Wikipedia Help Project | (Rated NA-class, Top-importance) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Index |
Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. |
External video | |
---|---|
Wheel warring |
Request for comment on administrator activity levels
Please see the following RfC, suggesting that we increase the minimum activity requirements for administrators to an average of 20 edits per year, over a 5 year period.
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements
WormTT(talk) 19:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Please help me understand why my contribution was removed
@Ohnoitsjaime had removed an external link I had added to coach Dan Hunt. The website lrt-sports.com has useful athlete reviews of coaches. These are good information for athletes that are considering to join the team. Jill Biden's Wikipedia page has a similar link to Ratemyprofessors. My son used it and found it helpful. Since it is an existing practice, I am unsure why my link to lrt-sports.com was removed. My son found Coach Dan Hunt's review on the website was useful so I thought to contribute to the profile. I feel horrible that I may have blacklisted a website when I only wanted to do good.
I like Wikipedia and I would like to continue to contribute from time to time. So please help me understand how I can do this better. Thank you so much in advance. Lccnj (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- The only edit you've ever made to that page was just over a week ago to add a link to 2adays.com, and that link is still there. Did you mean another edit? Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
New admin activity requirement language
I'm a bit puzzled as to why the language that was used in the RfC as what we would use was not copied over verbatim into this policy. I see nothing in the close by Slywriter that suggests the consensus in that discussion altered that language. Courtesy pings to Worm That Turned as the one who wrote the original language and to Terasail and Xaosflux who have been doing the amending here. If the concern is about the two different timeframes of notifications I suggest we do that through footnote(s) rather than changing the language that was prominently discussed at the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I made the change to add the specific timeframes to the inactivity section rather than put it in as a note, since the original policy specified the notification timeframe in the text and in my opinion policy should be clear. Hiding strict requirements of the policy in a note because it was not spelled out in the proposed new text did not seem beneficial. Just so the text would be identical to the proposal, although it isn't a big deal for me. Terasail[✉️] 16:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reply ping: User:Barkeep49 Terasail[✉️] 16:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- RfC's on policy are more about the "intent" behind a policy rather than the strict wording on the page (Excluding specific requirements given through policy). And can be phrased however in order to meet the community consensus on a given issue. Thats is how I see it. Thanks Terasail[✉️] 16:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree that policy RfCs are all about the intent rather than the strict wording. Even relatively minor changes to policies often take formal discussion rather than just BOLD editing. In this case clear language was presented with a thoughtful implementation procedure. We should be defaulting to that, as the latest expression of community consensus, rather than what you felt was important based on a version of the policy that now lacks community support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would have to ask, in this instance is what is written lacking community consensus? I just combined what was in the yellow box with some text directly below. It was plainly written in the proposal and if there wasn't consensus it should have been discussed. I struggle to see how giving readers a better understanding by giving the "whole picture" is anything but an improvement just because it wasn't in a yellow box. Thanks, Terasail[✉️] 16:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, for instance, you kept the requirement that email be used for notifications when email was not mentioned anywhere in the RfC only talk page messages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: but surely the RfC updated policy but did not rewrite it, necessarily? I mean: does the fact that it did not mention email mean that email was overwritten, or that it was assumed to carry on into the new regime? Personally, I'd assume that if WP:ADMINACTIVITY2022 intended to change something, it would have explicitly done so; and anything it deemed not to change would be presumed to continue as previously? Just a thought. SN54129 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129 this is my point. It did explicitly do so with the language given as to what the new policy would be and again in the section about how the notifications would work. I didn't comment on it - I had bigger fish to fry - but I viewed that as a positive change as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: but surely the RfC updated policy but did not rewrite it, necessarily? I mean: does the fact that it did not mention email mean that email was overwritten, or that it was assumed to carry on into the new regime? Personally, I'd assume that if WP:ADMINACTIVITY2022 intended to change something, it would have explicitly done so; and anything it deemed not to change would be presumed to continue as previously? Just a