Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:47, 1 May 2013

This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions.

Archives

2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 Most recent Template:Archiveline Template:Archiveline

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Current time: 14:39:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Purge this page

RfC: Proposal for RfA conduct clarification (amendments to editnotice and addition to Template:RfA)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Trevj has asked that this be closed, so I'm closing it as no consensus. SlimVirgin 23:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Formerly As part of the discussions arising from a recent RfA I've worked up some proposals to attempt to clarify things for participants. There's been some recent discussion on my talk page, and it now seems time to seek wider views. -- Trevj (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC note: Because of the relatively low participation levels here so far, at what is sometimes a busy place, I'm now starting an RfC on this. If consensus is clear before the 30 days are up, it may be appropriate to close it early. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Outline

1. {{RfA/sandbox}} is based on {{RfA}}
2. It includes the #Conduct clarification section, which is currently at Template:RfA conduct clarification/sandbox (should this approach be adopted, it may be best to directly include the text, due to the substitution of {{RfA}})
3. User:Trevj/Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/sandbox is based on {{Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship}} (in userspace because of the protection on editnotices) - the {{cot}} title could be replaced with Conduct clarification but the current transclusion arrangement uses the title Applicable to all

Rationale

1. There may be a need to clarify when it's appropriate for candidates to publicly thank others
2. Badgering is something which comes up from time to time, and perhaps also deserves an explicit mention

Questions

1. Would something along these lines offer an improvement (bearing in mind that we should avoid instruction creep)?
2. If so, can wording be agreed upon here?
3. If the proposal (or a variant of it) offers no improvement, how else can we better address the matters raised?

Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I strongly endorse the clarifications regarding (1) the prohibition of canvassing by any and all parties regarding an RfA, and (2) the prohibition of talk page thank-you notes by candidates until the RfA is closed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Simple fix to a real problem. Garamond Lethet
  c 21:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment While the effort is appreciated, I'm not sure this is a good idea for several reasons. Some things - like civility and badgering - cannot be defined and we don't want editors to err on the side of timidity. The badgering clause, for example, may actually end up having a chilling effect on discussions (candidates may be wary of asking legitimate questions from an oppose !voter because of the badgering clause). The "off topic" clause is practically an invitation to editors to move things to the talk page. Once moved, it becomes harder for others to move them back. The 'diffs' suggestion is the only workable one and even that needs to be modified to "try to provide diffs'. We can't expect every !voter to provide diffs (see the support section of any RfA!). I could add that many of the things being advised against are actually good ways to get the measure of a candidate as well but, even without that, this is not a good idea. --regentspark (comment) 21:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. What about the bit concerning not canvassing? (The diff note is lifted from {{Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship}}, and isn't my wording.) -- Trevj (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not so sure this is a good idea. Its not just CREEP; one of the things we look for in a potential admin is CLUE. If we actually have to instruct them not to do this, then it is likely they aren't ready for the bit. Puppy (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Does no harm but as the previous editor points out, it should be obvious that sending thank you messages before closure is naive. Leaky Caldron 14:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
• Wrong Place. Instead, I would suggest that Misplaced Pages:Guide to requests for adminship#Thankspam be slightly edited to give guidance during an RfA instead of being for successful candidates as it stands now. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(Here by request of RFC Bot) While i'm leaning towards oppose because of the idea of not being able to thank people for taking part in an RfA before it closes just doesn't seem fair to judge to me i'm also aware of the suggestion that Badgering needs to be mentioned and i'm probably missing a lot of factors here so i'm gonna lean towards Neutral for this one. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 09:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (original poster) I'm restoring this RfC from Archive 222, because it's not yet been closed. Therefore, I'm also requesting closure. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  In closing this, maybe it'd be helpful if some reference could be made to comments raised in the 2013 RfC (which I've not been following closely). Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose --Amadscientist (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  Is there any chance of you expanding on that, please (and maybe addressing question 3)? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've just dropped a {{talkback}} template in connection with this. In the absence of any expansion here, I trust that the closer will weight the above comment appropriately. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

