User talk:Kudpung/RfA criteria

Autopatroller

Hi Kudpung, you might want to reconsider that Autopatrolller criteria. Yes it is a positive that someone has qualified for that, but lots of people do amazing work here whilst scarcely ever creating new articles, and Autopatrollers usually have created over 75. ϢereSpielChequers 07:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi WSC and thanks for reading my page and your valued comments. Yes, I know about the autopatroller thingy. It's true that many users don't even know that the right exists. I've been surprised when doing NPP how many well established contributors' new creations pop up. However, prospective admins should at least know about the right, and therefore I would have expected them to have asked for it at at some time or another if they have reached the qualifying number of creations - which many have. The bottom line however, is that my RfA criteria are are very flexible indeed, and are not to be taken as a recommendation. However, since this page has gone public, anyone is more than welcome to compare my criteria with their own, or base their own criteria on them. The odd thing is, I arrived at my set of criteria before actually ever seeing anyone else's, except perhaps for yours ;) --Kudpung (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I treat it as a positive and one of the routes to RFA, and I agree with you re the number of longstanding editors who should be given this right. You could of course nominate some yourself, but it is very time consuming to check someone out, and I always look at people's deleted contributions as there is no point nominating someone who still produces articles that need to be speedied. Cheers ϢereSpielChequers 16:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I generally feel that making noms should be the domain of admins, for that very reason you mention: they have access to several more tools for checking on the candidate's background. Kudpung (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Majority

I was re-reading your criteria and noticed ">50 majority edits to AfD" and ">10 majority edits to RfA"... did you mean "major edits", or am I misunderstanding the intent? 28bytes (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I originally built this page offline as a collection of roughly jotted ideas. I think probably what I meant was major, or intelligent. --Kudpung (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to put words in your mouth... well, okay, quite literally putting words in your mouth... no offense intended... I would guess that you meant major-edits-that-agreed-with-the-majority-decision. In other words, if the person made a major edit with a stance of oppose in an AfD discussion, but the consensus ended up being for deletion, that would *not* count towards their minimum goal of 50. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Although articles get sent to AfD because there is a strong case for deleteion, a lot survive. What I look for whether the participant is voting keep or delete, are intelligent votes based on policy/guidelines. Unfortunately, at AfD most voters vote from the heart and not from the book. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ponyo question

I don't like that question being characterized as "plain silly", when you're leaving out information that would give context to it. Would you please consider removing it? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Great

Nice job looking at all those questions. We can clearly see how pointless many questions are, some misleading, some deliberately trick, and others confusing. It's obvious something has to be done to deal with the question obsession. However, there are many times a question is relevant. In particular, asking for further clarification about a point the candidate has made, asking about CSD if the candidate intends to work there, and so on. Basically, good questions are ones that are useful and relevant to all voters, the questioner and the candidate. AD 18:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Aiken. Not all editors agree, for example SarekOfVulcan above thinks that my selection may have sometimes been taken out of context. I have tried to select only the most obvious of the questions that fall into the various categories of my list, but SarekOfVulcan's question was one about why the candidate chose his user name. It was therefore not directly connected with the RfA and did not contribute to the !voting. It could have been asked on the user's talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A thought on your essay

Hi Kudpung,

I find it really odd that you argue "The results of RfA are a lottery" and then go on to rate your votes as "I got it right" (green tick) or "I got it wrong" (red cross) depending on the result. Surely if the results are a lottery, then voting the opposite way to the eventual outcome doesn't imply your vote was "wrong". It just means that you disagreed with the "handful of regulars, flux of one-time commentators, fans, detractors, and newcomers" who may or may not have reached a fair and reasonable result. And equally, getting it "right" just means that you voted the same way as that gaggle of people, who may or may not be right.

Just a thought. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for coming here to comment. Yes, I probably misphrased that. It was done in the days long before I ever thought of making this page public. The lottery refers to the many one-time RfA participants or and/or fan club members and enemies. And you have correctly understood, it's just an indication of how my carefully researched !vote compared with the outcome. Some out comes may be wrong, but the decision is based on technicality; many !votes, particularly the 'opposes' are provably very, very wrong. There's nothing the closing 'crat can do about that either. It appears to be generally accepted that crats will only intervene over the result when the !voting is in the 80-70 grey zone - and even there, the outcome can be highly controversial, proving once more that the system is broken. My own recent RfA turned out to be quite an unusual one for several reasons. --Kudpung (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as a newcomer I do find it strange that it's both not a vote and effectively pretty much a vote at the same time. It does seem like too much of a gruelling experience, and yet it's also quite hard to think what would work better.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA perhaps not as broken...

