Misplaced Pages

<*nod*> It's an old trick discovered by User:Radiant!. When a process like RFA is failing, when you threaten to shut it down, sometimes (counter-intuitively) it picks up.

This is only a temporary side effect. There is no guarantee the the underlying systemic problems have magically vanished somehow. :-P

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC) That, and I feel that I'm a really unconvincing boogieman.

That's right. Every so often we hit an arbitrary benchmark, or some event happens that gets everyone here all worked up about the status of RfA, and then we have a brief flurry of RfAs in reaction. We still had an abysmal 1 promotion last month, and we'll have a few more than that this month, but nothing ever really changes. Swarm 18:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

@AutomaticStrikeout: Who me? I haven't even been an admin for a year yet, and have very little interest in working at WP:CHU. And even less interest in putting myself through RfA again. I seriously doubt I'd succeed even if I tried. ‑Scottywong| express _ 19:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I probably mentioned you because I've seen your name a lot, particularly on this page. AutomaticStrikeout 01:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Come on Scotty, you would pass RfA. You would get the usual crowd consisting of everyone you've ever blocked, but most everyone else would support you. This is why I like working SPIs, all my blocks are from indef'ed sockmasters who can't vote without being caught ;) I've always thought periodic reconfirmations of 50%+1 would be worthwhile, but I understand and respect the opposition to it. We do have to make contentious calls on a fairly regular basis. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For the most part I generally support people who do content-related work. Those who are willing to work with in SPIs and AIVs will certainly have to deal with a lot retaliation and critism. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think oftentimes, the problem is that the candidate is expected to have a lot of experience in a lot of areas. Frankly, I think as long as the candidate would be a good admin in the areas where they intend to participate, that is what really matters. Btw Buick, when are you going to run? AutomaticStrikeout 01:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've eyed it several times, but I have had a few off months so I am probably going to get a few opposes (see my second try). However I am open to a nomination. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I have something else on-Wiki that I'm starting to heavily consider right now and I don't really know a whole lot about you. You could always ask someone from here for a nomination. There's definitely some good options there. AutomaticStrikeout 04:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Nominating people is a good start, but there was a reason there weren't any noms. How to address the systemic issues? The 'current best move' I can think of might be to just talk to everyone who is not properly participating in the process and teach them to do it properly. I mean, what else should we do, not take action where people are clearly misunderstanding the process?

That said, apparently folks don't entirely agree on what the point of the process is. That might need to be nailed down first :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC) It's those finicky little details like "what are we really trying to do here" that tend to trip you up the most O:-)

RFA is highly susceptible to groupthink, so I don't think you can convince people who misunderstand the process that anything is wrong. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, exactly. Wiki processes that have been running for a long time sometimes do fall afoul of groupthink. At that point, so far, we end up having to shut them down. Any solution other than shutdown may have to take the groupthink into account.

That said, a number of editors working together *can* counterbalance groupthink to an extent. Whether or not you can get a sufficient number of people together in this particular case is a different matter of course. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Sergecross73 looks set to get the mop in about a day's time. Basalisk looks to have a pretty reasonable chance for three days from now. And Bgwhite seems set to sail through by 6 days from now short of some kind of explosion. How long will this mysterious good mood last? — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was noticing the positive swing too. Maybe I should try my second run now ? I'm kidding, but even if it's only temporary, we're experiencing a nice change right now. AutomaticStrikeout 21:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess this is what happens when things go in spurts. Just like that, we are merely hours away from being down to a single RfA. Hopefully, somebody will throw his or her hat in the ring before we hit zero again. AutomaticStrikeout 02:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I told you it was a temporary side-effect! The systemic problems have not been addressed, so activity drops back to previous levels.--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it isn't over just yet. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 06:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's imperative that there is always a running RfA at all times, nor is the lack of an RfA at a particular moment evidence of systemic problems. It's a glass half empty/full thing. You can look at the last spurt of a half dozen RfA's and rejoice, or you can look at the probably lack of an RfA for the next few weeks and complain. Would it have made you feel better if the last 6 RfA's were nice and evenly spaced out over 6 consecutive weeks? ‑Scottywong| talk _ 04:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that reading the graphs in the section below would be somewhat enlightening. At the current net. rate, we are losing admins faster than we are replenishing them.

So, sooner or later, if we don't take measures, we will run out of admins.

• Is this unrealistic? No, it's a statistical certainty.
• Is it alarmist? Errr, not necessarily, it just means that Measures Should Be Taken (tm), Sooner Or Later (R).
• Should we just sit here and do nothing? Only if you think there should be no admins.