  Sorry, I should have expanded. I don't really think it has been demonstrated that a problem exists that needs fixing here. and agree with Puppy that this is instruction creep by adding something not necessarily needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with the concerns given by RegentsPark and Puppy above. One of the things I look at when !voting is how the administrator handles themselves during the RfA. If we do want to be more explicit here though I agree with Guy Macon that it should be in the guidance thankspam section. PaleAqua (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Closers will be needed

... in early May for WT:Protected Page Editor. I know it's unusual to ask in advance, but it sometimes takes a while to get closers for these. I got no takers at WP:AN. I'm also asking at WP:BN; anyone have an idea where else I might ask? - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wizardman is in; one slot left. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Willing to help out if you don't find a second. I'm not planning to contribute to that discussion (no opinion!).--regentspark (comment) 18:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic. Sven Manguard and Secret have also offered, so we've got 5 so far. I take back my "one slot left" comment ... the more people talking about this and working on it, the better. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Any other closers? I'll add the "discussion" template to stop the RfC after 30 days, early on May 3 (UTC). Would any of you like to start working on a joint closing statement, or would you prefer individual closing statements? - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'm ready to discuss, I think a joint closing statement would be useful here, for me the consensus is rather clear but we need to sort though all the arguements of both the support and the oppose. Besides me, RegentsPark, Sven and Wizardman who is the fifth closer? Secret 16:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Me. I'm fine with working on it here, or by email. - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to pull out of doing the close because I voted. Sorry. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that, maybe next time. Who's in for the close, and when do you want to start working on it? I'll be hatting the discussion on Thursday evening (US Eastern time), when the 30 days runs. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I could look through it Thurs night; anyone else closing? Wizardman 17:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I could put aside a couple of hours on Thursday afternoon. Secret, should we just send you our opinions and you write up a summary version? --regentspark (comment) 19:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll email you guys a few thoughts on Thursday. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?

I am conducting a survey at the link above to accomplish two things. First, I hope to gather a list of some potential future candidates interested in cratship. Second, I hope to be able to use the results of the survey as solid evidence of how admins view the RfB process and what factors cause the very low amount of activity. Anyone is welcome to comment, but the input of admins is particularly desired. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 14:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have this conversation every couple of weeks, and as far as I can remember always come to the same conclusion - that RfB activity is low, but it doesn't matter as there isn't a lot of 'crat-specific work and the current 'crats themselves don't feel overworked. I'm not criticising the process you're running there, but I can't see the need to have this debate yet again. Basalisk ⁄_berate 17:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal April 2013

Based on

• Jimbo's quote about adminship being "no big deal"
• Apoc. 13:1. And I saw a beast coming up out the sea, ...

• Interpretation: a monster (being) coming out of the sea of unfairness (sins) shows no mercy.

Assuming

• There is a minority blocking the consensus decision-making process at Misplaced Pages, by abusing its veto right.

I propose following solution bundle

RfA on probation:

• By a majority's decision greater than 61.8034% (golden ratio rule)

Confirming RfA after 6 months:

• By a majority's decision greater than 61.8034% (golden ratio rule)

First safety valve, desysop:

• 'Confirming RfA' is triggered by 20 votes (one ninth of about 180 votes/ RfA)

Second safety valve, RfA stop:

• the RfA process stops each year after 200 successful RfAs (2008 statistics)

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well a Misplaced Pages consensus doesn't work after the Misplaced Pages hype in 2007. Even a pope election gets problems with a two thirds majority. It seemed to me that a golden ratio is high enough. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Novel proposal but clearly not one that will gain any traction. Seriously? Beasts in the sea? Spartaz 14:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Well, let's see. Random bible(?) quote in opening, followed by a false assumption, followed by some sort of weird math theory of how to elect people...no, I don't think this is comprehensible, much less workable. It might help if you could explain what's up with the quote, weird ratios, etc - maybe it makes sense to you, but it doesn't to me (or, probably, anyone else). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't believe that it is a false assumption. I think that I'm old enough to know that it's true. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

