User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Meta

Steward stuff (Archive 20)

I thought I might want to bring attention to two certain posts of mine on Meta that seem to have gone unnoticed. They are Here with an explaination here (under the requests for permissions section...it's the top edit as of now) Ilyanep (Talk) 00:21, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Meta conclusion (Archive 30)

This RfA process affects me, but it also affect many other editors, and misapplication of the rules is a factor in the current trend of users quitting and becoming frustrated with Wikipedia. Another example of this is my recent nomination of Terri Schiavo for Featured Article: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo/archive1.

Here, I got nearly half of the votes, about 6-11 or 7-10... I may have mis-counted somewhere, but it was not a lopsided vote.

Then, a number of editors and I fixed all of the problems that the FA-editor, Mark, had identified, and most of those that others had found. So, here, in this diff, the last one, we see my nomination, but it was soundly defeated. The only thing that had gotten worse in the article was a vert short-lived edit war; the defeat was because many people thought the article had to "wait several months" becasue "that's the way we did things," and since I didn't know these "unwritten rules," that was proof that I didn't know enough to nominate a good article. My answer?

If the rules were "unwritten," then they should have been ignored anyway, in light of the "real" policy: "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status." Template:Fac-contested

META CONCLUSION: So, the violations of Wikipedia Policy affect a great number of users in a wide number of projects. These abuses must stop so users don't become frustrated and quit as they are doing.

admin behavior (Archive 72)

I have a question - if an editor is an administrator on another language Wikipedia or sister project, but there is evidence that he/she is breaking WP policies and behaving in a disruptive and boorish fashion on the English Wikipedia, can action be taken against that editor on the project where he/she is an administrator, based on this evidence? Rama's arrow 20:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, as every wikipedia is somewhat independent from the other ones and have their own set of rules. If s/he is behaving somewhat properly there, then I don't think there can be taken any actions against the administrator. The only thing is to inform the other admins over there of that persons behaviour. Perhaps they'll have a serious talk with the user. MoRsE 20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think if it was serious enough you could take it up with meta, but otherwise it's like MoRsE has said - each language is pretty much autonomous. And I personally think it's best that way. Themindset 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In extreme cases, this has happened; for instance, there was a rogue (not rouge) admin on Wikibooks who was frowned upon on enwiki as well. We'd treat cases of e.g. breach of privacy very harshly regardless of on which project they were perpetrated. >Radiant< 21:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, if that local project has their own Arbitration Committee or some other dispute-resolution process, they may take into account user behavior on other projects if the two accounts are confirmed to be the same user. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin experience on a non-English Wikipedia - transferable skills? (Archive 75)

As an aside, how similar are the policies on other-language Wikipedia's to EN Wikipedia? I suppose the pillars are the same, but I have no idea about individual policies (and I suppose guidelines are likely not to be similar at all). -- Renesis (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I can think of one user who was an admin and maybe a crat on another wikipedia, but has been banned by the arbcom this year for high levels of abrasiveness and also for strong POV pushing. In some less widespread languages, the users are all overwhelmingly of the same ethnic group and religion, so what may be considered mainstream there in terms of political views etc, may be regarded as extremism here. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Policies and such vary wildly between other-language Wikipedias. In particular anything smaller than, roughly, 50000 articles (and that means most of them) tends to have a simple and informal structure and is small enough to not yet need most policies. Some of the bigger ones work very differently from ours; for an example, see Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages. (Radiant) 14:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I used to be an admin on the Norwegian Wikipedia too. As Radiant says, other languages tend to be more informal and true consensus can emerge in more cases since there are fewer people. Disputes usually solved on "Tinget", the counterpart of the Village Pump, or on the users' talkpages. There is no arbitration comitee or mediation comitee (and in truth, I don't miss them either.) The criteria for speedy deletion are "spam" and "obviously unfit for the encyclopedia", which tends to mean that as long as nobody could possibly object to deletion, it can be speedied, in uncertian cases we tkae them to the deletion page. Vandals are blocked much faster on the Norwegian Wikipedia, a piece of ugly vandalism typically earns an immediate 2-hour block even for a first time offense while less serious vandalism or user tests might be given a single warning (either a kind test-type message or mean vandalism-type message). Not much emphasis on process in the sense of that "things must run for seven days before being deleted", but if they are closed early and someone objects reversions of admin actions are not considered a really big deal, even so wheel wars are very uncommon (most admins don't try reimposing an action which has already been reversed). The Norwegian admins have a feature to mark edits as "approved" (not vandalism), so that other admins on RC patrol don't need to check them. I have noticed a certain rise in complaints of various admin actions over the last months, but nowhere near as serious as it can get on the English Wikipedia. There are certainly similarities between being an admin on en: and on no:, but I think the English adminship can be a lot more demanding. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia has a very unilateral speedy deletion process that I dislike. I got bitten quite badly as a newbie over there. That's why I'm learning Portuguese! :-) (Not entirely, but I do like their policies better.) Grand master ka 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Even the german Wikipedia, which is relatively large and occasionally has given wp-en ideas, is pretty drastically different in some ways. Their AfD for example, was still pretty similar to wp-en's VfD days (that's a bad thing) last I checked. It's acceptable to block users simply for not being productive, or for annoying established contributers... stuff that would get you screamed at for being the most abusive admin evar on wp-en. While being an admin on another Wikipedia is a start, it's important to remember that wp-en has some pretty um, unique, standards for behavior and candidates should always reasonably establish that they have a handle on how things operate here. --W.marsh 03:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Admin vs. Wiki-X Admin - transferable skills? (Archive 76)

Seed for a discussion: This contains reference to a current RfA - therefore, if you feel it is inappropriate to discuss this matter until that RfA has run its course, please let me know.

