Following on from User:Moreschi's comments at Administrators Noticeboard about "The Plague" (of nationalism, but similar issues can apply on religion), this RFC is to brainstorm/examine ideas which might help with the general problem of nationalist editing on Wikipedia. Any promising ideas would then be developed further in individual RFCs. An example of a prior RFC of this type is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users.
Rd232 talk 17:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, to kick things off, here's a suggestion ( Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Community_service:_Wikisource) that as an additional tool (versus blocks and bans), editors involved in conflict might be given "community service", such as transcribing documents on Wikisource. Equally, editors might be required to do specified maintenance tasks, such as wikifying 50 articles from the relevant maintenance category to a reasonable standard (listing them on a user subpage for easy checking). Particularly appropriate in conflict cases might be identifying tasks which require editors to do substantive maintenance work (wikification requires relatively little thought for experienced editors) on areas other than those where conflict has arisen, such as adding appropriate references to 25 random unreferenced BLPs (excluding any which relate at all to the problem topic). Rd232 talk 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record in spirit of being upfront, I am an involved party at the current Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (although not as a member of the web brigade mailing list). In responding to some of the above, what Radek points out is not all that should be considered with such a hypothetical alternative, although he is clearly writing about specific events/editors. Other things that would need to be considered are:
It is my opinion that things such as community service could be used a carrot in some low level circumstances, but not in matters where a stick is actually warranted. In the case that Radeksz is clearly referring to, I can only concur with NVO's opinion, in that community service is something that an editor can do to help them return to editing. I will say, that when I have found myself being stressed onwiki, and knowing that I may get myself in the shit if I don't destress, I will often go to Commons and upload materials there; uploading of materials to commons could be another option; or checking categorisation of files with no categories, etc, but this should only be used for low level offences. -- Russavia Dialogue 11:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I see community service as an alternative to a block/ban. It should be applied to editors who promise to avoid disruptive behavior that resulted in the sanction (such a promise can be further enhanced by restrictions, voluntary or not, such as 1RR or article bans or such). If such editors refuse to do community service or break the restrictions during the period they were set for the community service should be "upgraded" to a block/ban. An important function of the community service is that it shows the community still has (limited, but still) trust and respect for an editor, which is likely to increase his/her productivity and prevent them from leaving the project after a perceived injustice. Even more importantly, it helps the project. A banned editor taking forced wikiholidays helps no one, the same editor doing community service work is an undeniable asset. Remember: our punishments are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. People who express regret at their actions and want to atone for them should be given a chance to do so. Things to consider:
PS. Disclaimer: I am currently facing a potential block/ban myself and I'd prefer to help the community via community service rather than take a forced holiday from the project (to which I've contributed for over 5 years and in which I am the 57th most active editor...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment: whilst it's suggested as an alternative to blocks and bans, some of the appeal of community service is that it might be a measure actually employed for lesser offences where people are reluctant to block/ban. WP:CIVIL violations in particular might spring to mind. In some cases such community service might phrased as recommended "penance" or "atonement" to demonstrate good will, rather than a mandatory measure, and refusal to do it might count against the editor in future. Rd232 talk 12:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to add something here that disagrees with both Piotrus and Russavia. And that's a VERY BIG OBJECTION to the idea that an editor's "remorse" or "confessions" should be a factor in deciding whether community service or a block is the appropriate action. History of disruptive action, or lack of it, YES, of course. But "remorse" and "confessions" definitely NO. Why? Simple - it's a horrible guideline in the making, horrible incentives, potentially (likely) very unfair and wayyyyyyy open to gaming. It builds in a presumption of guilt - that an editor that is being accused of something did in fact do that something. It's taken straight out of the medieval Inquisition playbook where if you confess, you're declared guilty and made to wear the scarlet letter (community service), and if you don't confess you're thrown into the pyre to see if God will save the innocent from the flames (blocks and bans).
Why is it open to gaming? Simple - accuse some editor you don't like who you're in a content dispute with of something totally ridiculous. When they try to defend themselves against false accusations jump in screaming "see, see, they're not even remorseful! Ban them, community service is too good for them!". Collect your spoils. And of course, given the amount of detail and attention that admins actually pay in making decisions in topics they're unfamiliar with, this kind of thing will work all the time and as a result will HAPPEN all the time. This proposal would work AGAINST the very spirit of what this RfC is trying to ameliorate.