    You know that there is a cohesive minority group deliberately and in bad faith blocking attempts to reach consensus on this issue? That's what's implied by your saying that they are "blocking" consensus by "abusing" their veto right, and it's an astoundingly bad-faith accusation. You're not saying that it's difficult to reach consensus, or that the sheer numbers of people participating means that majorities are rarely reached, or even that the existence of a significant minority unbalances discussions, but that people are deliberately obstructing attempts to reach consensus. And frankly, given how hard it is to get anyone on Misplaced Pages to agree or cooperate on anything, I very much doubt that such a conspiracy exists. If you have evidence that it does, you ought to take it directly to Arbcom. If you don't, you may want to consider re-wording your point so that it says something more realistic. Perhaps "I think we should discount the largest minority opinion in any deliberation over RFA reform" or something? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Doing some investigating, I see that English is not your native language, so it's probably better for me to explain how you seem to be making a point here you might not have intended to make, rather than assume you were making that point. So, to that end: the way you phrased your "assuming" section, you appear to be saying that you believe and know to be true the fact that there are people who, operating in bad faith, are trying to keep consensus from happening by abusing their rights/powers. If that's what you truly meant, then evidence of such a conspiracy should be sent to Arbcom or presented on ANI, so we can get it dealt with, and if you can't or won't provide that evidence, such an accusation can be consiered a personal attack. On the other hand, if what you actually intended to say was something more like "loud minorities seem to pop up in any discussion and they keep consensus from forming", then yes, that's probably true, but I personally don't feel we can deal with that by somehow nullifying the position of the minorities, which is what would happen if we adopted your proposal and said "well, we can't get consensus on reform, so we're just going to institute it anyway." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

    • Well, we had KZs and Gulags. You assume that there is only sporadic conspiracy around us. The world history, on the other hand, tells me that the conspiracy tool is quite used. All have gut feeling and instinct. I believe that if we make a WP:RfC on: "do you believe that the consensus-building process is being blocked by loud minorities", we'll get a majority agreeing with it. This is no evidence for Arbcom, but it'd be still a fact. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• About the only part of this proposal that I really understand is that it is in English. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, this is very confusing. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• You can't set exact percentages or ranges and set such precise and specific targets for confirmation or desysopping, it makes it far too easy to game for the candidate, supporters and detractors for each of the given set of circumstances. We trust the people we make bureaucrats precisely because we feel they'll make the correct decision most of the time. It used to be said the worst administrators (or rather, those more likely to be desysopped by ArbCom) were those who passed well into the 90% range and closer to 100%, don't know if that's still the case but obsessing about 61.8034% isn't where you should be looking. Nick (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought that it was a wonderful idea. I got the feeling that the decision making process is getting blocked by a minority :
• Oppose. SpongeBob comes from under the sea, and he is certainly a merciful fellow. — Scott • talk 16:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I might be wrong, but SpongeBob never leaves the sea ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Probation was recently discussed at length and rejected. WP:Requests_for_adminship/2013_RfC/3#Probationary_period_for_.28at_least_some.29_new_admins Leaky Caldron 16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I have to read that :
• I'd love to know who these editors with veto rights are. Seriously, why post a reform proposal here when you are so obviously uninformed?--Atlan (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Nothing to be sorry about Chris. Its great to see people are trying to change the RFA process. Everyone knows its broken, dozens of discussions have taken place about fixing it and what the problems are. Precisely Zero have ever met consensus showing without a doubt that the community lacks the ability to do any meaningful changes related to RFA. Discussions are frequently derailed by doom and gloom about how the WMF will not approve this or that. Unfortunately at this point any changes to the RFA process are going to have to come from the WMF or the Arbcom (our version of the Supreme Court if you aren't familiar with them) and be thrust upon the community. Which would probably not be well received but frankly we get what we deserve at this point. Thanks for trying. Kumioko (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Thx Kumioko, nice to meet u ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree with Kuioko's opening. I, too, appreciate attempts and ideas at reforming RFA. More ideas are always better than fewer. Very few of them gain any traction, but that doesn't mean that non of them will. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Does not address the reasons why we have too few candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• These proposals always rely on one of two assumptions: A) People don't apply because they think they will fail; or B) People don't apply because they don't look forward to being torn apart. Lowering the threshold naturally solves a lot of A, assuming it is true. Regarding B, this idea has been floated around a bunch that if you make it easier to remove an admin, then people won't feel a need to be so vicious in opposing them in the first place. Most of these assumptions are questionable. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