I'm not sure how you can claim there are no systemic problems.

• Old people leave from time to time, new people come in, but -due to "standards inflation" - the new people are held to the standards of the old people, not to reasonable new-people standards. So RFA slows and slows.
• The above wouldn't be a problem, if the process was flexible and open to experimentation. (aka. subject to continuous improvement). Right now, the process is totally stuck, and no-one can get it changed at all. The world keeps changing+ your process doesn't change=broken process. It's a classic systemic problem. Lack of continuous improvement will almost always land you in this same situation.

---Kim Bruning (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It is the productivity of Admins. that is the true measure of whether there is a problem with lack of actual numbers. Simply looking at a decline in registered Admins. tells us little about whether we are running out of productive capacity. This doesn't require charts. It simply requires experienced, active admins to tell us if they are substantially busier than say, 4 years ago, in the areas in which they most frequently operate. Leaky Caldron 18:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's that effect taken care of. Come Dec 13 this looks like it'll be just as dead again. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

We just promoted five admins. I don't think it's dead yet. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I know you did your best :-)

But look at the numbers: At a rate of 5 successful RFA's per quarter, we cannot maintain our admin numbers. Misplaced Pages-as-we-know-it will eventually run aground if we stay the current course. :-/

What nobody tried to do this last quarter (or even this last half year) is try to change course and reform the system.

All previous attempts at reform have been blocked.

I think the best solution here is to terminate this process, and fall back on the meta process for requests for permissions. Despite stewards/meta being far from perfect for this, we'd probably end up giving more people the buttons. With a little luck, it would be sufficient to stabilize our admin numbers.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The meta process is "get local consensus and then ask at meta:RfP, if your wiki has no procedure of its own and no local bureaucrats". Even if you succeed in abolishing our local procedure without any replacement, we still have local bureaucrats. And you're still not getting away from the "get local consensus" part, which so far is where every other replace/reform RfA proposal has failed.

But on the subject of crazy ideas, maybe we should go back to that Jimbo "no big deal" quote and just allow the 'crats to "iar-sop" people who should be admins. Except I'm sure most if not all of the 'crats wouldn't want to do that, and the controversy would probably never end if they did. Anomie⚔ 13:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, I expect deconstructing this particular broken system will take some work, before we can reconstruct anything useful. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do this!—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I love that quote! :-)

Prong 1: I do understand the dangers of just doing anything, so we need to be a tad conservative.

I think that whatever further course of action is to be taken, most successful courses of action will share the following 2 steps:

1. Recognition that there is a problem. (to wit, RFA is no longer fit for purpose)
2. Decommissioning of the problematic process. (List RFA under MFD specifically to enact an Esperanza-style solution)

So I think that doing those 2 steps in a short while is still a fairly safe move.

This also forces people into determining new courses of action.

Prong 2: Due to the fact that RFA is pretty much deadlocked, if we remove RFA, pretty much any follow-on course of action would likely lead to an improvement in our admin situation. So this is one of those rare times where Doing Something Random might actually work! (This is saying more about RFA than about taking random courses of action, normally :-P)

Kim Bruning (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We aren't getting what we want at one venue, so we should go to another venue? Just out of curiosity, how is this not a form of WP:FORUMSHOP? : ) - jc37 23:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

More like FORUMDEMOLISH. :-P The venue is no longer providing sufficient utility to the community. Due to current Kafkaesque snarl-ups, no one is allowed to maintain it at this point in time. Due to lack of maintenance, it has become ramshackle. It should therefore be condemned and demolished. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC) It's more or less User:Radiant!-style reasoning. Maybe if we poke them they might show up and do a much better job of it? ;-)

So, what are you going to do? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

RFA is currently in a state analogous to WP:ESPERANZA near the end of its life. RFA has a large bureaucratic overhead, and no ability to adapt. My suggestion is therefore to follow procedures analogous to the dismantling of Esperanza. For some insights, see, eg. Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-01-02/Experanza . --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following this conversation -- could someone in a sentence or two summarize what the problem is? Is it that this process is so cumbersome that we don't have enough sysops? And if so, is there any evidence for the claims that a) we don't have enough sysops and/or b) that the process is problematic such that candidates who ought to succeed are being blocked? Or is the issue something else entirely? PStrait (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Some recent information showed no sysops created for one month a while back. There is a decline in both editors and admin, but not to levels that are a concern yet, but could be in the near future. A number of recent RFAs have become controversial over aggresive discussion that became uncivil and believed to be part of the decline with this process.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Every month, a number of people become inactive on Misplaced Pages for any number of reasons. Perhaps they're tired of Misplaced Pages, or maybe they just found something else to do. Some very few wikipedians might even have gotten the mythical "A Life" though personally, I have never experienced such a thing ;-)

This is all perfectly natural and happens in any organization. In and of itself it's no reason to panic.