Of course, remorse and confession in cases where it is appropriate is a GOOD THING. But trying to build in a requirement/need for these when deciding sanctions is going to do far more damage than good. It would be another instance where Wikipedia makes the perfect an enemy of the good.
Stay away from this idea. Do we really need to repeat every single Institutional mistake from 100,000+ years of human history? radek ( talk) 13:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Per my comment above, let's create a list of tasks to do and assign them points (or should they all be worth just 1 point)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe one of the most pernicious consequences of nationalism and other POV pushing (fringe views on science and pseudoscientific topics, for instance) is that the attempt to combat it using every method EXCEPT actually making judgments about the facts at issue produces perverse consequences. The effort to fight against POV often becomes completely bogged down in wikilawyering over the exact nature of reliable sources and what is synthesis or original research and what is a valid summary, or how many reverts in how many hours - because there is no other ground on which to make a stand. As a consequence, rigid and maximalist interpretation of policies becomes the only way to fight against POV biases, and this in turn acts to make editing more difficult even on topics that are not subject to nationalist flame wars. My opinion is that the current admins who enforce wikipedia policy need to be supplemented by community chosen content administrator/arbitrators with expert knowledge in the area. It's time to face the fact that in contentious topics, editors with a strongly biased POV are often much more motivated and committed than unbiased editors. The nettle of making content-based decisions about the best available portrayal of truth and terminology must be grasped. At present, "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Ben Kidwell ( talk) 09:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This one is along the lines of the "Tribunes" I suggested at Moreschi's original proposal at AN. As NVO hints at - you're just not going to be able to find enough "content administrators" in troublesome areas, both because people don't want to deal with all the crap and also because a lot of knowledge is pretty specialized (it probably takes far longer to become familiar with a topic area that one hasn't edited much before than to become an admin). I mean, it'd be great if we could find these content administrators, or somehow magically change what people who vote in RfAs base their decisions on but that's mostly wishful thinking.
Rather, having one admin "supervisor" for a particular topic area and devolving some of the most basic admin functions - in particular, page protection and short article blocks - to non-admin editors (the Tribunes) who've shown they know the topic and create content in the area, would work better. The supervisor admin wouldn't have to be a super-expert in a topic area (just some familiarity would be sufficient) and the Tribunes (who'd hold the position for a pre-specified amount of time, not indefinitely) would do the task of putting out the fires before they flame up, and have the knowledge to direct it to appropriate articles/editors. And a successful tenure or two as a Tribune would hopefully be seen positively if the editor ever wants to file an RfA and in the long run (again, being realistic here) would lead to more "content administrators". For more details (probably too many and too sloppily presented) see the suggestion at original threat at AN. radek ( talk) 10:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
@Moreschi, I think we should talk more about is than ought at this stage. Yes, sysops ought to be able to recognise all these things, but they won't. Few such disputes are actually so obvious that the average wiki sysop can see the problem. Yes, the experts often throw tantrums, but that's often partly because they know there'll be no easy way to solve the "dispute" ... as I satirise at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war. Everything's about power. If we're gonna have things like WP:Edit war, they shouldn't just be used to empower hordes of POV pushing tendies. If you are professor at Harvard, and for some reason you are editing in this place, you shouldn't be subject to a revert restriction nor incur "peer" sanctimony for enforcing accuracy on an article in your field area. If you had to revert 10 times, then that's just because you had to ... AND the content of the article is more important than how it got there, because this place is for the readers, not the editors. But the current wiki discourse community thinks the opposite. And that's because it is ideologically crippled, taken over by a series of meme-monsters, and focusing on the egos of its editors and making the admin's job as easy as possible. Nothing will get better until the biggest meme-monsters are slain and these focuses are reorientated. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 10:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
"One of the most pernicious consequences of nationalism and other POV pushing (fringe views on science and pseudoscientific topics, for instance) is that the attempt to combat it using every method EXCEPT actually making judgments about the facts at issue produces perverse consequences." - very well put, Ben Kidwell. Administrators are the problem. Meowy 20:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