People who think they will fail probably will. Lowering the threshold would risk putting us back to pre 2007 days where most of the defrocked admins come from. Hence lower criteria would just create more work all round and possibly evoke even more skepticism about the ambitions, maturity, and the proficiency of the candidates. In reality, there is no theshold, it its set anew for each RfA depending on who turns out to vote. If we were to set fixed criteria for edit count, content creations, participation in meta areas, etc., we would be ignoring the very important research that is done by dedicated voters who turn up some very relevant reasons to opppose. All that is needed is for opposers to be a bit nicer in the way they express themselves - the main threholds that needs to be changed are the ones for civility and objective voting on RfA and hence significantly reducing to the drama; untill these are changed, any kind of alternative process will still invite the same nastiness. A quick glance at recent RfAs will demonstrate that apart from a handful of regulars, most of the voters are a transient bunch of people, as has been demonstrated by statistacs that were extrapolated during the WP:RFA2011 campaign.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

@User:Someguy1221. Nice summary. Making easier to remove a new admin, can help. If you don't like the situation as it is now, then you have to change something. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@User:Kudpung. As I understand, my proposal changes one criteria only: from something like 80-70% support votes now to 61.8%. The rest is left unchanged. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as too complicated. I've noted that a number of people do not like to participate in the discussion at RFA because they feel like they will get badgered, and some are. Not everyone is as thick skinned as some of us old fools. There are a number of problems with RfA, but adding complexity seems to be counterintuitive as a solution. Greater participation by reasonable editors, plus less bludgeoning during the process would make it more tolerable. Lowering the bar to compensate for what is perceived as "bad opposers" is more than a little controversial. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

A simple way to improve the situation. Establish some good criteria, and then have the norm for respondents to rate or discuss meeting those criteria. This would thin out responses based only on popularity contests, grudges, and the defacto "have you avoided difficult situations" criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/No big deal?

We often hear people cite the "old" proverb that adminship is no big deal. The RfC linked above asks you to objectively say if you believe the Misplaced Pages community currently treats adminship as if it is no big deal. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Serious, mature, objective, and hard-working admins are well aware that adminship is absolutely no big deal. What has turned it into a big deal are the trials and tribulations of going through a week of unpleasantness which is suffered by even those who pass in the end with flying colours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to respond to this RFC in some detail, but realized it's pointless. OWN of policy will prevent any serious discussion or change. Intothatdarkness 13:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'OWN of policy' but a couple of things are strikingly clear: the turnout for the spate of well intended RfCs during the first quarter of this year was exceptionally low - so low that even a well publicised central RfC proposal for a major change in the way admins are selected/elected would probably not attract sufficient quorum for a major policy change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's no big deal, why do so many people make it such a big deal, especially at RFA/RFB? PumpkinSky talk 01:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OWN of policy is pretty easy to understand, really. Over time, people who have been involved in creation of policy become vested in that policy. Just like OWNing articles, OWNing policy is a real issue (although it's not discussed or really addressed). OWNing policy and the various shadow bureaucracies are two of the main reasons things are dysfunctional. Intothatdarkness 13:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-serious answer to Pumpkin Sky—Sayre's law--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Having thought about this issue for several years now, my conclusion is that adminship is a medium-sized deal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Best answer yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• +1 Wifione 08:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This will no doubt seem pedantic but it isn't about the tools - it's all about control and that's why it is a big deal. I've no interest in having an unbundling debate, but it is specifically the ability to stop people editing (block, protect), to destroy their work (delete) and to act as a quasi-judge at ANI that makes it a big deal. If admins had no special power to sit in judgement but just neutrally implemented the judgement of the community at large, then people would be less concerned about who had the buttons. QuiteUnusual (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to explain the difference between the two, go right ahead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