Now: statistics say that some percentage of the people who become inactive were admins. This means that over time, we slowly lose admins.

This is not happening at a particularly alarming rate. It's just happening.

Once again, there's no particular reason to panic. As long as we replace admins as fast as or faster than they leave, there's no particular problem.

Unfortunately, at this point in time, RFA is pretty much effectively non-existent. It certainly doesn't make a dent in replacing the net outflow of admins (however slow that outflow might be).

So right now, there's nothing disastrously wrong yet, but month-by-month we inexorably move towards the point where we don't have enough admins.

It doesn't matter where we draw the line for "enough", because we'll eventually end up with 0 admins, should this trend continue. Most people will agree that 0 admins is perhaps a bit too few. ;-)

At this point in time, the solution can still be relatively simple. We have the (man/woman/bot/other)power to effect any change and see it through. If we modify our course now, we'll likely never run aground at all.

On the other hand, the longer we wait, the fewer admins and other community members we will have to effect a change. It also becomes harder for the admin group to absorb any temporary issues with changes to RFA.

So for these reasons, it's important to act before things become really urgent. It's a bit like global warming. If we act on time, nothing really bad will happen. However, convincing people to act on time is rather tricky.

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_220#New_chart

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. Maybe I shouldn't comment on this subject for that reason. But I think destroying RFA and RFB after over 2/3 of Misplaced Pages's lifespan will make the admin and bureaucrat progress much worse. If any one would end up nominating it for deletion, they would probably be condemned and it wouldn't really help much with getting new administrators anyway. And if it was somehow a success, their would be no way to promote administrators and Misplaced Pages would be lawless within 60 to 70 years due to the sysops either leaving out of boredom or dying due to old age. My proposal is that the processes should be taken back to 2004 levels and not have all that formality involved with it. As long as you can write 50 or more articles that aren't considered stubs and/or catch 50 or more confirmed sockpuppets, have proper sourcing for all citations that you make, and you don't cause major conflicts with legitimate editors; that should be cause for promotion to administrator. Bureaucrat promotion would also be more lenient in this proposal, probably like the current standards for administrator promotion. This may not be possible but I hope that you all consider this because I think this will really revive both pages to it's former glory. --Thebirdlover (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Cmach7

You may have noticed that Cmach7 (talk · contribs · logs) has added an RfA here several times. Before taking any action if it happens again, please read this. Thanks to MelanieN for spotting it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen that. Not sure what can be done, though. It's his decision whether to return to editing articles or to prefer to try for adminship. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately we can only judge people by their contributions to Misplaced Pages. If their actions are disruptive, then they need to be dealt with fairly, in accordance with the same policies that apply to everyone else. We can be sympathetic to the reasons for disruptive behaviour, but can't let it continue. I am not saying Cmach7 is disruptive, I am just commenting on the general point. QuiteUnusual 15:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course I'm not suggesting we should let it continue. I'm just suggesting, you know, that we're capable of being thoughtful, kind and understanding in the way we deal with problems. Part of that is being contextually aware. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Cmach7 clearly wants an RFA, if they ever manage to get a properly formatted RFA put together, I say we respect their desire and let it run until there are either a few feet of snow, or its withdrawn. Monty₈₄₅ 16:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would harm us to humor him by allowing him to run an RfA. My concern is that it might harm him if he gets seriously snowed. However, if we stop it after just a few opposes, he might not think he was given a fair chance. Perhaps if/when he tries again, a couple of people can kindly !vote in the support section as moral support as that might make it a little bit less painful. I would say don't do anything for the time being, wait for him to try it again and then maybe transclude it properly for him and let him run. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to consider a WP:CIR block should this happen again, considering that this is not the only problem that the user has been involved in. --Rschen7754 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Offering as a token gesture an inevitable snow/not close now after a few !votes will not benefit this particular editor one iota. Consider a note to the alleged mother's IP address. Leaky Caldron 22:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion to let a nomination go live; I think it would be cruel to subject this user to the inevitable pounding if his RfA goes public. A lot of commenters would not understand the situation and would not "be kind"; when was there ever a kind RfA? I'd hate to seem him get subjected to the gauntlet that greets even the most qualified nominees here. We could just keep taking down his malformed nominations - or what about a topic block of this topic, so that he can't keep nominating himself but can continue to work on content? --MelanieN (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points about that: 1) Do we have any reason to believe he will heed a topic ban any better than he listened to those who have advised him regarding RfA? 2) He has made no edits in mainspace since May. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking there might be some way to actually block him from the topic. Is that not technically possible? --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That is not, if discussion fails, its block from the whole project, or not. Monty₈₄₅ 23:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That is possible via an edit filter. It's bad for performance in the long run, but I routinely use my personal filter for short-term blocks on specific user-page combinations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The interests of Misplaced Pages come first. WP:Misplaced Pages is not therapy. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC).

