Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements

WLN

@Worm That Turned: this is probably big enough to warrant a watchlist notice, perhaps for a week. Think this is going to run for a month? If so maybe we add it Monday for a week? — xaosflux ^Talk 09:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't spend enough time in the area of WLN to feel right to make a judgement. I expected this RfC to run for at least a few weeks, so a WLN seems reasonable and I would support one on Monday for a week, but I'll defer to you on getting it done if that's ok @Xaosflux! Worm^TT(talk) 10:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'll check on Monday, usually like to give these a few days of burn-in time in case they go completely sideways! — xaosflux ^Talk 12:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux and Worm That Turned: I wanted to return to this, are you both still willing to do a watch list notice? — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• The WLN went live, brace for incoming !voters! — xaosflux ^Talk 01:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Admins not creating content

While this is clearly going to pass, and for good reason, does anyone but me share concerns that admins who only admin and never create or improve content are just as at risk for getting out of touch with the community as those who don't edit frequently enough? Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Jclemens, it's been a while. I'm afraid I'd disagree with that point of view. I understand the point of view that administrators should have created peer reviewed content, because it's a lot harder than you think to create quality content and having been through that process is more likely to let the administrator empathise with those editors. Indeed, I say as much on my magic formula. I don't, however agree that those admins who do not actively create or improve content are at risk with getting out of touch with the community - simply due to the diversity of the content that we manage. There are massive differences between the norms expected in contentious and non-contentious areas, obviously, also the fastidiousness of certain editors in certain areas.

What's more, this view ignores the fact that on this project, there are different roles that can be performed. Dispute resolution, gnoming, new article curation, main page work, and so many others are valid roles which should be recognised as part of the tapestry of our project. You can be active every day, interacting with people and making a difference, and not be creating or improving content.

