User:Robert McClenon/RFA Concession

I would like to thank those editors who supported my candidacy for administrator, to comment on what I see as the disconnect between my views and those of the opposing editors, and to reply to those who have offered the well-meaning advice to transform myself into a different editor and try again in a while. I think that the basic problem is that I have an outlook on the English Wikipedia that differs somewhat from that of other editors and is (I think) less idealistic and more cynically realistic. I think that, with five million articles, and as a heavily favored site by search engines, the English Wikipedia should be much more focused on the maintenance of quality, and much less on any sort of expansion or growth, even if that involves a tradeoff with outreach or expansion. Unfortunately, most new editors are not useful or even potentially useful contributors to the encyclopedia. Too many new editors either are self-serving, seeking to promote themselves or their companies, or clueless, drawn by a sort of glamor and seeking a place in the limelight. The English Wikipedia, due to its success and popularity, is being swamped by good-faith useless contributions and by bad-faith contributions, and, unfortunately, should place a higher value on quality than on warmth.

Officially, the English Wikipedia has policies, guidelines, and essays, in decreasing order of importance. Officially, the rule not to bite the newcomers is a guideline. I have said that in practice it has become a dogma, something higher-ranking than policies. I think that some editors go to unnecessary pains to avoid being “bitey”, but I think that the overriding focus on avoiding “bite” interferes with realism on quality. That is what I think. Perhaps I made a mistake in stating my views straightforwardly. Maybe it wasn’t diplomatic for me to say that many of our new articles are crud and need deleting. Maybe some editors would prefer to think that crud is a minor problem rather than our biggest problem. (It hasn’t always been our biggest problem. The English Wikipedia wasn’t always as big and popular as it is now, and wasn’t always the magnet for crud that it is now.)

The English Wikipedia has been remarkably successful. The strategy that was appropriate for its early successful establishment and expansion is no longer the most appropriate strategy for preserving and improving it. To some extent, its working strategy has evolved. However, there are some ways in which it still has ideas that are left over from a past when it was in need of expansion that are not as appropriate to a present when it is in need of quality control. Sometimes there is a disconnect between what we say and what we do. I think that my statements of my outlook were not really as radical as they were taken to be. The English Wikipedia’s attitudes have matured and become more nearly oriented to quality control, but some editors find it jarring to hear them stated (such as that crud should be tagged, and that new editors should not necessarily be worshiped).

I will comment that I still think that my record on CSD tagging is as good as my supporters said it was. I will also defend my PROD tagging, in particular against the correct argument that I didn’t Google for references before tagging a page. Since a lot of new articles are crud, I think that the responsibility should be on an author to provide some indication of notability, not simply to throw a topic at the community and say, “Here is the topic. You write it.” The idea that an author can throw a topic at the community and tell us to write the article is a problem. It also plays directly into the hands of spammers, who will argue that their companies are notable and so should be expanded neutrally rather than deleted. Maintaining quality is, in my opinion, more important than looking for topics for new articles.

As a minor point, I mostly disagree with the criticism that I was too quick to tag articles either for speedy deletion or for PROD. I, and some other editors, disagree with the idea of editors building articles in article space starting with an article in article space that has no references. Articles can be built in user space or in draft space. In my opinion, an experienced reviewer can anyway usually tell when a sub-stub is a sub-stub needing deletion and when it is a work in progress. I am aware that some editors think that editors should be able to build articles in article space that do not initially have references. (I have built articles in user space.)

It may be that some editors actually share my attitudes toward what should and should not be in Wikipedia on a case-by-case basis, but haven’t formulated my outlook as a philosophy and weren’t ready for it to be stated. I can’t speak for anyone but myself.

I realize that those editors who have given me the advice to follow a program which they describe of particular types of editing experience and to come back for adminship in six months or twelve months mean well. I am also aware that it may be appropriate advice for some admin candidates. In my case, I think that the advice means well, but is to become the type of editor whom they view as an ideal editor. I don’t plan to do that, and don’t plan to change who I am. I am willing to submit a new Request for Adminship, not when I have grown up, but when the outlook of the Wikipedia has grown up to accept my approach and philosophy. I am aware that this may not happen.

Some editors in particular advised me to bring some articles up to Featured Article or Good Article quality. I could do that, but I think that there are other editors who do this better than I do. I don’t think that it should be necessary for administrators to spread themselves too thin or for editors in general to spread themselves too thin.

I am willing to submit a new Request for Adminship if and when the attitudes of the community have changed and evolved to reflect what I think is more realistic, rather than saying that I will follow a learning path that may have been appropriate for some editors. I thank my supporters for their support, and those who gave me well-meaning advice for meaning well.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)