RfA is broken. Of importance here is the desire among some RfA regulars to only appoint editors who have no controversies in their histories. Anyone editing tricky areas in wikipedia will have a lot of stuff on their talk page, many ANI links, maybe some blocks, etc. This doesn't always mean they're unsuited for adminship, it may mean they've faced a campaign of harassment. An easy way to fix this is to get more people involved in RfA, and to use the RfA talk pages to discuss the difficulties of tricky WP areas. Using the talk pages avoids the impression of co-ordinated 'badgering' of opposes, and allows many diffs showing discussion, NPOV, reliable verifiable sourcing, etc. It would also help if nominators mentioned in nom statements about difficult areas. This doesn't address the main complaint about RfA, but it's a start. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 ( talk) 13:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
A major problem here is an inability to pick cases of WP:TIGERS: NPOV is guided by WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, as everybody knows. WP:TIGERS dictates that this should be applied to editors. Obviously there are split-down-the-middle cases: Liberalism can and should be written by conservative and liberal Wikipedians, Proto-Indo-European homeland can and should be written by people who follow Renfrew and people who follow Gimbutas on this. Rational application should dictate that homeopathy is not written by edit wars between homeopaths and non-homeopaths, any more than Afrocentrism is written by edit wars between Afrocentrists and non-Afrocentrists, any more than Out of India theory should be written by edit wars between Hindutva and non-Hindutva, any more than tiger is written by both tigers and non-tigers. Yes, there will be marginal cases where "mid-sized minority" isn't quite fringe and isn't quite mainstream, and no one says these are easy. But ultimately admins need to have the ability to get the obvious ones, at least. To pick a really obvious example, there needs to be a strong prejudice against homeopaths editing homeopathy, and the onus needs to be on them to prove their neutrality and ability to write without bias. Not the other way around. This can and should be written into policy somewhere. Moreschi ( talk) 18:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Because of this, sometimes I wonder if the standard shouldn't be usefulness of the information, not a balance of viewpoints. Used in the example I mentioned -- about George W. Bush -- the issue of the quality of his presidency would be omitted for the large part because it is not useful information (anyone looking for that information already has made her/his mind up on the topic), & the article would then focus on what happened during his administration, how it came about & what has been said about them; a reference on one hand & a beginning for further research on the other. However, I doubt this approach will ever be implemented even on a trial basis. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that, whatever you come up with here, don't let it spill over into the rest of Wikipedia. I have been in at least a dozen or so content disputes where little or no admin intervention was necessary, and, faced with Wikipedia's "find consensus" directive, editors have actually proceeded (often somewhat unhappily) to do so - there are certain undesirable trends to that system, but by and large it works well. It's important that, when creating a system to address extreme and fractious cases, you don't inadvertently lose the virtues of the current system, which, for all its flaws, invites and encourages participation from all, at least until deliberate baiting towards incivility and admins with itchy block fingers get involved. I think the current regime under ArbCom has been admirable about defining particular areas where admins are given extraordinary emergency powers, and if I have a criticism, it is mainly that these definitions are too often taken broadly rather than restrictively. Ray Talk 02:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, this has seemed to stall now (which is what happens all too often with good ideas not carried through), so let me hopefully reignite it a bit by making a specific suggestion. It seems that there is a rough agreement here that all too many administrators are not knowledgeable about topic areas, insufficiently familiar with the problems faced by regular editors, detached and aloof from the "proles" that write the encyclopedia, too much interested in their "Wiki-careers" then in the actual content of the project and so on. So how about this simple rule:
Any administrator whose contribution to the Article portion of their mainspace edits falls below 20% of their total, or if the sum of Article and Talk falls below 25% of their total, will automatically be placed on the Open for Recall list.
With the % being determined simply by Soxred93's [1].
Since part of the complaint has been that the RfA process is broken because voters focus on lack of controversy and other "vanilla" qualities rather than content creation, this would basically be attacking this problem from the other end.