An example: AfDs require judgement from the closer on the arguments being made, so people are sensitive about granting the rights needed to close the AfD (i.e., delete). If AfDs were closed solely on the basis of a vote rather than weighing up consensus and policy (e.g., 80% in favour of the outcome with at least 10 people voting) then it really wouldn't matter who had the ability to delete because they could only use it in line with the community consensus, not their own opinion or judgement. Another example: Imagine there was an elected role of "Misplaced Pages Judge" that had no extra buttons but was empowered to make all decisions, like judging consensus in an AfD. All an admin could do is implement a Judge's decision. I can pretty much guarantee that RFJs would be like RFA today, and RFA would become no big deal again - anyone who appeared trustworthy to use the rights in a technically correct way would pass. In other words, I would advocate separating in some way "trusted to use the tools" and "trusted to sit in judgement". I have no practical suggestions for doing this - I was perhaps misguidedly trying to help explain where I think the problem lies QuiteUnusual (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the root cause of your confusion here is your misunderstanding of what consensus is. Having admins with a clue who would ignore head counts is a massive win for us, and indeed the only practical way to make decisions on a project with an effectively unlimited contributor base. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Adminship is no big deal in the sense that it's no honour or prestige. Being an admin doesn't make you taller, prettier, smarter, or better in bed. It's an enormous deal in the sense that it gives you control over the web's most used site for information. So we have to be quite careful about who we let become admins, because the consequences of letting the wrong person be an admin can be diasterousmostly explained here, but the only thing they get is a sinking feeling whenever they log in and see "You have new messages." WilyD 16:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done properly, adminship isn't about control, it is about implementation. Everything an admin does is supposed to be in line with current consensus, ie: if I block someone, the judgement I should use is "If this went to ANI, a consensus would say to block". The community has simply given me the tools to implement the actions, after they decided I had the common sense and experience to know when to bring it to an admin board and when to just make the call and save them the time. Theoretically, this is how it supposed to work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

After you've been blocked for one second, or for using the word "sycophantic", you may start to feel differently Dennis. Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, give it a rest. I think that everyone is aware of your butthurt by now. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 18:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Of (a) people walking around with chips on their shoulders, and (b) people who take every opportunity to knock the chips off other peoples' shoulders, the latter are much more loathsome and far more disruptive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Does my "butthurt" in some way invalidate my comment Scottywong, and if so how? Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't invalidate your comment, it just makes you annoying, and therefore less likely to have your complaints addressed. Everyone is aware of the trials and tribulations that the Great Malleus has had to withstand, no need for continual reminders. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 18:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Listen to Scottywong, know your place and be quiet Malleus. Scottywong is an admin, you are one of the disposables. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a serious error by responding here, not noticing that I would be in breach of my ArbCom sanction, so Scottywong may have his playground to himself. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's entirely wrong. Being an admin gives me a large amount of control - if nothing else, admins are entrusted with the power to determine the consensus of a discussion. Very few decisions are ever reviewed, and unless you're working in a really public place, it's because nobody's watching. If you want adminship to be about implementation, you need an enormous amount of trust in admins, because what this board hands out is control. WilyD 08:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict; outdent) The takeaway from this subthread, which is running off the rails very quickly, is that adminship is a big deal in the sense that an administrator who makes poor decisions, particularly with regard to blocking, can do a lot of damage. Most of us are keenly aware of this fact, but it's good to bear it in mind.

