User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Backlogs

Massive backlog of admin tasks... (Archive 51)
...such as resolving copyright problems. I think in addition to having more administrators look at those pages, it probably needs clearer guidelines on how to actually fix those problems. It is extremely difficult to do them, because sometimes it is rather contentious and ambiguous, and the whole issue surrounding jurisprudence and legality of resolving those things, well...it's like reaching into a beehive. I think we need help, but I'm not sure what that entails. --HappyCamper 16:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've actually been thinking about proposing/starting a WikiProject to deal with keeping track of Administrative tasks, and what the status of various areas are....there might be a Template that could be put on a User's page for example that could give an updated status reports of how much of a backlog there is at CFD, AFD, MFD, CV, AIV, etc. Any thoughts on that? Does anyone know of any prior work on that that they could point me to? &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 16:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect an actual project would probably cause more work than it would help, but a template that we could base at WP:AN with the intent that it be placed on all admin user pages (at their discretion of course) sounds like a superb idea. Martin 16:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know that the actual project would be that much work. Essentially the scope is: 1. Define what Administrative tasks are 2. Define where these tasks are accomplished 3. Define a metric for assessing the status of the given work area (what constitutes a backlog? a heavy backlog? Up to date?). 4. Analyze the work area to evaluate against the metric. 5. Publish that information.