Yes, yes, I know there's ways to game this (bots and all) but it will be an additional constraint and at least in RfAs it's something that could be scrutinized (i.e. I see that you've got 30% of your edits in Article, but when we subtract bot edits that ends up being like 10%). radek ( talk) 07:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Following on from User:Moreschi's comments at Administrators Noticeboard about "The Plague" (of nationalism, but similar issues can apply on religion), this RFC is to brainstorm/examine ideas which might help with the general problem of nationalist editing on Wikipedia. Any promising ideas would then be developed further in individual RFCs. An example of a prior RFC of this type is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users.
Rd232 talk 17:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, to kick things off, here's a suggestion ( Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Community_service:_Wikisource) that as an additional tool (versus blocks and bans), editors involved in conflict might be given "community service", such as transcribing documents on Wikisource. Equally, editors might be required to do specified maintenance tasks, such as wikifying 50 articles from the relevant maintenance category to a reasonable standard (listing them on a user subpage for easy checking). Particularly appropriate in conflict cases might be identifying tasks which require editors to do substantive maintenance work (wikification requires relatively little thought for experienced editors) on areas other than those where conflict has arisen, such as adding appropriate references to 25 random unreferenced BLPs (excluding any which relate at all to the problem topic). Rd232 talk 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record in spirit of being upfront, I am an involved party at the current Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (although not as a member of the web brigade mailing list). In responding to some of the above, what Radek points out is not all that should be considered with such a hypothetical alternative, although he is clearly writing about specific events/editors. Other things that would need to be considered are:
It is my opinion that things such as community service could be used a carrot in some low level circumstances, but not in matters where a stick is actually warranted. In the case that Radeksz is clearly referring to, I can only concur with NVO's opinion, in that community service is something that an editor can do to help them return to editing. I will say, that when I have found myself being stressed onwiki, and knowing that I may get myself in the shit if I don't destress, I will often go to Commons and upload materials there; uploading of materials to commons could be another option; or checking categorisation of files with no categories, etc, but this should only be used for low level offences. -- Russavia Dialogue 11:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I see community service as an alternative to a block/ban. It should be applied to editors who promise to avoid disruptive behavior that resulted in the sanction (such a promise can be further enhanced by restrictions, voluntary or not, such as 1RR or article bans or such). If such editors refuse to do community service or break the restrictions during the period they were set for the community service should be "upgraded" to a block/ban. An important function of the community service is that it shows the community still has (limited, but still) trust and respect for an editor, which is likely to increase his/her productivity and prevent them from leaving the project after a perceived injustice. Even more importantly, it helps the project. A banned editor taking forced wikiholidays helps no one, the same editor doing community service work is an undeniable asset. Remember: our punishments are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. People who express regret at their actions and want to atone for them should be given a chance to do so. Things to consider:
PS. Disclaimer: I am currently facing a potential block/ban myself and I'd prefer to help the community via community service rather than take a forced holiday from the project (to which I've contributed for over 5 years and in which I am the 57th most active editor...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment: whilst it's suggested as an alternative to blocks and bans, some of the appeal of community service is that it might be a measure actually employed for lesser offences where people are reluctant to block/ban. WP:CIVIL violations in particular might spring to mind. In some cases such community service might phrased as recommended "penance" or "atonement" to demonstrate good will, rather than a mandatory measure, and refusal to do it might count against the editor in future. Rd232 talk 12:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to add something here that disagrees with both Piotrus and Russavia. And that's a VERY BIG OBJECTION to the idea that an editor's "remorse" or "confessions" should be a factor in deciding whether community service or a block is the appropriate action. History of disruptive action, or lack of it, YES, of course. But "remorse" and "confessions" definitely NO. Why? Simple - it's a horrible guideline in the making, horrible incentives, potentially (likely) very unfair and wayyyyyyy open to gaming. It builds in a presumption of guilt - that an editor that is being accused of something did in fact do that something. It's taken straight out of the medieval Inquisition playbook where if you confess, you're declared guilty and made to wear the scarlet letter (community service), and if you don't confess you're thrown into the pyre to see if God will save the innocent from the flames (blocks and bans).
Why is it open to gaming? Simple - accuse some editor you don't like who you're in a content dispute with of something totally ridiculous. When they try to defend themselves against false accusations jump in screaming "see, see, they're not even remorseful! Ban them, community service is too good for them!". Collect your spoils. And of course, given the amount of detail and attention that admins actually pay in making decisions in topics they're unfamiliar with, this kind of thing will work all the time and as a result will HAPPEN all the time. This proposal would work AGAINST the very spirit of what this RfC is trying to ameliorate.