I am aware of the many quotes to the contrary, but looking at your criteria, and assuming you !voted for candidates based on these, then the How I Voted section seems to show that RfA passes those candidates you deem eligible and fails those you do not in the majority of cases.

If you're arguing from the emotional side that people's feelings get hurt and the odd person you like doesn't get the bit then that's fine, but it doesn't mean that RfA is a broken process in that it generally fails to promote worthy candidates. Jebus989^✰ 13:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA is clearly a broken process and the overwhelming consensus of the community agrees. The problems of obtaining reform have been in getting a group together as a task force that can collaborate without the incivility, trolling, and background noise in order to get some real work done. This is changing(link updated). The RfA process is broken mainly because the snake pit that it has become is keeping editors of the right calibre from runninig for office. Of those who are qualified and thick-skinned enough to go through this trial by fire, most will pass, but there are often hiccups. I would never vote for a candidate just because I like them, nor would I oppose one simply because I don't like them. It's the lowest form of voting, and one of the major changes we hope to bring about. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, don't worry I've read and am aware of your reform proposal, but you seem to avoided my point. 'Everyone else says it is too' isn't the strongest argument. How are defining broken? Because it appears that those who meet standards you yourself have set as those admins should have, are generally passing and those without are failing. Presumably the sole aim of RfA, to give the capabilities to those who require/ have enough clue to use them, is being met – even by your own standards! The crux of the 'broken' argument appears to be a) Jimbo said it and b) some people who have failed have taken it to heart. People also get upset at FAC, which has also seen increasingly high standards over the years, it's not nice to hear the article you've been working on for months is not good enough, but that doesn't mean the selection process is broken Jebus989^✰ 16:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't avoid your point - I was simply unable to identify what you were actually intending to suggest, and I still fail to understand what you are trying to demonstrate. There are at least 50 users essays in which regular RfA voters list their criteria, maybe you would like to read them and see how they compare with mine. 'Everyone else says it is too' is an extremely strong argument - and the snakepit of personal attacks and incivility that have become commonplace on RfA with impunity is the reason why good, mature, experienced editors are not wanting to run for office. [[WT:RfA] is a perennial discussion, five years long, about what's wrong with the RfA process with about 2,000 editors generally agreeing that it needs changing. Wales has very recently stated that "RfA is a horrible and broken process." Off topic: If you have a grievance concerning a failed nomination for your FAC or GAC, please take it to the appropriate notice board. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No need for the snide remark – my only nominated GAC passed – it was an example of how the same reasoning can be applied to other forms of selectivity. I am also extremely concious of other people posting their own criteria, and the everpresent 'RfA reform' conversations - they are started each time a popular-enough user fails to gain adminship. I know what Jimbo said too; you really do not need to rehash the background story for me, I have been here the same five years you have. What I am 'trying to demonstrate' is really, painfully simple, I will spell it out once more:

1. RfA is a process designed to give the bit to users with the knowledge, credentials and trustworthiness to use them
2. Users, such as yourself, !vote based on their interpretation of these criteria (whether published in essay form or as a mental note)
3. In your specific case, you have published both your criteria, and the results of RfAs you have voted in, based on said criteria
4. In almost all cases, those who meet your criteria PASS at RfA
5. Thus, RfA is fulfilling its main aim as stated in point 1 and should not be considered broken