Yes, but how much is this really harming Misplaced Pages? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points: 'humouring' anyone with a health or social disadvantage is a misplaced suggestion - it's tantamount to the same kind of bulling that disadvantaged kids get at school. Secondly, this editor is very young and only exceptionally do users of this age probably make truly worthwhile edits (I know, I know, some of you will cry for stats and diffs, but let's keep this thread down to a minimum). Thirdly, his mum is (apparently) keeping a watchful eye and I would just tend to snow close any transclusions immediately and without fuss and with just a friendly message; plenty of us have RfA on our watchlists and that's what I'll do if I catch another one on-the-fly. Finally, I don't see or expect any serious damage or disruption so there's no need to be cruel to be kind, hence any suggestions of blocking or banning are probably OTT here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. Just take down his RfAs (even if there are multiple such), and otherwise leave him alone unless he does something against guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record - . -- KTC (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've indefblocked per WP:CIR. The revert warring over the transclusion of his malformed RFA was the last straw, plus issues in other areas don't exactly help either. --Rschen7754 03:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reminded Rschen7754 of the requirements of WP:CIR, on their talkpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Why do you think this block was inappropriate? --Rschen7754 03:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Block is appropriate in the circumstances. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC).

I have not suggested that the block was inappropriate, and I don't know where Rschen7754 got that idea from. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps the ultimate in AGF (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds familiar

• User:CameronPG

Not that this is exclusive to any one person, but the above message from his mother joggled my memory of a similar situation. And I seem to recall that CameronPG would sock, and use IP addresses to edit etc.

These could be wholly different people, but it just sounded too familiar to not at least note it. - jc37 01:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A smart bit of detective work. Some people may be having the wool pulled over their eyes. Since identity is so easily disguised on Misplaced Pages, the best policy to follow is to apply Misplaced Pages's rules dispassionately without regard to persons. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC).

To be frank, I was suspicious of that message from the "mother" as soon as I read it. I'm not at all convinced it's genuine. I don't think this situation with Cmach7 requires any special treatment; if he continues to file RfAs then I think a CIR block may be called for. Basalisk ⁄_berate 18:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Adminship and an outstanding topic ban?

If an editor is made the subject of a topic ban, after persistent disruption to a narrow field, does this rule them out either automatically, or almost certainly, from running at RfA? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the topic ban, why it was applied, how long ago it was applied, and whether the editor has complied with the topic ban. --Rschen7754 00:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, so it's evidence that would influence judgements (pretty obviously), but it's not necessarily or of itself a bar to achieving adminship. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There are no 'bars' to achieving adminship. Each application is treated on its own merits by the community and the final outcome depends very much on who turns out to vote. Voters do not practice the same criteria. That said, some users may possibly be hesitant to support a candidate who has had a topic ban within the previous 12 months. No bans are issued without a good reason. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the history of RFA its extremely unlikely that any editor under a topic ban or restriction would ever be selected even if there are no rules against it. Even if the ban were lifted prior, significant time (at least 6 months and probably more) would be required before they could overcome it and even then its likely a lot of the editors would bring it up. Kumioko (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kumioko, success would not be likely. I'm not saying such an editor shouldn't try, but they shouldn't expect to pass. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

For me, whether the ban was still in force wouldn't matter, instead the question would be why where they banned, and how long ago was it. I'm more suspicious of an editor who requests the removal of a topic ban then I am of an editor who accepts the wisdom of the community and stays out of trouble while editing elsewhere. Monty₈₄₅ 23:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"They shouldn't expect to pass" is far too weak. They should expect to fail. There's an off chance they won't, but .... WilyD 17:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That was the nice way of saying it. There is no way whatsoever that someone under a topic ban would pass. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And now we're arguing semantics? Aye yai yai... Kurtis (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We're discussing whether it's more civil to give someone a bit of hope that they'll pass an RFA, or to try and prepare them from the inevitable letdown of failing. I may now be arguing semantics ... WilyD 11:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. =P Kurtis (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Side note: If the editor is under a topic ban, or an interaction ban for that matter, the ban applies to the editor, so it obviously includes any additional tools and responsibilities they may have or later pick up. This of course includes adminship.

So following that, if the community did decide to entrust the editor with adminship, the topic ban would of course apply to usage of the tools, and performance of admin-related responsibilities. - jc37 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion to this a few weeks ago: see Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 219#Conditional/qualified RfA acceptance. Adrian J. Hunter 23:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• On that discussion, the topic of is it "possible to confirm an editor for adminship with restrictions on how or where he or she could operate" the answer is a clear no. That was covered in my RfA, with some opposing solely for CSD reasons. I agreed to stay away for a few months and get mentoring, but it was unenforceable. Some trusted my word, some did not. I fulfilled my pledge fully and now have the dubious distinction of being the only admin I know who was supported based on an unenforceable promise of seeking mentoring. I thought it was unnecessary and based on incorrect metrics, but a promise is a promise. I still tread lightly there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'm with Rschen7754 on this, it depends on how stale the cause of the ban is. If the ban is less than 6 months old then I predict snow fail regardless of how well you've complied with the ban. But if an editor who was topic banned from a particular topic two years ago was to run for RFA having complied with that topic ban for two years of active editing then I would be surprised if the community would demur. Of course if during the RFA people discovered that they hadn't fully complied with the topic ban then things could go very pear shaped very quickly. But if an editor said they were complying with a topic ban and intended to continue to do so as an admin then I doubt many would oppose after that long a gap, and if anyone would oppose after such a long gap it does prompt the question How long would it take in such a scenario before you could support?. ϢereSpielChequers 23:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And if the person hadn't come forth with the issue on his/her own. The community is often forgiving of people if they confess their sins; but if there is any inkling that the candidate was hiding it, to quote the Queen of Hearts, "off with their head."38.100.76.228 (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrat rights discussion

I have started a RFC regarding allowing bureaucrats to remove the bureaucrat bit, and regarding the regranting of the bureaucrat bit (to bring it into line with the recently-passed policies for administrators). Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Bureaucrats#2012 bureaucrats RFC. --Rschen7754 01:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal has been withdrawn. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but two other proposals are open. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for the clarification. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem :D AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Drama

And once more we have an RfA of the very kind that is sure to scare off any would be contenders for the bit, including those who have a perfectly clear conscience. RfA is not broken - it's the voters - will they never learn? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that it was ugly. I voted to support Ktr101, by the way. It appears that we will have 28 confirmed new admins this year, compared to 52 in 2011, 75 in 2010, 121 in 2009, 201 in 2008 and 408 in 2007. Rfa is not broken? I suggest editor resentment over the lifetime appointments and difficulty in community de-adminship, along with unjust administrator actions, including blocks and intimidation, are the root causes. In my view entrenched admin resistance to deadminship reform, term limits and any type of tool unbundling is another factor. !Voters are, in my opinion, rightfully outraged, and it shows in every current Rfa. Next step: Jimmy Wales has stated recently that he wants to take over next month and begin appointing admins.(strike through my incorrect information, JDF) he is proposing broad changes to Rfa and his own powers, in a comment in his ArbCom election announcements on his page now linked in the section below. In any case, 408 admins in 2007 to 28 in 2012 is unsustainable. Why this is happening and how we fix it is the number one issue for wikipedia-en in 2013, as I see it. Drama? The drama in all probability has just begun. Jusdafax 06:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how making it easier to desysop admins is going to create more admins, or encourage more users to stand. If anything, it is likely to have the opposite effect IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not going to comment on the !voters' (admittedly poor) behaviour, but I wouldn't consider this an example of a perfectly good potential admin who was shot down by "evil" !voters. My oppose !vote was based on my honest opinion that knowledge of copyright and owning up to one's mistakes is necessary for any admin, and at the time Ktr had yet to help with his CCI. PumpkinSky helped with his own and I supported him, because he'd learned from his mistakes and owned up to them... yet his RFA went down in hotter flames than the one you point out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Admins at present, as I see it, have little to fear from the community. Not all, but a certain percentage act in ways that anger editors. If it were easier to deadmin obviously bad admins, it would help encourage Rfa !voters to give candidates a shot without making them jump through a long series of hoops to get the mop. (For a longer discussion see WP:CDA.) The lifetime appointment is another major factor, in my view. Jusdafax 07:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This line of reasoning makes no sense to me. If it becomes easier to gain adminship, that will just mean more bad admins potentially upsetting other editors, more wikidrama, more acrimonious desysop discussions, more disillusionment with the project overall; how will any of this improve affairs? Regarding the "lifetime appointment" - how many people would want to stand for adminship if they knew they would have to stand not for just one RFA, but for one after another? And how could admins be relied upon to act without fear or favour if they had to constantly look over their shoulder for fear of alienating users who might sink them at their next RFA? Apart from which, there is no such thing as a lifetime RFA - people remain admins for as long as they do a reasonable job, any admin who abuses his tools can generally expect to be desysopped pretty quickly by ARBCOM. Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that if it was easier to get rogue admins desysopped, !voters might be less resistant to support new candidates. Now, if desysopping was easier, new candidates might be a little bit more hesitant to run for adminship. Simply put, there is no perfect solution. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think what I am trying to get across is that there is deep community resentment at the way some admins are acting. They may not actually be abusing their tools with unjust blocks, but since they are admins they can use their power to influence and intimidate rank-and-file editors. There is very little accountability, and even non-admins can get away with bullying and abuse if they have a few admin friends who cover for them and unblock them when they get in trouble. There are hundreds of active admins who would not pass an Rfa today... and rightly so. Admin buttons give power, and power often corrupts. Even the President of the United States is limited to two four year terms, but we have people here who have been admins longer than that already, and they need never fear any kind of performance review. This makes the average Rfa !voter examine new candidates with a microscope... and in some cases, a proctoscope. The possible new era of Jimmy Wales and/or others promoting new admins without Rfa !votes promises to be very interesting indeed. Jusdafax 08:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who remembers that "May you live in interesting times" is a curse? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  No.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  Alright, just making sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have no great confidence that a community de-admin process would not be used to settle scores. I have said I will wait to see what Jimbo proposes, but I expect that the very claim that Jimbo can take reserve powers and transform them into a process (given he is deprived of most same on all projects but this, I very much question whether said powers are viable and transferable) to provoke bitter debate. That being said, my exchange with him on his talk convinces me he intends to do this in a way where the opportunity for the community to decline will be minimized.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• As for settling scores, I think care would be have to be taken to insure that any grudge deadmins would be discounted as the disgruntled !votes they were. Moving on: Jimmy's "reserve powers" is the item I was referencing and can't find... was it archived? Bitter debate is right. What I read from Jimmy sounds as if the community will have a site-wide voice in the changes. (Note: I got this backward in the first version.) I do remember you saying you looked forward to seeing the proposals. If I am not mistaken, they are going to rock our little world. Jusdafax 10:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If I think it is a positive, I will rise above my distaste at the out-of-process way of doing it, provided that there is no chance of a repetition (In other words, reserve powers to be disposed of, once, and then to be gone). While I hope that Jimbo has come up with something that will cause us to sing hosannas, his perceived need to impose it an out-of-process manner argues against it. If he does it on his talk rather than at Village Pump, to my mind that will be another bad sign. No objection to a link from his talk there, as it is heavily traveled.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure where the reserve powers come from. Jimbo is not a King or Queen, and the community's actions in re-allocating authority over time doesn't seem to leave anything of significance. I would say "reserve powers" run with WMF as the site owner, and that all Jimbo has are his userrights and role at WMF. That we have him ritually appoint arbs is less relevant today than it once was, and could be dispensed with if anyone cared. There's nothing on the RFA page to indicate Jimbo still has powers to appoint admins. I also don't like a reasonably mature community (it is, compared to 2002 or 2006) being "told". Better to come to one of the places we've established for proposals, and start the power point like the last guy did, figuratively speaking. That would be showing respect for the very hard work we've done here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am sure you have read Role of Jimmy Wales which notes he is in the unique User group of 'Founder.' As you say, it is unclear exactly what that means. What it may mean insofar as appointing admins is also unclear, as there is currently no mechanism for him to do that and the one power he lacks, it seems, is that of a Misplaced Pages bureaucrat. (Note: corrections and clarifications to this elsewhere in this and the next thread.) He does, as you say, ritually appoint arbs and has the power to disband ArbCom, in theory. But the real power is in the the Board of Trustees, it seems. Is the current stalemate at Rfa enough reason to see a startling use of extraordinary powers by these forces? Maybe. Jusdafax 11:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to restart the debate over this, but personally my view is that the need for admins has declined due to automation and as Misplaced Pages shifts from start-up to long term. The crisis, in my view, is overstated.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree there. I have been doing a fair amount of poking around the odd corners of the place of late, hitting the 'Random article' and 'Recent changes' button and often recoiling at what I see. I don't know what the figures are, but various forms of vandalism seem very high, as does marginal content, ongoing bitter content disputes, POV editing and, as I stated earlier, admins who are habituated to power and abuse it in ways designed to skirt community detection. What 500 fresh, idealistic admins would be able to accomplish has yet to be seen, including new eyes auditing current admin conduct. I do suspect, as I say, that rank and file editor dissatisfaction has been growing for five years and that the corresponding Rfa stalemate that provoked this discussion is a direct result of that. And I strongly suspect that the loudest howls of protest should the Jimbo Takeover come to pass if it comes to him appointing new admins, (strike through incorrect comments, JDF) will come from those who feel entitled, rightly or wrongly, to not have their membership in an elite group diluted by a flood of upstarts. Jusdafax 12:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As you say (I'll refrain from answering in the same vein). However, if Jimbo appoints admins, an appointment of PumpkinSky, who was mentioned above as having been badly treated, and has been trashed by certain people across the wiki since then, would be well-received in this part of the woods.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, speaking solely in technical terms, the founders right give more ability than bureaucrats in terms of userrights management. KTC (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) It would seem to be only poetic justice, from what little I know of the case. Thanks for a refreshingly frank discussion, Wehwalt! KTC, you may well be right. The wording is a bit fuzzy, methinks. And by the way, 'grats on your Rfa. Jusdafax 12:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You edit conflicted me out of my congrats to KTC, which I restate. I suspect that userright, and having other people use it, is what is at the heart of Jimbo's proposal. We'll see. I've enjoyed the discussion too.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The RFA is not over yet, the community may still decide I'm not suitable. KTC (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

"Edit all user rights (userrights)" is the same as what Stewards have, and what give them the ability to manage all user rights and group. KTC (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• No comment whatsoever on what may or may not be done by Jimbo, but i must say that Kudpung's original post makes me feel a little guilty. I read Kevin's RfA, had an opinion, but didn't express it. I usually do that, watching RfAs but declining to take part, largely because of the high levels of emotion and rhetoric which sometimes come down on both candidates and !voters. By withholding mine opinion, which i hope would be gently expressed, defensible but not needing defence, perhaps i am guilty of enabling the rottenness continue in the process. Mayhap i should rethink that position and become a better participant. If sufficient were of like opinion, who knows, maybe no Jimbo action would be necessary. Cheers, Lindsay 12:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Although I keep an eye on this talk page, I've been staying away from commenting here on the theory that it's a time-sink, but, seeing Jusdafax and Wehwalt talking about CDA, well, that's just too much of a lure for me to resist. I think that Jusdafax is correct that some RfA participants would lighten up if they believed that adminship could be reversed more easily. On the other hand, I've been shaking my head at much of the opposition to KTC, so maybe there's no cure for that. I actually think that ArbCom has been getting better and better at dealing with admins, when necessary, and I'll be keeping an open mind to see what Jimbo might come up with. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like to know if Jimbo is really observing enough of the community to know who is admin material and who is not? Giving one person the authority to promote admins at will is a very dangerous move, especially if this person has not been heavily involved in the RfA process. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo said he did not propose to do it himself.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Is there a link to the discussions about this? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You can find it in the archives on Jimbo's page, although I doubt you will get more info from that. Essentially, he has a plan and wants to reveal it in a week or two I guess. It is hard to have an opinion on it until we actually see it and ponder it a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree with those above who have said it's dangerous to give one person so much power, and it's an end-run around consensus to give the community little recourse against the decision (if that's actually what's planned). There's no way this is going to reduce drama, and even well qualified people who are appointed this way will suffer from the lack of trust of the resentful community. Instead of further concentrating power in the hands of one person, why not lower the percentage needed to pass (I know this has been discussed ad nauseum in the past), or widen 'crats' leeway to ignore opposes (they supposedly have this but when they actually do it my understanding is that there's fire in the skies). At least the 'crats were chosen by the community as people whose judgement we trust, and they are accountable to and actively involved in it. delldot ∇. 20:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Jimbo didn't say he was going to appoint admin, nor force any action. Assuming more than has been said is unnecessary. I would be very surprised if Jimbo went and gave the bit to a bunch of people. I suspect he will have a proposal for change instead. Don't make it more than it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis I have corrected my faulty comments above, which are most likely where delldot's assumptions come from, and quoted Jimbo directly in the next section below for clarity, along with a link to Jimbo's archives for the full context. To repeat: he is not saying he will be appointing admins himself, but there is a larger plan afoot that includes Rfa as a component and will be submitted to the Misplaced Pages-en community. Jusdafax 23:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales on possible changes in the way mops are handed out

This is continued from the thread above, but since the topic has morphed, I will start a new section and carry on.

• The brief announcement from Jimmy regarding possible changes to the way Misplaced Pages-en administrators are created was on his page (now archived) here in the thread titled 'ArbCom Appointments 2012' - and, to my chagrin, I have it a bit muddled in my faulty recreation in the thread above. This topic requires clarity, and as little drama-mongering as is possible, so I have returned to correct the record. To quote Jimmy directly:

"In short, I'm planning in January to submit to the community for a full project-wide vote a new charter further transitioning my powers. Because the changes I hope to make are substantial, I will seek endorsement from the wider community. (There are powers which I theoretically hold, but can't practically use without causing a lot of drama, but it is increasingly clear to me that we need those powers to be usable, which means transitioning them into a community-based model of constitutional change. One good example of this is the ongoing admin-appointment situation... a problem which I think most people agree needs to be solved, but for which our usual processes have proven ineffective for change. Some have asked me to simply use my reserve powers to appoint a bunch of admins - but I've declined on the view that this would cause a useless fight. Much better will be for us to put my traditional powers on a community-based footing so that we, as a community, can get out of "corner solutions" that aren't working for us. More to come in January."

He later adds "...so no, I'll not be appointing admins directly myself... such a process would be a joke. What I can do is use my reserve powers to help put into place a community process for constitutional change in cases where we have tried and failed in getting somewhere in our traditional ways."

Worth noting also is Wehwalt's Q "I will await with interest. I trust the venues for discussion and, if there is consensus, adoption, will be the normal community processes?" and Jimmy's A: "The normal community processes are precisely what the reserve powers are meant to allow us to modify in new ways." (All italics my addition.)

So there you have it. These are carefully chosen words. What exactly "put my traditional powers on a community-based footing" means is not clear to me. As noted above by our newest admin KTC, Jimmy has the power of a Steward to "edit all user rights" - a rather broad term. It could be taken to mean to do anything. 2013, it seems, has the potential to witness wholesale changes in the way Misplaced Pages-en admins are made. Jusdafax 22:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

He's right. People are wary of appointing admins because the appointment is for life, but there is so much stigma attached to losing the bit that proposals for de-adminship also fail routinely. What is probably needed is some form of probationary adminship with confirmation, some process for placing problem admins on parole for a while, a decent form of support for admins approaching burnout (a perennial problem) and a return to the "this should be no big deal" philosophy. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Also a way of excluding existing grudges from the promotion and demotion process. Which means using Clue, not legalistic processes. Our record on Clue is declining. Gaming the system and legalistic bullshit seem to me to be on a rising tide. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Well perhaps we can explore completely different ways of appointing admins.

1. A bulk election at one point in time each year. (somewhat like arbcom)
2. Appoint a bureaucrat to just grant adminship to suitable people. If we pick an expert on evaluating candidates this could be very efficient.
3. A committee of bureaucrats to select admins.
4. Establishing a consensus set of requirements for becoming an admin, with bureaucrats applying it to select users.
5. Make it easier to take away the bit from troublesome admins.
6. not allow self nominations, which will stop some of those not now situations.
7. simplified ballot with fixed reasons for picking from, to support or oppose.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Any one of those options seem preferable to the status quo IMO, though I don't think option two would receive much support from the wider community. Many people believe individual 'crats already have more than enough power already. For the same reason, though I think this option is one of the best, I think it unlikely a RfC on option 3 would succeed. — Oli Pyfan! 00:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I also don't think option 7, with fixed reasons to support or oppose, would work due to the very simple fact that every candidate is different. Different factors must be considered in each RfA. As such, unless !votes became votes (which would be possibly the largest change in Misplaced Pages history), option 7 would prevent !voters from expressing (sometimes very important) views on the candidate. Conversely, it would stop the absurd (in my opinion) opposes that make an appearance in RfAs these days (i.e. ). One solution, I suppose, would be for general discussion on the candidate to move to the talk page. — Oli Pyfan! 01:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The primary problem with a lot of these proposed solutions is that all of the current bureaucrats were not vetted in RfBs to carry out the roles, so do we really have any right to do them without reelection? Also, do you think that making bureaucratship a bigger deal is the best way to make adminship not as much of a big deal? If we make RfBs harder then we might not have any bureaucrats to actually run the new "not a big deal" adminship promotions. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)