I fully accept that numerical editing is not the only way that an admin might become "out of touch" and I do think we should have some sort of route to review that on an individual basis, but I don't believe we should be limiting any user to simply working in content creation. Worm^TT(talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, and I disagree with the flatness of your hierarchy. Admins should be the servants of the content creators, not their master. I've tried to politely educate a number of admins on what deletion policy actually says over the last couple of months, and I find that for the most part they are unwilling to listen. One could argue that I'm out of touch with policy, but I'd argue that, having been around here long enough, I'm much more familiar with deletion policy as it's supposed to be--that is, to help facilitate the creation of a quality encyclopedia. Perhaps it's that admins are so overworked deleting true junk that they lose their empathy for the less-than-perfect contributions of new, enthusiastic editors. Perhaps, instead, it's just that those with authoritarian and rote decision making are drawn to such activities. Regardless, we've got a problem with admins deleting stuff against policy, and backing up other admins who do so at DRV. I think it would do wonders for the empathy of the admin corps if they were periodically forced to take a six month sabbatical from the tools and instead write content. If that drove an admin away, then they had the wrong priorities in the first place; we should never confuse productivity with effectiveness. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Sabbaticals would be an interesting idea, and something I'd be supportive of, certainly. Worm^TT(talk) 07:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Being doxxed and having my job threatened pretty much soured me on adminning, but that doesn't mean I forgot everything I learned about how not to do it with 8+ years to reflect on it. I would have been better off if I had gotten back to content creating on my own, without having to get burnt and then eventually rediscovering I still cared. But, in that sense, I manifested the Peter principle, and I'm a better Wikipedian for having discovered that. My limitation Wikipedia involvement is that I have a beautiful medical practice where I help people all day. Wikipedia's cool, but it's not that cool. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jclemens: As an admin who much prefers creating content to admining, I must also disagree with your concerns. Editing content does not necessarily keep one in touch with community norms across the width of Wikipedia. I would say the best way to stay in touch with community norms is to follow noticeboards, although many are more or less time sinks (for instance, I look in on ANI only when forced to). There are many roles involved in building and maintaining Wikipedia, and we should not expect anyone to participate in any role they are uncomfortable with or do not have time for. - Donald Albury 14:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The noticeboards are full of people who like noticeboards, the MoS pages are full of people who like writing rules for others to follow, and so forth. None of these niches really reflect community consensus... except that the people who just want to create good content without being bothered by others get turned off by these processes and leave, thereby exiting the community and leaving it to people who like redefining the community in ways that emphasize their own ideas. The editor retention problem is amplified by the fact that little to no consideration is given to those who don't want the majority of their contributions to be to User and Wikipedia space. (I note, for the record, that my own recent contributions are far from exemplary here) It'd be nice if we had some way to focus admins, of whatever tenure, on the needs of the content creators. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Focusing on the needs of the content creator and being a content creator are two entirely different things. I have my own hierarchy of importance that is the basis for my actions. First and foremost is the reader, whom we are doing all this for. Next are content creators and to a letter degree, the gnomes that clean around the edges. As an admin, I work places like WP:AE, which are not particularly fun, solely to solve problems, remove troublemakers and help editors find common ground when there is no "bad guy". This is solely for supporting content creators, by removing the problem editors in particular. I've written maybe 65 articles, a couple of which I'm particularly proud of while the remainder are just run of the mill but useful. I've probably helped article creation more as an admin will to jump in at AE, ANI and AN than I have creating articles. I do not feel that I'm a "servant" of the content creator, although I'm here to serve. I feel I'm more of a partner. To use an Americanism (football), the content creators are the quarterbacks, but you still need blockers, receivers and running backs. We're a team. Some get more recognition but all are necessary to reach our common goals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I love that attitude and I wish every admin shared it. And by that, I mean not just paid lip service to it, but actually made decisions on that hierarchy--readers, authors, gnomes. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I will say that one of my biggest frustrations at the moment is that arbcom sucks basically 100% of my content creation energy. I long to get back to content creation so I feel your concern on a deeply personal level. That said It'd be nice if we had some way to focus admins, of whatever tenure, on the needs of the content creators. strikes me as what's happening now. I would suggest that the Admin corp on the whole is far more likely than the editor base as a whole to have done high level content (FA, but also FL and GA). Of the three people who've passed RfA this year, 2 of them had over 50% of their edits in mainspace, and for the third it was still their most edited namespace. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I can only imagine how much worse it's gotten in the 10 years since I served. Even with CHILDPROTECT no longer Arbcom's responsibility, the ethnic/regional/global/ideological issues seem to have gotten much worse. It's part of the reason I stay working mostly in fictional and pop culture topics. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I find the insinuation that not creating content makes you somehow a lesser editor. Perhaps I should give up the trimming and tweaks I’ve spent years doing because I’ve only created 2 articles and am “not good enough” in the eyes of the community. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I do understand why editors may prefer to specialize in maintenance, and such work is vital to the encyclopedia. For instance, we advise new editors to just add information about sources and not worry about getting the citations perfect, as someone will likely come by later and clean the citations up. While my favorite task in WP is creating or expanding articles, I sometimes go a-gnoming. I have edited Joseph Conrad 79 times, mostly in one long series of edits standardizing the citations. None of those edits added content, but I think they improved the article. On the other hand, there are many other tasks in Wikipedia that I am not interested in, or do not have the skills for, and am therefore grateful that others take care of them. It is unfortunate that content creation and administration get so much attention, and so much of the work that keeps Wikipedia going is often overlooked. - Donald Albury 18:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I would specifically say that improving content created by others is the single most important and underrecognized part of content editing. Bless you for your efforts; what I often see if "This article sucks, it's been tagged for a decade, it's time to AfD it." without any effort invested. Your actions are above and beyond the norm. Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course we expect admins to have worked with content. A user who does nothing but hang out in project space from the getgo is kinda not getting what this is all about. What is problematic, as Donald says content creation seems over-stressed when evaluating candidates. Some people refuse to support anyone who hasn't written a GA or FA article, as if simply working to improve existing content is a lesser contribution. Before becoming an admin, I worked almost entirely with new articles created by others, I considered it a sort of triage, fix them up so they are at least functional articles, add links, categories, relevant talk page tags, etc, mark hopeless cases for deletion.(this was of course back when you could create full articles without being autoconfirmed, so there was a lot more garbage in mainspace) At the time this was enough to pass RFA, it wasn't required that you had written a GA or FA from scratch. And it shouldn't be. One can appreciate a good article without having actually written one. Indeed, failing to bring an article to GA or FA is at least as much of a learning experience as succeeding. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Lack of trust discussion