The use on Misplaced Pages of terms such as "butthurt" should be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Could we please have a list of words that non admins should avoid. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I do generally avoid the use of such terms, except in cases where no better adjective exists to describe the situation. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've always found it rather insulting when people insist that adminship (taken as a whole) is no big deal. Any time you give someone the ability to deny or block access it becomes a big deal. Couple that with life tenure subject to little review or real scrutiny and it remains a big deal. There are parts of the admin tool set that are indeed not a big deal, and some that might register as a medium deal. And people can be as keenly aware of that fact (blocking coupled with poor decisions) as they wish, but that awareness should be coupled with the understanding that it's that part of admining that IS a big deal. Denying that is, to me, a symptom of OWNing policy. Intothatdarkness 22:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Dennis Brown referred above to how the admin system is "supposed to work". Is there some place where the purpose or aims of the admin system are set out in a coherent fashion? Something similar to a mission statement, or perhaps a constitution, since the admins form a power base on Misplaced Pages and give themselves draconian powers over content builders. I, for one, would like to know what it is admins think they are here for, as admins. I would have thought the core guiding principle would be that the actions of admins should facilitate the building of the encyclopaedia. But it is clear that something quite different often goes on. Are critics such as Malleus now being banned from participating on boards like this? Is Malleus actually banned, as he suggested above, or could he be said to be banned by some stretch of the imagination? There is a current fashion of imposing vague edit restrictions on editors so if they edit something at the outer conceivable extreme of the restriction, something that as Sandstein usually expresses it, can be "broadly construed" as breaking the restriction, they can then be blocked for a long period. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question about Malleus, yes, the Arbitration Committee has topic banned Malleus from making any edits related to the RFA process, except for !voting and asking questions in RFAs themselves (in general you can check for these kinds of restrictions/topic bans on WP:RESTRICT). FunPika 23:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

An exemplary warning to all of us who are not admins. Am I permitted to ask how admins know what they are here for? Admins often make pronouncements on these boards about what they are here for. How do they know how the admin system is "supposed to work"? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the Administrators' reading list. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a list of articles about specific areas. Where's the mission statement or its equivalent setting out what admins are here for and what their core guiding principles are? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators would seem to include this information. Is there something you believe should be included there that is missing? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The section Expectations of adminship touches on this. It says with the vagueness that often characterises admin policies and guidelines, that "Administrator tools are... used with judgment... Administrators are expected to lead by example..." and "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools...". Just to what extent they are accountable is not really set out – I have never seen an admin desopped for behaving abusively towards content builders. But this falls well short of some sort of mission statement or constitution, which would clearly set out what admins are trying to achieve on Misplaced Pages, how they should go about it, and might also clarify any dignity or rights that might be accorded to content builders and other workers on Misplaced Pages. For example, should the admin system be about facilitating the building of the encyclopaedia or should it be about other things, what quality of relationship should be cultivated with content builders and other key members of the community, and to what extent would the admin system be committed to remedying matters when it is clear it falls short. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Good questions. For what it's worth, there was a failed proposal on admin accountability many years ago. Given that even attempts to change the RfA process consistently fail, I'm guessing that it would be very difficult indeed to reach agreement on a mission statement. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's true. I just wanted to establish whether there was anything like a mission statement. There's no point in trying to construct one now; the system is too dysfunctional to achieve anything coherent or rational in that direction. It will have to wait till the current system collapses, and is replaced by something more workable. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If, hypothetically (ahem), someone ran for admin with an enforceable undertaking of (a) not blocking anyone; and (b) a strict term limit, would that affect your view of the candidate or the process? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)