There is a current RfA in which a candidate for Wikipedia adminship has experience as a Wikinews admin. The question I have is what the general thought is on the transferability of skills between Wikimedia projects with respect to adminship. The only other Wikimedia project I've worked on to any degree is Wiktionary, so my experience is too limited to have an inkling of what being an admin in other Wikimedia projects might entail.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember a RFA where the user had relatively little experience here (3k or 5k edits, can't remember now), and many were refusing his request, until someone pointed he was an admin in another Wikipedia language with over 20k, and then most negative opinions turned positive. Personally, I think administrator status in other Wikipedia languages can be used to demonstrate experience in dealing with users and responsibility, but unless the user also demonstrates knowledge about our "local" policies and guidelines, it should not be "transferable". -- ReyBrujo 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know why many people call 5k edits "not a lot". To me, that's definatly enough edits to support, as long as the user is knowledgeable and in good standing. T e ckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 22:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Another data point, from my analysis of November 2006 RfAs: the only candidate with less than 2000 edits who was successful had been an admin on the Simple English Wikipedia. John Broughton | Talk 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

ReyBrujo, I think you mean Kpjas. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to add an optional section to the RfA format entitled something like 'Prior Admin Experience' in which a candidate (or nominator or anyone so knowledgable) could summarize experience in adminship on another Wikimedia project if such experience exists. That would help to encapsulate input from that axis upfront rather than having it come out during the discussion period. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Users should most certainly mention that they're admins on other wikis. However, I don't think we need to add another RfA section to denote this; there's already a "General Comments" faux-heading that it could go under quite easily (and is used as such in the linked example). As for whether those skills are directly interchangeable, I think ReyBrujo summed up my opinion very well; a knowledge of the MediaWiki system is shown by being an admin (well, ideally...), as is the trust of the community, but there still needs to be evidence that the editor is familiar with Wikipedia's... quirks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO this comes up infrequently enough that an additional section is unnecessary; most candidates who have relevant previous experience do point it out. A 'previous experience' section is only going to get people talking about that one time they were on Student Council for a semester, no matter how clearly it's worded. Opabinia regalis 23:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Being an admin on another project goes to trust, ability to remain calm, and presence of common sense not to policy knowledge. While being an admin on another project can be a positive the candidates must have understand .en policy. JoshuaZ 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly benefits from being an admin on another project: You already know what you're doing, know many of the "tricks of the trade" (that is, how to handle some of the stranger aspects of the software), gnerally have experience dealing with other users in an admin role, and you aren't as likely to succumb to the "Ooh! Shiny buttons!" problem. (Kidding!) There are, however, vast differences between most projects and en.wp, so demonstration of local-policy/proceedure knowledge is essential. I'm an admin on four wikis (En.wp, En.wq, Meta, & Commons) and each is it's own uniqute community and has it's own way of doing things; I find every once-in-a-while that I step on a toe or two over on Wikiquote because of my "en.wp" way of doing things. So, certainly, adminship elsewhere speaks to a certain familiarity with the role, but a demonstration of *local* understanding is very, very important. Essjay (Talk) 01:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As Essjay said, it removes their need to "test" the new tools because they have experience but it is important that they know the wikiPEDIA policies on blocking/deletion/protection etc. I think I would be more likely to support a user if he/she were an admin on another project, it shows they are trustworthy for a start. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 03:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think in general transfer of trust works well the other way. We are the largest Wikiproject out there with the most evolved (one might say convoluted) procedures and guidelines and such, and to my knowledge the most stringent standards for admins. Although it is not for us to decide, I believe that any capable admin here would also be capable on most of the other projects, except of course for language barriers, and excluding Meta itself. On the contrary, I would consider adminship in another project to count for much only if it was one of the other large projects, such as dewiki. (Radiant) 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As an admin on the English language Wikipedia, I oppose automatic adminship on other Wiki-X projects, and vice versa. All Wikis have their own community standards, and if someone has little experience on a particular site, they shouldn't be granted adminship without having the proper experience on that site. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Titoxd, it is Kpjas's RfA. I remember Firsfron made a push in the middle of the RfA and contacted all the people who opposed Kpjas (such as myself) and we all ended up changing our votes to support. Anyway, back to the topic...I believe that if a candidate is an admin on another WikiProject, that shows that he/she clearly has the qualities as an admin. However, all WikiProjects are different, and like Zoe said, if they don't have a sufficient amount of experience here, then I don't think they can truly handle the responsibility on the English language wikipedia. Also, take in account that the English language Wikipedia is the most popular and most-visited WikiProject, and the experiences a user may experience at another wiki may be totally different than the ones he/she may experience at en.wiki. Nishkid 64 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Adminship is not transferrable, have never been, should never be. We don't even accept adminship from other language Wikipedia projects as a reason to obtain one here. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- People are not advocating transferable adminships. They are talking about the notion of tranferable skills. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Make it skills then, I'm referring to that as well. - Mailer Diablo 22:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)