thought. SN54129 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, for instance, you kept the requirement that email be used for notifications when email was not mentioned anywhere in the RfC only talk page messages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would have to ask, in this instance is what is written lacking community consensus? I just combined what was in the yellow box with some text directly below. It was plainly written in the proposal and if there wasn't consensus it should have been discussed. I struggle to see how giving readers a better understanding by giving the "whole picture" is anything but an improvement just because it wasn't in a yellow box. Thanks, Terasail[✉️] 16:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree that policy RfCs are all about the intent rather than the strict wording. Even relatively minor changes to policies often take formal discussion rather than just BOLD editing. In this case clear language was presented with a thoughtful implementation procedure. We should be defaulting to that, as the latest expression of community consensus, rather than what you felt was important based on a version of the policy that now lacks community support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- RfC's on policy are more about the "intent" behind a policy rather than the strict wording on the page (Excluding specific requirements given through policy). And can be phrased however in order to meet the community consensus on a given issue. Thats is how I see it. Thanks Terasail[✉️] 16:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reply ping: User:Barkeep49 Terasail[✉️] 16:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 My original update was just to get something in there about the future change, my last one was reverting my undo since it was clearer; I agree the policy should reflect the RFC finding. — xaosflux Talk 16:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have to say - I'm quite surprised, and a little disappointed, that the language in the RfC wasn't used. The RfC was clear that the relevant section would be updated to the text in the ivm box. Nearly 250 editors reviewed that proposal, and since there was no consensus against the language, nor even objection that I can recall - it should surely be assumed that there was agreement to that language - rather than language that was crafted by an individual based on their opinion of the closing statement. I'm not looking to kick up a fuss, since the text that has been implemented does appear to address my concerns - I'm just, well, surprised and a little disappointed. WormTT(talk) 13:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned well lets see how it can be better? From that RFC I do not think that parts like
This raises the bar for Administrator activity levels from ...
belong in a "policy" (even though part of that section does have things that are to be incorporated such as the 50 edit notification rule). That is an explanation for the RFC, not an explanation necessary in the policy. Anyone interested in how the policy has evolved over time can use the history tab. Maybe we can start with things that are easier to agree on - are there any new functional changes that you think didn't make it over? — xaosflux Talk 13:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)- Functionally, not that I can see, no - but I note that it's taken so many edits to get to this point, when we could have just dumped the nice new text that was agreed upon in. There's some semantic issues, and I expect someone will come by sooner or later and change "criteria (1)" and "criteria (2)" to "criterion" because it's singular and wikipedians like to show off they know these words (look, I'm doing it now). I was talking about the text in the ivm box specifically by the way, "This raises the bar ..." was, as you say, an explanation in the RfC. I would personally have put clarification on timings in footnotes or in procedures pages for the crats - but, hey ho. WormTT(talk) 13:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have edited (and self-reverted) what I think this should look like here. It is a style similar to other elements of this policy (paragraph oriented) verses the string of sentences that this version has. As Worm points out if the language had been deficient we'd have discussed it at a very widely attended RfC - that's just the Wikipedia way. I think only Terasail is saying that his BOLD change is superior, so absent further objection I'm going to restore the version I linked to in my first sentence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 "I don't like it" :) What don't I like? The notification components are policy requirements - they shouldn't be buried in a footnote. Also we do not send out warnings to someone that is "in danger of" (which really should be something like "approaching - it isn't a 'danger'" - but for those that actually have those issues. The new "at danger" part is for the 50 edit threshold. I also don't like using autonumbering for named (named by number) policy components. — xaosflux Talk 15:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's kind of a pity that specific notification periods are being written into policy rather than just put into procedures, so they can be more easily aligned. I think it would be simpler for everyone to understand to just have a superset of all notification requirements, regardless of the trigger. If that means three months, one month, and several days, no matter which criterion has been reached, so be it. isaacl (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 "I don't like it" :) What don't I