 * Well ok maybe that is a fair amount, but maybe it isn't. I think it's doable though, with a few people contributing, to assess where Admin contribution is the most needed, and where Admin contribution is able to manage the work level. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 17:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * the template idea sounds great, i could definitely use something like that.--Alhutch 17:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea to me as well. --Durin 17:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the template idea as well. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The template is a good idea. I will state, though, that the Copyright problems page is a pain in the butt to deal with and I state this as someone who loves working on copyright problems here. I spend most of my time looking for new articles with massive copyright problems because these can be speedily deleted. However, once the 48 hour time period is up and an article with a massive copyright problem is found, then you have to muck around with all the pain and anguish of dealing with this confusing and troublesome project page. Ouch. Ah well, such is life.--Alabamaboy 17:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thing: for my own personal use, I have compiled a page of admin links and templates and stuff at User:Alabamaboy/Grabbag to make my own admin work easier. But if someone could distill this info and more into a template, that'd be great.--Alabamaboy 17:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For the most difficult tasks, we should have a list of a few true experts who can provide advice on tough cases. NoSeptember   talk  17:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On the 'backlog level template' idea I'd actually suggest very small individual templates in a standardized format for each task. These could then be displayed on the project page for the task, collected together into an 'all admin tasks' list, and/or put on a page individually for just the tasks the person works on. Actually, there is no reason not to do something like this for non-admin tasks as well. --CBDunkerson 17:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And to relate this to RfA, we should ask each candidate to pick one backlog area that they will commit to work on once they become an admin. While not enforcable, we could build up some teams of admins working in these areas. NoSeptember   talk  17:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen, there's never a serious backlog on deletion pages (AfD's, CfD's, etc). After the 4 days (or whatever) goes by, within a day or so an admin comes along and closes the afd, and it doesn't take much admin time except for an occasional contentious one.  AIV's have always been responded to quite fast.  That leaves copyright problems and I think you guys are making more work out of those than there needs to be.  I suggest an eventualist approach (m:eventualism), i.e. just use a PROD-like process to delete articles or edits with apparent copyright problems after a week or so without giving them much thought.  Sooner or later, good edits will take their place.  Don't have admins running around trying to get permissions for edits made by contributors.  That's the contributors' responsibility, so at most, leave the contributor a note pointing them to WP:BRP and don't waste further time on it until a permission letter comes in.  That should clear the backlog pretty fast.  70.231.136.114 17:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I put together a very bare bones framework for how this kind of 'centralized backlog tracking' might work at Workboxes. Basically it is just green, yellow, and red boxes for each task which can then be grouped into 'admin tasks', 'user tasks', 'deletion tasks', 'my tasks', et cetera. What level of backlog constitutes each color would be determined and set on pages for each task. I tried to keep the boxes small and simple because there are alot of different tasks out there which users may want to track. If people like it this can be developed more fully... otherwise replace with something else. --CBDunkerson 22:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Backlog (Archive 51)
Yeah, just two noms, but with thirteen 'crats claiming to be active, a 24 hour delay for no apparent reason (and if there is one, with the devs tweaking everything in sight, please set me straight) is, in my completely useless opinion, inexcusable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 16:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't fret. We're not dead. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They're not pinin', they've passed on! These bureaucrats are no more! They have ceased to be! They've expired and gone to meet their maker! This is a late bureaucracy. They're a stiff. Bereft of life, they rest in peace, if you hadn't nailed 'em to the perch they'd be pushing up the daisies! They've rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! These are ex-bureaucrats! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 17:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not dead yet
 * I can dance and I can sing
 * I am not dead yet
 * I can do the highland fling
 * I am not dead yet
 * No need to go to bed
 * No need to call the doctor
 * 'Cos I'm not yet dead Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In all seriousness, however... Cecropia has recently resigned as bureaucrat (as has Francs2000), so things have been kind of weird in terms of RFA upkeep. I'm going to do my best to keep up with the backlog. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cecropia's resignation threw everyone off kilter. But it doesn't have to be just you keeping up with the backlog. With such a limited scope of responsibilities, and so few promotions to preform, every bureaucrat should be on top of this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 17:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think this delay shows why we need more bureaucrats. A number of editors have been saying that we don't need more and have blocked attempts to promote more admins into bureaucrats. But as this delay shows, we need more of them b/c not every bureaucrats will be able to do work every week. We have a redundant number of admins to achieve coverage of tasks on Wikipedia and we should have an equally redundant number of bureaucrats to cover needed tasks.--Alabamaboy 17:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, the old Soviet model of getting a job done. ;-) If the current workers aren't doing the job (aren't, not can't), double the number of workers on the job. And if that doubled number don't do the job ... -- Cecropia 18:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There are way more than enough to get the job done, they just neglect/ignore their responsibilities.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 18:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't understand why people are so impatient to get their adminships. A delay of 24 hours is perfectly reasonable, and really anything under 72 hours is perfectly ok with me.  Kelly Martin (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there was a big hoo-haa about CSCWEM's RfA because it would have run for 17 days. I know 10 (which is what you're suggesting would be reasonable) isn't quite 17 but still, do we not need to be consistent? --Cel es tianpower háblame 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure we do. But frankly, I wouldn't be losing any sleep over it. You're in good hands... we're not going to just disappear. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To Kelly Martin: My own adminship (not bureaucratship) was controversial because a couple of editors (who, I am happy to say, later became friends) raised a fuss over my editing that they disagreed with on a contentious article. This led to (for the time) a huge voting body for and against me. When the 7 days passed, I was in what we now call "the [high] gray zone." Over the following days no one of the bureaucrats took any action, even when continued voting put me over 80%. Finally, Ed Poor promoted me and the rest is "history." (Fast Forward) When Angela called for more bureaucrats I applied and eaily won. But my point is that in my nomination and comments, I gave my concept of what a bureaucrat would do, and promised not to leave people hanging in space, as happened to me. I tried dilligently, while I was bcrat, to fulfill this. So I don't take this lightly, and yes, I still feel that it is very important, when someone is waiting to see whether or not they will get a desired Wikirole, not to let them cool their heels. My principles come from business training, but from the business training that cares about its "customers," not an old fashioned mortgage company, or a government bureaucracy, which says: "Someone wants something that is depndent on my action. They can wait until I get around to it.". -- Cecropia 19:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oddly, my PoV is somewhat the opposite. It took me about two days to be promoted, by Raul, during a period when you did practically all promotions.  After about two days, I did catch Raul on IRC and ask him if he could close it, but otherwise I let it go figuring that someone would do it soon enough.  Frankly I'm a bit bothered by the rampant immediatism that seems to be overtaking the Wiki.  I suppose it's to be expected as we get more people who grew up saturated in the glorification of self that was the late 1990s.... Kelly Martin (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The 2nd CSCWEM RfA wasn't so much about the 17 day length, but that only supporters knew about it for the first 10 days. In other words, it doesn't mean much in terms of a backlog. --W.marsh 19:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Minor issue - everyone who happened to stumble across it for the ten days before CSCWEM accepted happened to vote support; saying that "only supporters knew about it" makes it sound like a conspiracy, but any editor could have found the page, as there were numerous appeals on CSCWEM's talk page asking him to accept. BD2412  T 22:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess the issue is that there is a select group of editors who have been entrusted with a very specific set of responsibilities, which they either ignore, or neglect. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 18:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We're all volunteers here. We shouldn't think in terms of ignoring or neglecting responsibilities. Friday (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jeffrey, that's three times in this thread you've given the appearance of saying (paraphrased for effect "The 'crats are a bunch of slackers"...) If that's what you mean I am not sure I agree. We all have real lives, readers, editors, admins, 'crats, developers, all of us (Except BRION, the foundation owns his soul... well at least 40 hours a week it does...). Expecting promotions 5 minutes after the close is about as realistic as expecting answers to questions posed on RfAs within 24 hours. The sky will not fall in either case. Jeffrey, I do not understand why you repeat this theme, it just seems divisive to me. Perhaps you could clarify what you really meant? + +Lar: t/c 18:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, indeed, our 'crats are some of our best editors and admins. I do not doubt for a second that they may be too busy with Other Stuff to do a promotion right away, or to do every other promotion.  But there is a serious argument to be made in regards to bureaucratic activity.  There are two (soon to be three) very narrow, very well defined, not very time consuming, specific tasks that bureaucrats undertake.  Those who applied for that job understood this, and wanted to do this.  Yet, for some reason there are more than a few bureaucrats who simply don't do the very narrowly defined task the community has entrusted them with.  One volunteers for a position with an occasional well-defined task, a position that is rather hard to get, and can only be achieved with extraordinary support and trust from the community - yet they don't do their job?  Bureaucratship then becomes a glorified popularity contest or method for seeking aproval.  It's simple: one asks for a job, the community gives it to you, then you don't do it: what picture is one supposed to paint?  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 19:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