Jebus989^✰ 09:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons why RFA is considered to be broken. The most serious two are that it has degenerated into a hazing ceremony that brings disgrace on us all and poisons the volunteer culture on which the project depends, and that it doesn't appoint sufficient admins to maintain the number of active admins. Defending it because it usually makes the right call as to whether or not to promote those candidates who apply would be like defending a driving test centre that usually made the right call as to whether or not to dish out driving licences, but which treats some people so badly that most suitably qualified candidates are unwilling to take the test and many of those it rejects are too traumatised to continue learning to drive. For a longer list of reasons why RFA is broken see user:WereSpielChequers/RFA_reform#RFA_is_broken. ϢereSpielChequers 11:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. But to take your analogy further, as a pedestrian I am content that competent drivers are being given licenses and those without the... driving skills or confidence in themselves to attempt said test are still carrying L plates. Looking at RfA as a black box it seems fit-for-purpose in its current state. The point about the process itself being an unnecessary free-for-all of incivility must also be the fault of ourselves, the voters, rather than just the process; nevertheless I understand reform may be warranted on those grounds Jebus989^✰ 14:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see that a pedestrian might take the view that a system which usually made the right call as to whether or not to promote was flawed but not completely broken in that particular aspect. But a farsighted or community minded pedestrian might not be content with a system so broken that the discussion is not "could we run out of ambulance drivers" but "if we are unable to fix the system, when will we run out of ambulance drivers?" ϢereSpielChequers 17:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to imply I am not being community-minded. If everyone truly agreed RfA comments were being too emotionally painful they surely would change their own actions, tone down their own !votes and spare those feelings. But I still find it hard to empathise, maybe because I, like you said at your first RfA, am 'thick-skinned'... If I were to foolishly self-nom this very instant, and the number of opposes would be limited only by how fast it was closed per SNOW, I would honestly not lose any sleep over it. I suppose the response argument is that viable candidates are significantly more-invested in the project than I, thus more emotionally attached.

Anyway the 'running out of admins' argument does seem compelling, I've seen the statistics about falling active admins and lower admin count, especially when scaled against increasing users, but this isn't strictly limited to admins. Excuse a second reference to FAC/GAC but they could use a good few more dedicated reviewers. There are backlogs all over the place, despite constant 'elimination drives', while AN/I (and especially AIV) seem to be fully-functional, even swift. Jebus989^✰ 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember you making any comments that I considered inappropriate, but the result of incivility at RFA is easily observed. I've trawled through past unsuccessful RFAs looking for people who weren't quite ready but might be ready now. I became very worried at the proportion who left us at the end of their RFA or soon after. If that proportion falls or we change the atmosphere and fail to change the result then I'm willing to reassess my view.

As for there being other backlogs elsewhere and AIV currently being well covered, yes the number of active admins we currently have would seem to suffice, hence the argument that RFA is broken not because we currently have too few active admins but because they are becoming inactive faster than RFA can replace them. I.E. I agree that we haven't hit that brick wall yet and that we can't tell how close it is, but I do think it would be sensible to steer away from it whilst we are far enough away we can probably make do with a gentle swerve. In other words I would prefer that we address the problem in a measured way before we hit a problem with AIV unattended for an excessive time. Looking at other wikis the normal thing when there is a shortage of admins is that a whole batch of poorly vetted candidates are appointed, and that is the scenario that I seek to avert by fixing RFA before we run out of active admins.

I've been observing the drought at RFA for more than two years, it took a long time before people accepted that the drought was real and not a short term blip, the argument now seems to have moved on to one of "we don't need to change direction, we can fix RFA after the shortage causes a major incident". I'm not keen on either the of the consequences of the "head in sand" policy, I don't like the idea of suddenly appointing a batch of new admins without lowering standards, and also I'd like to avert the major incident. But I'm aware that getting consensus to change RFA before our hands are forced is not going to be easy. ϢereSpielChequers 21:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

We already have it on record, and off-Wiki that many long-term, mature editors are not prepared to go through a snakepit where humiliation, incivility, and sometimes lies, are allowed with impunity but which would possibly invite a rapid block if expressed on other talk or discussion pages. It's not only a matter of being thick-skinned, it's also one of a matter of principle of not wanting to accept a process in which editor behaviour clearly dismisses fundamental core policies for seven days. In spite of a small core of regular experience voters, the electorate is also largely made up of contributors who only occasionally contribute to RfA, who neither fully understand the the process, nor what being an admin really entails - many of them quite wrongly assume, for example, that an RfA is a quest for power. We desperately need new admins, but equally we also need an informed and well behaved electorate to get there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Which part of RfA is broken?