like? The notification components are policy requirements - they shouldn't be buried in a footnote. Also we do not send out warnings to someone that is "in danger of" (which really should be something like "approaching - it isn't a 'danger'" - but for those that actually have those issues. The new "at danger" part is for the 50 edit threshold. I also don't like using autonumbering for named (named by number) policy components. — xaosflux Talk 15:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have edited (and self-reverted) what I think this should look like here. It is a style similar to other elements of this policy (paragraph oriented) verses the string of sentences that this version has. As Worm points out if the language had been deficient we'd have discussed it at a very widely attended RfC - that's just the Wikipedia way. I think only Terasail is saying that his BOLD change is superior, so absent further objection I'm going to restore the version I linked to in my first sentence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Functionally, not that I can see, no - but I note that it's taken so many edits to get to this point, when we could have just dumped the nice new text that was agreed upon in. There's some semantic issues, and I expect someone will come by sooner or later and change "criteria (1)" and "criteria (2)" to "criterion" because it's singular and wikipedians like to show off they know these words (look, I'm doing it now). I was talking about the text in the ivm box specifically by the way, "This raises the bar ..." was, as you say, an explanation in the RfC. I would personally have put clarification on timings in footnotes or in procedures pages for the crats - but, hey ho. WormTT(talk) 13:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned well lets see how it can be better? From that RFC I do not think that parts like
Clarification?: "Edited for pay"
- Before requesting or accepting a nomination [for Administratorship], candidates should generally be active, regular, and long-term Wikipedia editors, be familiar with the procedures and practices of Wikipedia, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community. Candidates are also required to disclose whether they have ever edited for pay.
I didn't understand this. Why should WP be sensitive about working with people with professional editing experience?
Then I found this story about a WP employee (not a volunteer, though) who was asked to leave when it was revealed that she had edited Wikipedia (my somewhat shocked emphasis—LOL) on behalf of paying clients.
Is that what this means in this article? If so, it's obviously a legit concern, but perhaps it should be clarified. – AndyFielding (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Our terms of use state that editors must disclose paid editing. Stierch was let go because she didn't disclose, and admins have been desysopped for not disclosing. While (disclosed) paid editing is not strictly forbidden, the community has a rather dim view of paid editors (past or present) wishing to obtain the mop, mainly because they are concerned about potential abuse if a paid gig isn't disclosed. By making their statement at the time they create their RFA, it gives a bit of a litmus test of how much we can expect to trust the candidate. Primefac (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is one of those weird situations where Wiki-language does not match "real world" language. Yes, we are referring to Wikipedia editing for pay - and we're not concerned if you have been a, say, newspaper editor in the past. I don't believe it needs to be updated though, because anyone who would be considering running for adminship should be well aware of the policies that Primefac has just pointed out and should understand the meaning of the sentence. WormTT(talk) 11:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- What's wrong with just making the simple change to "edited Wikipedia for pay" instead of "edited for pay"? We aren't correcting inaccurate wording of policy because RFA candidates should know the policy is worded inaccurately? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with clarifying the statement, as editors with all levels of experience read this page. Even someone familiar with the paid editing disclosure policy may be led to believe that a more stringent requirement is being asked of those requesting administrative privileges. They might think, for example, that revealing past experience as a professional writer is beneficial. isaacl (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- What's wrong with just making the simple change to "edited Wikipedia for pay" instead of "edited for pay"? We aren't correcting inaccurate wording of policy because RFA candidates should know the policy is worded inaccurately? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is one of those weird situations where Wiki-language does not match "real world" language. Yes, we are referring to Wikipedia editing for pay - and we're not concerned if you have been a, say, newspaper editor in the past. I don't believe it needs to be updated though, because anyone who would be considering running for adminship should be well aware of the policies that Primefac has just pointed out and should understand the meaning of the sentence. WormTT(talk) 11:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with everyone above and went ahead and changed it here. I also changed Template:RFA so that the wording matched - despite agreeing with Primefac that anyone who is qualified to be an admin should understand what is meant by editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)