SilkTork I don't understand why you've hatted and closed that discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

If I had to guess I'd say it's because the original poster was not hearing every response, and as such it was both a distraction from the main discussion and a waste of everyone's time. At least, that's why I was going to hat it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It's at the literal bottom of the page so if people want to ignore it, it's quite easy to do. I'm not sure I had anything else to say in that discussion but I am sure that I am a better judge of what I think wastes my time or not than someone else. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Barkeep49, please feel free to continue any discussion on jc37's talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Closing - anything extra

The closing by @Slywriter: only includes one new component: Proposal to add requirement that an administrator make at least 100 edits over a 5 year period has clear consensus to be implemented effective January 1, 2023. @Terasail: - I reverted your policy change that included a new "50 edit" notification requirement. If this closing is meant to include additional new requirements, they should be documented. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Additional relevant components would be any pre-notifications, and any new notification requirements. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: regarding initial update, this will be included in WP:ADMINNEWS at the very least. If this RFC requires more initial notifications, it can certainly be accommodated. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit summary by @Slywriter does explain that proposal passes "as written" which includes the new "50 edit" notification. Worm^TT(talk) 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned I'd like to see @Slywriter confirm this in the published closing statement (i.e. adding 3 months + 1 month + annual notification policy requirements). I don't think there was a lot of discussion about all of those aspects and what the implications of a missed notification may be (e.g. if 9 months ago you weren't warned about being low, is the 3 month and 1 month notification sufficient?) Some very annoying timing requirements have been introduced in to policies before that lead to strife later. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Terasail - note, I'm not objecting to this if it is called for - just that updates to the policy should be specifically supported by the closing. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's get some clarity from Slywriter on this because the proposal itself has some clear notification components. If there was indeed consensus for those, and frankly I'd be hard pressed to see how there wasn't, then I would suggest @Xaosflux that we should do a special notification around this passing - that ADMINNEWS would be insufficient and then beyond that get it incorporated into the bot work that happens (which we have some time on as it wouldn't be until September or October that the first notification under this would need to be sent). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Lemme review and amend accordingly if I missed a few words.Slywriter (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 I'm much less concerned about the one-time mailer (it is really no big deal) - but of any new tripple-plus notifications requirements that may be getting introduced. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have amended to include the notifications as no supporter expressed any opposition to such implementation. I do believe a future RfC should clarify "several days" to a definitive time. And possibly clarify who is responsible for those notifications, though my assumption is a bot will be requested to handle this and likely render this concern of ambiguity in implementation moot. And don't think I can include support for creation of said bot as part of the close, as little discussion revolved around notifications.Slywriter (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, yes we use bots for this stuff, will try to get the bot op to get it going soon! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter Just regarding "several days" - it was existing wording that has been working since the close of the 2011 RfC. Removing email makes the process less onerous, I don't think we need to tighten it at the same time. Worm^TT(talk) 13:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I see. If it works, it works. Was a personal observation outside the close regardless. And if bots are handling then really it's moot anyway, they will act on a consistent timeline.Slywriter (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 OK, now that it is clearer - sure let's do a one-time MMS to all non-bot admins to inform them of the change. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux when you say "tripple-plus" what are you referring to? The proposal is clear that there should be 2 notifications, at slightly different intervals depending on whether it's under criteria 1 (nothing in the past year) or criteria 2 (100 edits in last 5 years), and that these notifications should only be on the talk page. It actually removes the email requirement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 I would assume xaosflux was refering to the hypothetical where a user meets both desysop criteria, they could end up with 5 talk page notifications within the span of a year for inactivity... Terasail^[✉️] 15:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If you need an MMS list for the 1039 admins then I can set one up for you. Thanks, Terasail^[✉️] 15:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 there is a continuing "annual" notification for low-editing admins, in addition to the 3-mo and 1-mo one. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Slywriter: "There also appears to be clear community support that this is an incremental step and that Barkeeps' proposal or similar should be brought to the community in the near future." I'd value some more precision on timing. This seems to me to support almost immediately starting a new RfC on Barkeep49's proposal, even before this one has been fully rolled out, which seems (to this intermittently active admin) exhausting. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure I can provide a more definitive timeframe. Worm's proposal had near-universal support with a strong majority also supporting "stricter requirements" and a majority supporting Barkeep's proposal (though some liked only a portion 3 years or 100 edits). Given the gravity of the change, implementing the lower count seemed proper while making clear the community does not believe this change goes far enough. In effect, I do not want this this RfC close to prejudice Barkeep49 or anyone else from opening a new RfC before the rule goes into effect, but also nothing stops the community from adopting a wait-n-see approach. So while I agree it's exhausting, I don't feel it would be an accurate close to say Worm's proposal solved the issue and fully addressed the community's concern, so there is no need for further discussion until it is implemented.Slywriter (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Personally, I don't feel it's necessary to include either one of those two statements. Summing up consensus rarely implies that all concerns have been addressed fully, and it's generally not necessary to tell the community that it can choose to follow up with additional proposals. isaacl (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft announcement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