Just to repeat my closing statement above of over a year ago:

In spite of a small core of regular experienced voters, the electorate is also largely made up of contributors who only occasionally contribute to RfA, who neither fully understand the the process, nor what being an admin really entails - many of them quite wrongly assume, for example, that an RfA is a quest for power. We desperately need new admins, but equally we also need an informed and well behaved electorate to get there.

I've also said a lot on WP:RFA2011, a project I started that was designed to discover what is really wrong with the system, and hopefully to come up with some suggestions for reform. RfA dropped to an all time low during 2011 and the first half of 2012, proving that the contributors to that project were not wrong in their assumptions. What the project did not achieve however, was a consensus to go ahead and propose some of the discussed reforms to the broader community.

My personal conclusion was always that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the RfA process itself, and that the dearth of candidates was due to the environment they would be expected to meet when they ran for office. Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship#2012 has shown a renewed interest in people wanting to become admins, and the pass rate for July/August is 6 to 5 unsuccessful attempts. Discounting the SNOWS, this demonstrates again that the RfA process is not broken and is doing it's job: generally the candidates who should pass, do, and those who are, unpleasant comments, and disingenuous voting, speaks volumes.

Let's hope it stays that way. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not so broken by 2014

Although the number of candidates is still diminishing by around one half every year, having voted on almost every RfA since 2010, I notice that if there is a trend that seems to have appeared, it is that by the second half of 2014, the environment at RfA seems to have improved significantly.

Some, especially those who are new to posting at WT:RfA, will claim that it has not got better, but they are also either new to the RfA process or completely new to Wikipedia. Change happens slowly, on WP asin RL, and generally only those who maintain a regular overview over a longer period will actually notice such changes. Much of the change in the climate at RfA is probably due to the fact that some of the disruptive influences have either been banned from Wikipedia or topic banned from RfA, while others have simply grown up over time or simply left Wikipedia in pursuit of a new hobby. Some editors have clearly demonstrated that they will no longer tolerate trolling at RfA and will indent inappropriate !votes and comments or at least move them to the talk page.

Discussions at WT:RfA always come full circle like a wheel turning, but a lot of research has been done into RfA and adminship both on and off Wiki, and I see no reason to reinvent that wheel just because people are too lazy to use the vast amount of knowledge about the process that was consolidated at WP:RFA2011 - essentially, most of it is still very valid. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Question about RfA

Kudpung, thanks for providing your own criteria for RfA. I have these question about your criteria:

• When you say ">30% edits to Talk and Wikipedia space", do you mean Talk, User, User talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk space (excluding File, File talk, Template, Template talk, Category, Category talk, etc.)? I currently feel like I am somewhat active in the community and I do currently have >30% of the preceding categories I mentioned, but I currently have <30% of solely Talk and Wikipedia talk. I thought I was proud of my 60% in Main space.
• What is unnecessary "clerking" of admin areas? (I have been volunteering for awhile at the GA Helpdesk; I hope that is not something bad.)
• I have improved many articles and taken some to GA and FA, but I have never considered it important to be the one who actually created the article, as I thought improving it was the important thing. But I am apparently wrong, correct?

Thanks very much for your answers. See my own internal notes page here, where I used your list as a starting point for goals. Prhartcom (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

When I say ">30% edits to Talk and Wikipedia space" I mean that (as opposed to turning WP into a social networking site) having demonstrated sufficient interaction with users other than chatting on user talk pages. It's supposed to show a reasonable balance between both content work and maintenance work.

Unnecessary clerking is the pesky interference that wannabe admins think is cool when they do NAC and NAO at WP:PERM, for example.

No one needs to be the original author of a GA or FA but I would expect anyone claiming a green blob or a gold star to have become one of the major contributors to it, or to have contributed very significantly to getting it up to standard.I do not expect RfA candidates to have FAs and GAs but I do want to see a lot of content work and that their own creations, if any, are otherwise perfect if not long enough to be GA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, thank-you for answering an "admin-in-training". I am an gentleman who works in IT, I love working on Wikipedia for these many years, and I believe I will probably be an admin someday, so I want to be prepared; your criteria is helping me focus. I won't bother you again anytime soon as I know you are busy, but I was hoping to know if I had reached or not reached your definite discussion percentage number but I still don't know if I meet that number in your criteria. I believe that my presence in many discussions has helped the community. As for the creation of articles, I have been the primary contributor in all my FAs and GAs. I just haven't been the actual creator; I think that I should remedy that (as I wish to meet all of your criteria). All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Article Creation

