Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Clpo13 2

Extended Discussion from GregJackP's Oppose
The following discussion was moved from GregJackP's Oppose, which was "Oppose per User:GregJackP/Admin criteria. As far as I can tell, they have been here over ten years and have managed to create only one good article. I'm sure that they are a decent person and a good Wikipedian, but we need admins who understand content creation."


 * Uhhh, ok. I mean content creation isn't a large part of adminship. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  01:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see them as parts of a whole. Admins are here to protect the content from those that would either deliberately harm it, or who cause needless disruption through POV pushing, cluelessness, etc. That also means, to an extent, protecting the creators of that content from needless disruption. I don't agree at all that a GA is a must for an admin, but it's not an entirely unreasonable position to take. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Worth noting he does have a GA. ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * GregJackP clearly said they thought one GA created over >10 years was not enough (at least by his standards). I personally don't think it matters whether a user has spent the time needed to get an article to GA or FA; they can still be a perfectly qualified and capable admin. Everymorning (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Everymorning. You don't need to have any content creation to be a good admin, as long as you have a good sense of how to write an article, and you can tell good edits from bad ones. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Content creation is, for me, not necessary. Understanding of how articles should generally be laid out, the ability to disguish vandalism from good faith edits, and what should happen in disputes, is more important. Linguist talk&#124; contribs  19:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree – most admins don't spend a lot of their time creating content. A janitor in a school doesn't need teaching qualifications, neither does a kitchen technician require a Bachelor’s Degree in Culinary Arts. While it is good for an admin to have some experience in writing content, I don't think it is necessary to insist a candidate assist in making multiple good or featured articles to get your vote. Without people spending their time on background tasks, the project would go nowhere. Olidog (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The main goal of the project is to build an encyclopedia and not to have admins. There's nothing to protect if content is not created first.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 22:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, we do have 5.4 million articles. I really don't think we have to worry about being left without any content. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is now the comment of the year.— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 02:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, my flower pot doesn't have a article yet. We're still missing content &mdash; JJ Be  rs  02:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been an admin for 10 years now, and I believe a fairly good one. I have never taken an article to GA or above, and indeed while I have edited some B-class articles, I am not sure that I have ever been the one who took an article from C to B. I don';t recall spending significant admin time on a GA or FA article, and rarely on a B-class. My admin work is pretty much entirely in "the weeds" of C-class and below, and more often than not the stubs and sub-stubs that wind up being tagged for CSD. Some of these I delete, some I decline, some few I have been able to source and get up to C or perhaps B-class and DYK. Most articles at the GA level and above have very litle need of admin intervention, and most editors in the process of working on such articles simialr have little such need. If anything, having worked on many FAs seems to me to be a point against an RFA candidacy -- if an editor is spending that much time on content, what use will s/he make of the mop? DES (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You became an admin 7 months after joining WP, things were very different in 2005.  Y intan   14:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Do apply for a review of your adminship and see the outcome. Then we can talk.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 15:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct, things were quite different than, and someone with the experience I had when I became an admin would never pass now, nor should such a nom pass. My point is not what I had when i passed Rfa, but what experience I have had since, and where I see needs for admin assistance, and where I don't. My point is that one can be a good, effective admin without being involved in GA/FA level content creation. I don't think the changes in standards have changed that, I think it is still true today. DES (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said. Olidog (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been an admin for more than 10 years now, I do actually meet User:GregJackP/Admin criteria and I make a point of spending a significant amount of my time writing content every few weeks. Writing GA or FA quality content is not unduly complicated (the advent of the formulaic GA/FA article 'series' makes filling your userpage with green plus symbols and golden stars really rather easy). The difficult part of meeting your criteria right now isn't writing, it's finding people to review candidate content. Nick (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Bottom line: Of course respecting and understanding content work is a vital part of doing admin work, but setting the bar at "you must have a GA or you will be opposed" is not a good metric for determining that understanding. Sadly, we see a lot of these black-and-white standards at RFA, (maybe not so much at this one in particular) where instead fo taking a nuanced, thorough look at a candidate's contributions and/or carefully reading their answers to the various questions, a user can just check their one "hot button" and see if the candidate meets it. It's a bad way to make any decision, on WP or in real life. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree totally. It's now so easy to write 'formulaic' GA/FA content, that the idea that achieving a GA or FA is some sort of guarantee that a user is likely to be "familiar with the standards for articles (MOS, referencing, etc.)" is laughable. It's equally laughable that writing a GA or FA is some sort of guarantee that they can "know how to interact with others". I know I've not interacted with anybody whilst writing my most recent GA nomination, and in the last half dozen new articles I've created, I've spoken to just one person and asked them just one question. The reality now for editors creating new content is that it's filling in small niches and that you'll probably not speak to people. I'd much rather have good, solid content creators who have worked with others to maintain and improve existing content, if they've managed to take a couple of articles (or more) to GA standard, that's great, but it's the collaboration and maintenance aspect that's important, not the end result of a small GA icon on a user page. Nick (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If writing GA/FA level content is easy then it would not be a great imposition to require this. It's not so easy though and, collectively, we're not doing enough of it.  I was quite horrified to learn recently that we are no longer creating FA articles at an adequate rate to publish one per day.  The consequence is that FA content is now being recycled.  I'm not sure what the equivalent stats for GA are but, overall, the number of articles that have reached this level is less than 1% and that's not good enough.  One reason for this sad state of affairs is that doing such work is not rewarding.  