Of course, remorse and confession in cases where it is appropriate is a GOOD THING. But trying to build in a requirement/need for these when deciding sanctions is going to do far more damage than good. It would be another instance where Wikipedia makes the perfect an enemy of the good.
Stay away from this idea. Do we really need to repeat every single Institutional mistake from 100,000+ years of human history? radek ( talk) 13:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Per my comment above, let's create a list of tasks to do and assign them points (or should they all be worth just 1 point)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe one of the most pernicious consequences of nationalism and other POV pushing (fringe views on science and pseudoscientific topics, for instance) is that the attempt to combat it using every method EXCEPT actually making judgments about the facts at issue produces perverse consequences. The effort to fight against POV often becomes completely bogged down in wikilawyering over the exact nature of reliable sources and what is synthesis or original research and what is a valid summary, or how many reverts in how many hours - because there is no other ground on which to make a stand. As a consequence, rigid and maximalist interpretation of policies becomes the only way to fight against POV biases, and this in turn acts to make editing more difficult even on topics that are not subject to nationalist flame wars. My opinion is that the current admins who enforce wikipedia policy need to be supplemented by community chosen content administrator/arbitrators with expert knowledge in the area. It's time to face the fact that in contentious topics, editors with a strongly biased POV are often much more motivated and committed than unbiased editors. The nettle of making content-based decisions about the best available portrayal of truth and terminology must be grasped. At present, "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Ben Kidwell ( talk) 09:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This one is along the lines of the "Tribunes" I suggested at Moreschi's original proposal at AN. As NVO hints at - you're just not going to be able to find enough "content administrators" in troublesome areas, both because people don't want to deal with all the crap and also because a lot of knowledge is pretty specialized (it probably takes far longer to become familiar with a topic area that one hasn't edited much before than to become an admin). I mean, it'd be great if we could find these content administrators, or somehow magically change what people who vote in RfAs base their decisions on but that's mostly wishful thinking.
Rather, having one admin "supervisor" for a particular topic area and devolving some of the most basic admin functions - in particular, page protection and short article blocks - to non-admin editors (the Tribunes) who've shown they know the topic and create content in the area, would work better. The supervisor admin wouldn't have to be a super-expert in a topic area (just some familiarity would be sufficient) and the Tribunes (who'd hold the position for a pre-specified amount of time, not indefinitely) would do the task of putting out the fires before they flame up, and have the knowledge to direct it to appropriate articles/editors. And a successful tenure or two as a Tribune would hopefully be seen positively if the editor ever wants to file an RfA and in the long run (again, being realistic here) would lead to more "content administrators". For more details (probably too many and too sloppily presented) see the suggestion at original threat at AN. radek ( talk) 10:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
@Moreschi, I think we should talk more about is than ought at this stage. Yes, sysops ought to be able to recognise all these things, but they won't. Few such disputes are actually so obvious that the average wiki sysop can see the problem. Yes, the experts often throw tantrums, but that's often partly because they know there'll be no easy way to solve the "dispute" ... as I satirise at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/How to win a revert war. Everything's about power. If we're gonna have things like WP:Edit war, they shouldn't just be used to empower hordes of POV pushing tendies. If you are professor at Harvard, and for some reason you are editing in this place, you shouldn't be subject to a revert restriction nor incur "peer" sanctimony for enforcing accuracy on an article in your field area. If you had to revert 10 times, then that's just because you had to ... AND the content of the article is more important than how it got there, because this place is for the readers, not the editors. But the current wiki discourse community thinks the opposite. And that's because it is ideologically crippled, taken over by a series of meme-monsters, and focusing on the egos of its editors and making the admin's job as easy as possible. Nothing will get better until the biggest meme-monsters are slain and these focuses are reorientated. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 10:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
"One of the most pernicious consequences of nationalism and other POV pushing (fringe views on science and pseudoscientific topics, for instance) is that the attempt to combat it using every method EXCEPT actually making judgments about the facts at issue produces perverse consequences." - very well put, Ben Kidwell. Administrators are the problem. Meowy 20:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