Hi Kudpung, since your criteria are now being quoted by others, can I ask you to look again at "At least 4 created articles of at least 500 words, perfectly sourced and formatted ", that section links to an essay about content creation, but the essay is clear that content creation does not require article creation. I agree with the essay and suspect you might too. Take the example of someone who turns up and finds that all the possible articles in their area of expertise exist but mostly as poorly referenced stubs. If they add 500 reference words to a several such stubs would you really rather they had contributed new articles in an area that doesn't interest them? ϢereSpielChequers 13:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi WereSpielChequers, Richie actually agrees with me. In fact it says somewhere in my criteria that they are flexible and that a lack in some areas can be compensated by work in others. My criteria are a guide for myself, but I think they are fair anyway, and it can be seen that in the well over 300 RfA I have voted on, I have been right around 90% of the time. That's even better than my 83% score at AfD. I feel quite rewarded when I see others citing my criteria - they are certainly not as strict as some of the ridiculous standards set by some editors, or the editors who simply systematically oppose every RfA, or he trolls who pile on 'as per'. After all these years, I'm slowly beginning to lose interest in RfA because the effect of one editor's round of reforms in December 15 last year was that those that were implemented simply cancelled each other out, so we're basically right back where we started - it hasn't encouraged more candidates to come forward. Even the editors who get favourable reviews at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll won't run due to the climate at RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you are losing interest in RFA, and of course I know that these are your criteria and you apply them with discretion, but there are others out there who miss the nuance hence my suggestion that you rephrase that bit. ϢereSpielChequers 15:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

pass AfD or not

Hi kudpung, re "pass AfD or not" surely "pass RFA or not"? ϢereSpielChequers 07:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks WereSpielChequers. If you see anything like that again in anything I wrote, just change it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Brief aside

Depending on the context, I can easily see circumstances where I'd consider How do you feel about WP:Wikipe-tan a legitimate question. It's IMO a fairly good example of an issue that regularly occurs, that of a running in-joke which 5% of Wikipedia's participants find hilarious, 90% don't care at all about, and 5% find extremely offensive. (And it is just a running in-joke that she's "Wikipedia's mascot"; the idea of a Wikipedia mascot has occasionally been proposed, but the only ones that ever came close to acceptance were the eminently dull Wikipede and the just plain creepy Miwiki the ant.) One's attitude towards an issue like this is quite a good indicator of how someone will act as an admin when faced with balancing WP:NOTCENSORED against the fact that editors are potentially being upset for no useful purpose. One doesn't have to be a po-faced activist to feel that there's something distasteful about what purports to be an academic project being represented by drawings of scantily clad underage girls, and one doesn't have to be a Free Culture hardliner to feel that there's something distasteful about one group of editors telling another group of editors what is and isn't appropriate for them to have on their userpages. How someone handles a "no right answer" situation like this is quite a useful indicator as to whether someone appreciates the degree of nuance that's needed to resolve disputes on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 14:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Iridescent, I appreciate, as I always do, your opinion, but here I have to disagree. I just saw your comment now after finishing a post on Worm That Turned's tp a few seconds ago that by coincidence touches on this very topic. OTOH, to your second point, as regards WikiTan herself I'm in the 90% but I agree with you. For a dead serious undertaking such as Wikipedia which is proud to have rivalled the Britannica and put it out of business, I find it immature, tasteless, and even a bit sexist. In this day and age of the claims of (cis/non-cis)gender equality (which IMO are still over-politicized despite the changes that have been made since I was a youngster where even standing in the queue of a public, convenience in an ultra conservative community like Malvern, would get you thrown in a Panda car and taken to the police station, as happened to me) and those who drool over children, I'm not a po-faced activist either but a Wikipedia 'mascot' should definitely be gender neutral. But does Wikpedia need a mascot, and all the squabbling that goes with it? I have a WikiTan cartoon on my user page - because it's message is accurate but a rose of any other name would be just as good in that graphic to demonstrate the WMF's total incompetence. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The WP:Wikipe-tan question 27 in your essay is currently ungrammatical. In Pbsouthwood's RFA the question was actually "As an admin, would you use {{Administrator topicon}} with the tan icon option?".  P.s. The essay's shortcut is currently a redlink - how about using e.g. WP:KPRFACRIT? DexDor ^(talk) 19:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