Above is the current draft wording of the MMS to be sent to all administrators (I will be editing it as feedback comes in). Feedback is welcomed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Might want a 1. 2. rather than a 1., 1. - but otherwise, looks good thanks Worm^TT(talk) 15:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

General MMS note - be sure to include a timestamp. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Naturally. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Status quo until 12am UTC 1/1/23? BusterD (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've tightened the wording a bit. Graham87 06:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

And this has now been sent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Certain administrators opted out of MMS were not notified. Should they be manually notified? —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 13:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll do it. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 20:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Objection to close

I'm late seeing this, but I want to note for the record that I object to the close, Slywriter. You write that there is a majority supporting Barkeep's proposal. That's a pretty extraordinary level of support for a suggestion that didn't even initially appear with the proposal, given that some !voters who didn't comment one way or the other on it may have missed it. Your close noted no concerns about the quality of any !votes, but then you say that Given the gravity of the change, implementing the lower count seemed proper as your rationale for not respecting the consensus that the community does not believe this change goes far enough. The closer's job is to assess consensus, and nothing gives them the unilateral right to override it just because of "the gravity" of a potential change. The community already took into consideration the gravity during !voting, and if they !voted for an option anyways, that's a strong signal of support. Taking it into consideration again during the close is improper and further reinforces the project's status quo bias. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Did a majority actually support my proposal? My casual read, even factoring in "this doesn't go far enough" type !votes, suggested no. Even if there was an actual majority behind it, that still might not be consensus given the expectation of more than 50%+1 for policy changes of this kind. I agree with your point Sdkb that consensus can be found in the discussion even if it's not one of the originally ideas offered (a common example being an AfD that has a deletion nom ends up as "merge" instead) but I'm not sure that's what happened here (though I would like it to be because I still think my idea was a good one). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Certainly your right to disagree. However, there was near unanimous support for Worm's original proposal and less for Barkeep49's. Barkeep's proposal having a majority does not mean it met the bar to have consensus and over-ride the support for Worm's proposal. Those saying more should be done without endorsing Barkeep's proposal can not be automatically assigned to supporting his proposal just because it went further. Slywriter (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

While I think that one can detect broad support for making the requirements for retaining the admin bit tighter, such a move does need further discussion on just how much to tighten up. Disclaimer: I have gone three or four months at a time without making a single edit, and over one 36-calender-month period I made just 307 edits, so there is an upper limit to how much tighter I would support. - Donald Albury 18:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)