RfA is broken. Of importance here is the desire among some RfA regulars to only appoint editors who have no controversies in their histories. Anyone editing tricky areas in wikipedia will have a lot of stuff on their talk page, many ANI links, maybe some blocks, etc. This doesn't always mean they're unsuited for adminship, it may mean they've faced a campaign of harassment. An easy way to fix this is to get more people involved in RfA, and to use the RfA talk pages to discuss the difficulties of tricky WP areas. Using the talk pages avoids the impression of co-ordinated 'badgering' of opposes, and allows many diffs showing discussion, NPOV, reliable verifiable sourcing, etc. It would also help if nominators mentioned in nom statements about difficult areas. This doesn't address the main complaint about RfA, but it's a start. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 ( talk) 13:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
A major problem here is an inability to pick cases of WP:TIGERS: NPOV is guided by WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, as everybody knows. WP:TIGERS dictates that this should be applied to editors. Obviously there are split-down-the-middle cases: Liberalism can and should be written by conservative and liberal Wikipedians, Proto-Indo-European homeland can and should be written by people who follow Renfrew and people who follow Gimbutas on this. Rational application should dictate that homeopathy is not written by edit wars between homeopaths and non-homeopaths, any more than Afrocentrism is written by edit wars between Afrocentrists and non-Afrocentrists, any more than Out of India theory should be written by edit wars between Hindutva and non-Hindutva, any more than tiger is written by both tigers and non-tigers. Yes, there will be marginal cases where "mid-sized minority" isn't quite fringe and isn't quite mainstream, and no one says these are easy. But ultimately admins need to have the ability to get the obvious ones, at least. To pick a really obvious example, there needs to be a strong prejudice against homeopaths editing homeopathy, and the onus needs to be on them to prove their neutrality and ability to write without bias. Not the other way around. This can and should be written into policy somewhere. Moreschi ( talk) 18:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Because of this, sometimes I wonder if the standard shouldn't be usefulness of the information, not a balance of viewpoints. Used in the example I mentioned -- about George W. Bush -- the issue of the quality of his presidency would be omitted for the large part because it is not useful information (anyone looking for that information already has made her/his mind up on the topic), & the article would then focus on what happened during his administration, how it came about & what has been said about them; a reference on one hand & a beginning for further research on the other. However, I doubt this approach will ever be implemented even on a trial basis. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that, whatever you come up with here, don't let it spill over into the rest of Wikipedia. I have been in at least a dozen or so content disputes where little or no admin intervention was necessary, and, faced with Wikipedia's "find consensus" directive, editors have actually proceeded (often somewhat unhappily) to do so - there are certain undesirable trends to that system, but by and large it works well. It's important that, when creating a system to address extreme and fractious cases, you don't inadvertently lose the virtues of the current system, which, for all its flaws, invites and encourages participation from all, at least until deliberate baiting towards incivility and admins with itchy block fingers get involved. I think the current regime under ArbCom has been admirable about defining particular areas where admins are given extraordinary emergency powers, and if I have a criticism, it is mainly that these definitions are too often taken broadly rather than restrictively. Ray Talk 02:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, this has seemed to stall now (which is what happens all too often with good ideas not carried through), so let me hopefully reignite it a bit by making a specific suggestion. It seems that there is a rough agreement here that all too many administrators are not knowledgeable about topic areas, insufficiently familiar with the problems faced by regular editors, detached and aloof from the "proles" that write the encyclopedia, too much interested in their "Wiki-careers" then in the actual content of the project and so on. So how about this simple rule:
Any administrator whose contribution to the Article portion of their mainspace edits falls below 20% of their total, or if the sum of Article and Talk falls below 25% of their total, will automatically be placed on the Open for Recall list.
With the % being determined simply by Soxred93's [1].
Since part of the complaint has been that the RfA process is broken because voters focus on lack of controversy and other "vanilla" qualities rather than content creation, this would basically be attacking this problem from the other end.
Yes, yes, I know there's ways to game this (bots and all) but it will be an additional constraint and at least in RfAs it's something that could be scrutinized (i.e. I see that you've got 30% of your edits in Article, but when we subtract bot edits that ends up being like 10%). radek ( talk) 07:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)