No, technically it's not. But I would not have objected to you correcting it if it were. BTW, that RfA really did have a ridiculous number of questions. There is a reason, which escaped me at the time, why the shortcut is a redlink (Not every admin knows everything.) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Completeness

@Yngvadottir: I vehemently disagree w/ regarding the encyclopaedia as approaching completeness. I would never suggest for a moment that the encyclopedia is complete. The very feature of an encyclopedia (I was fascinated by them from the age of 6 and some of my volumes from that era long ago are ludicrously out if date - we were actually taught in pre-school that there are canals on Mars) is that it is an ongoing work. What I attempt to illustrate is that the vast majority of new 'articles' that flow into the live stream at NPP expecting to be included in the corpus, are nowhere near appropriate for an encyclopedia nor will they ever meet our criteria for notability however interesting they might be. And I'll just say again that I'll never understand how a soccer player who has played in one match and listed in the squad on a primary source, can be more notable than a professor or researcher who has clearly made significant contributions to science or society but for whom sources are hard to find. Wasn't there a case recently where a scientist was deleted just before he/she was awarded a Nobel Prize? Ridiculous. Failing policy being changed once more a tad further than ACTRIAL/ACPERM, these are things that on Wikipedia will never be improved, and which along with my desysoping, have contributed to my semi-retirement. I'm fed up with fighting never-ending battles and spending my time and money on them while the WMF and its hangers-on get richer by the day or live in the luxury of frequent-flyer lounges and posh hotels and endorsing designer label fashion goods (maybe there is a change on the horizon). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand your fed-upness, and of course my own fury at the WMF is well attested. Regarding the new pages feed, things have been complicated by the institution of draft space and the way the article wizard now makes new editors use it; a lot of editors who joined the project in recent years think they have to continue using draft space, so the new pages stream is split. I could write a book about the inclusion criteria, but I think that has to be noted, because it means the topics of the new articles in the two places differ somewhat (and the weaponisation of draft space has increased the effect): relatively few sportspeople, places, or species in the drafts, for example, and relatively more businesses. But beyond that, I lean inclusionist for the reasons I put in my edit summary: none of us can know what we don't know, and we do know there's bias. The examples you give, I believe, have to do mostly with ease of quantifiability, since at base our notability standards default to how easily the topic can be established with verifiable sources. Carl Wilhelm von Sydow is an easy example of a topic where specialised knowledge was required to know that the subject met WP:PROF, and Iridescent was probably 95% correct in saying that any admin would have deleted the original article. (I say 95% because another admin saw my inquiry and promptly undeleted it.) He died in 1952 and received obituaries and book assessments of his work, so the issues with academics doing cutting-edge work and known only to their peers and the Nobel selection committee did not arise, and other Wikipedias were covering him, but en.wiki didn't have the article for 8 years (and there is a deterrent effect when one starts to create an article and a deletion notice comes up). I have no way of knowing what we are missing in almost any Asian, African, or Meso-American area of knowledge, or for that matter huge swathes of the sciences. I do know that when I was still writing articles—I've almost succeeded in stopping—the topics simply fell into my lap, both red links and simple glaring omissions, and not at all only in my areas of expertise. It was shocking, and still is (and exacerbated by conscious bias as well as unconscious). That makes me all too aware that we must also be missing untold numbers of other things that I am clueless about. Yes, some articles are misleading, or bad for other reasons. But it's a whole lot easier to fix a bad article than to be aware of a gap; for topics that are not, for example, people who subsequently win the Nobel Prize or marry someone within 10 points of succession to the British throne, it's unlikely that someone with the required specialised knowledge will come along and try again, especially because (in large part thanks to past WMF pronouncements; for me this is an illustration of why central planning of the encyclopaedia is deleterious) there is a widespread belief that the encyclopaedia is almost complete. So I quail at the thought of admins thinking that way; admins decide whether to delete an article. (Yes, admins who mindlessly delete everything in Category:Speedy deletion are arguably worse, but there are other things that are also worse.) So anyway, less than a book, but more than an edit summary, and thank you for thinking about it. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)