Making it a formal requirement for admin status might help give such work the status it needs to get it done.  I agree with GregJackP that the candidate's contributions are quite weak in this respect and it is reasonable to oppose on such grounds.  Andrew D. (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I quite agree that we're collectively not doing enough writing, unfortunately with other distractions such as the huge up-tick in paid editing and the promotional abuse of Wikipedia, amongst other significant issues, it's not easy to devote time to writing without feeling as though you're neglecting existing content and other areas, even if/when you've got a large amount of material researched, content half-written and articles ready to be fettled into something ready for Wikipedia. The risk of formalising or even just normalising support for RfA on the condition of content creation is that you risk people producing high quality content which is of interest to a very small number of people and I would argue, that valuable volunteer time is then spent in the wrong areas. The last new page I wrote has been seen by 249 people in a little over the month it has existed, the last article I wrote which I'm considering running through the GA process has been seen by just 303 people over three months, and my current GA nominee has been seen by just 618 people from the point I expanded it from a stub to hopefully GA level, at the start of the year. The reality is my writing (and the content I want to create) isn't of any significant importance, and I can make a more productive and helpful contribution to Wikipedia by doing maintenance tasks for most of the time. That's not going to be the case for everybody, but forcing people to have to write GA/FA level content, just to pass RfA, seems like it has the potential to be a distraction from other equally important work. Nick (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, this vote puts me in the mind of this... aww man, did you hafta? Secondly, I am a little irritated by the editors assertion. I mean I have 400 articles created, some of them "good" or at least "OK" in the generic sense, and other accomplishments, but no real personal interest in the GA process in particular, although I'm certainly familiar with it. Editor apparently feels editors like me do not "understand content creation", which isn't really true and is actually kind of nonsense. Herostratus (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought all this extended discussion shit was supposed to be farmed off to the talk page? What an eyesore. Leaky  Caldron  21:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nick's new article is Francis J. Meehan, right? I encourage him to submit this as a GA as it looks good enough.  If it passes, it would then qualify for nomination at DYK.  This would then expose it to millions of eyes and it would get thousands of readers with a good hook (DYK ... that Francis Meehan viewed the wreckage of the U2 spyplane and took part in the prisoner exchange at Glienicke Bridge?)  This would then help establish the article and weave it into our broader coverage.  This would be quite productive and visible progress in the building of the encyclopedia.  Such work is fundamental and should not be deprecated as being of no importance or someone else's problem.  Andrew D. (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is, and thanks. I've been trying to get Basil Smallpeice reviewed at GA since January, and don't want to nominate more than one article at a time, particularly as I've not had any feedback on my recent biographical articles through the GA process and don't know what improvements people will suggest I make, which I would then incorporate into other articles before nominating (or indeed, finish writing) them. Nick (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * DYK that I started the Basil Smallpeice article? I was content with an outline but it's good that Nick has now put flesh on those bones.  This is the sort of productive collaboration which the project needs but RfA seems too focussed on other activities.  If there was a significant career path or tenure track for content creators then there might be adequate balance but, as it is, it seems that content creators have to become gnomes and deletionists to get ahead.  Anyway, I haven't previously found motivation to spend time on GA work but Nick's plight will now make me give it another try.  It's an ill wind .... Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought so too, but I notice that hasn't been done at recent RfA's. That may because it is unclear who's supposed to move it, or was there some discussion where it was decided not to curate these discussions? Anyhow, IMO this whole discussion is out of place. GregJackP gave their oppose, and it wasn't arbitrary; it was based on their existing, published standards, and there is no reason for people to second-guess their reasoning. This is all a philosophical debate that belongs elsewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's arbitrary. If his "existing, published standard" was that he didn't trust bald people and wouldn't vote them, that also would be arbitrary (possibly even more arbitrary than his actual standard) notwithstanding that he's written it down in advance. There's plenty of reason for people to second-guess the editors reasoning: it's a wiki, and if one doesn't like the heat one can avoid the kitchen. And since its arrant nonsense even more reason for the editor to expect pushback, which hopefully they will take to heart. If the editor was able to say "and this standard has worked out, admins who didn't meet it have proven to be worse that those that have" or something, that'd be a different matter, but of course he can't say that, because it's not been studied and probably isn't true. That the current vote is 154-1 and the editor is the 1 might be cause to pause and reconsider. And if this vote actually mattered it would be poor show. Herostratus (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You guys will probably be a little shocked, as I rarely speak this frankly, but here goes. Actually do you want to hear my thought on your !vote or not. You probably won't like it.   d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  01:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm only back because I was pinged, but since there are apparently some questions about my oppose, I'll make one statement, and then y'all can do whatever you want.
 * First, this is my position, based on criteria that I've had for several years. If someone does not create either two GAs or one FA, they should not be an admin. Period.
 * All of you that disagree can support the candidate based on whatever criteria that you wish to apply.
 * If you think that I should change my position you are of course free to believe that. Just be aware that I really don't care what your opinion is on that, but I'll support your right to hold whatever opinion you wish to hold.
 * So go ahead and rant about my criteria and how you don't like it and think it is wrong, and oh my god, we might not have complete unity in the hive. If it makes you feel better, then it served a purpose. GregJackP   Boomer!   02:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've cooled offf quite a bit since last night, but I will say it SILLY and borderline troutworthy and many conclusions could be drawn. At least the RfA is successful.  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  12:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never understood why so much energy is being expended on !votes like this one. There's one of these (and sometimes several of them) on every RFA.... The !voter with impossibly high / unrealistic standards. You are pretty unlikely to change their mind or !vote by churning out pages of discussion that are pretty unlikely to be read. In this case - as in most similar cases, this !vote isn't going to sink the RFA, and is extraordinarily unlikely to influence future !voters. SQL Query me!  03:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)