...and the mouse quietly works away. :) --Durin 19:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I take minor offense to the notion that RfB is a glorified popularity contest. RfB happens to be the most stressful week of your life on Wikipedia if you actually have a shot at passing. David practically had to keep me from having a nervous breakdown during that week. The 90% approval rating is tough. That means that 1 oppose vote effectively cancels out 10 support votes. If you can convince 90% of a large group that you can and should be entrusted with a tool (I managed to convince 120 people), then damnit, you've earned it. Just because we are not always on top of the job at the exact moment that something is done doesn't mean that we're negligent or unqualified. We have real lives too. Now, I've stated that I will do my utmost to pick up whatever slack the parting of Cecropia and Francs2000 caused, and I stand by that. But for God's sake if you've got something to complain about, just say it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't take it too personally, Linuxbeak. This is an "if the shoe fits, wear it" issue. If it doesn't apply to you, ignore it. But I have to take exception to your pointing out how difficult it is to become a bcrat and then saying that if you succeed in the process "you've earned it'" Earned what? The right to say you are a bureaucrat but will do the work whenever it's convenient? The right to throw your weight around in adminship discussions but rarely promote? The right to accept a responsibility and wander off, then get angry if a user like Jeffrey asks where you all are? Or in the case of Danny (the only name I will name) the right to be inactive for more than a year, then waltz in to make a controversial promotion? -- Cecropia 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I could write a silly script to post a note somewhere when time is up for certain admin nomination and a bureaucrat needs to close it. Would that help? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies I couldn't get on last night, but my ISP went down and I had to wait for it to come back up today. I believe I've tended to most requests within a few hours of closing since I was promoted, with the exception of those I felt I should recuse from. In fact, I signed on the other night specifically to be sure that Can't Sleep and another nomination that closed around the same time were promoted, because I wasn't sure the other bureaucrats would be around. I think overall we're doing a good job here, and that we certainly can handle the situation; we may just need to poke a few of the older hands and let them know that they're needed again, as they have probably gotten used to someone else handling everything. Essjay Talk •  Contact 06:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize in advance if anyone should take offense at my comment here -- but -- what is the problem??


 * How can we worry about a backlog of admin nominees? A large backlog of TfD deletions can be a problem; the longer it sits, the greater chance that a clueless editor will slap a deprecated template on a few dozen articles and escalate the backlog. A backlog of copyvios is a potential problem; the more copyvios floating in store, the greater chance that some lawyer steals Jimbo's shorts and he reaches for the Big Circuit Breaker.


 * Granted that some backlogs must be worked off by admins; so promoting admins indirectly works off more important backlogs, too. But the key word is "indirectly". If some zealot ran for adminship swearing to work all the admin-only backlogs down to one hour even so I think it would do no harm if he had to wait a few days.


 * For the record: Should it happen (a) that I find myself in the running and (b) get the nod and (c) no b'crat gets around to handing me a mop I promise I will hold my peace for at least a week. What's the hurry? The backlogs will still be here. John Reid 23:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for human resources at WP:CP (Archive 67)
Dear human resources department,

We have a huge backlog at WP:CP that could benefit from some determined copyright specialists. Thanks. --Ligulem 11:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And I go cross-eyed every time I look at it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)