Reputation on en.wiki doesn't just fade away when someone becomes less active, it's far from unified; one of the effects of the reform that created watchlist notices about new RfAs is that there are a lot more voters writing that they've never heard of the candidate alongside the ones writing that they've encountered them in some content area or that they thought they were already an admin.

And of course admins are always going to get it wrong sometimes. And adminning can burn someone out, or it can warp their judgement. Ideally, the admins—including the fact that they have all gone throughh RfA individually rather than being appointed and thus reflecting the assumptions and biases of those doing the appointing—advise and correct each other rather than just protecting fellow members of the club. One of the arguments that I do accept for having a large pool of admins is it helps keep the admin corps varied. And one of the hard tasks that doesn't get logged is speaking up to a powerful fellow admin when in your judgement, they got it wrong.

But to sort of return to Midsize Jake's question about unbundling, I'm not sure that watchlist notice, which I believe was the first of the RfA reform measures in recent years, was a good innovation. It's created huge RfAs with huge lists of questions, and while in theory it makes for a more useful discussion by enabling both supporters and objectors to get to the RfA in time to weigh in, in practice the noise percentage has risen a great deal, and I think some candidates and potential candidates who would be good admins are put off by the hurly burly.

User avatar
Kraken
Banned
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2024 2:44 pm

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Kraken » Fri Apr 19, 2024 7:43 am

The very last thing Wikipedia should be encouraging is the impression that it is only Admins who can be trusted to know what they're talking about. And by extension, the only ones who can divine consensus.

This is a total inversion of the Wikipedia model, wherein everyone is allowed and expected to give their opinion on any matters arising, and Administrators literally only existed to press a button. If pressing a button is even determined as the consensus way forward out of a matter arising.

If individual Administrators have any specific role they can legitimately call their own now, it is the rapid diagnosis of whether a dispute is behavioral or content PAG based, and take swift appropriate action. Something they can do as useful and active community members with officially recognised knowledge and trust. Something they can do while patrolling the Wiki with both soft and hard powers to hand. Thereby saving the community the time and energy of an extended debate. Time being the most precious commodity.

That was never the role of the janitorial Admin, given it is a very skilled task requiring the kind of emotional intelligence and high level perspective most editors just don't have, not even Admins. It is what an Editor in Chief and his nominated Deputies would do. But Wikipedia doesn't have one of those. But the fact so many thought this was their role, and performed it horrifically poorly, creating conflict rather rather diffusing it, well explains why RfA became what it is.

Hence the current issues too. Even with a hundred of these highly skilled fast riding quick drawing battle hardened but emotionally attuned Sheriffs, the Wikipedia country is just too vast, the populace too maggot infested, the hopelessness of their existence just too crushing, the goal of their collective endeavors too distant, to be remotely effective in ensuring the arrow of progress is pointing the right way. Even a thousand might not be enough.

I'd say they maybe have ten. Twenty at a push. And even they are easily hunted down and dismounted by a committed foe. Easily. But the vast majority are clearly succumbing to far less glorious means of elimination. Disease. Exhaustion. Corruption. Old age.
No thank you Turkish, I'm sweet enough.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12254
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Thu May 02, 2024 4:25 pm

An administrator since June 2006, Staxringold (T-C-L), has tendered their resignation as an administrator on May 1, 2024.
Staxringold wrote: I truly love Wikipedia but, despite my best intentions, life has just clearly gotten in the way and I've not had time to re-engage as I thought I would. Per the Notice left on my talk page, I think voluntary resignation makes more sense than forcing you all to go through the automated process and added work. Maybe one day I'll be back editing more heavily, but I'm pretty clearly due for de-sysop'ing, given my current activity level. Staxringold
My database of administrators stands at 852.

t

User avatar
rnu
Habitué
Posts: 2521
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2023 6:00 pm

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by rnu » Thu May 02, 2024 5:15 pm

Meanwhile bureaucrats are down 5 from 20 to 15 since the start of the year.
Worm That Turned (T-C-L), SilkTork (T-C-L) and now Warofdreams (T-C-L) via retirement, Nihonjoe (T-C-L) removed by arbcom and Deskana (T-C-L) removed for inactivity.
"ἄνθρωπον ζητῶ" (Diogenes of Sinope)

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12254
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Thu May 02, 2024 5:35 pm

The May list of Administrator removals for inactivity has been released...

Three more are gone, reducing the number on my database to 849.

JohnOwens (T-C-L), Wikipedian since 9-Oct-02, Administrator since 5-Apr-03

Killiondude (T-C-L), Wikipedian since 22-Aug-08, Administrator since 9-Aug-09

MelanieN (T-C-L)‏‎, Wikipedian since 10-Jul-06, Administrator since 21-Jan-15

Beeblebrox
Habitué
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
Location: The end of the road, Alaska

Re: In real terms, Wikipedia are down 14 Administrators in the last year

Unread post by Beeblebrox » Thu May 02, 2024 5:58 pm

Yeah, it's been 1-4 usually nearly every month. I don't find that particualrly alarming. Certainly not more alarming than an admin keeping the tools forever and lurching back out of the shadows for atrip back to how it was in 2007 or so.

Ouch, another 'crat has just stepped down after 20 years, Warofdreams (T-C-L).
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom