Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KumiokoCleanStart (talk | contribs) at 16:49, 10 January 2014 (→A perfect example of the RFA problem: A couple replies and now I will leave you all to your continued stalemating of anything resembling reform). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Current time: 04:50:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

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.

North's proposal (merely an outline) Analysis & solution to fixing the RFA and admin cadre issues

With the RFA process broken down, right now the main criteria for who is in the admin cadre is "got in back when it was easy". And the second criteria for new ones is "kept their head low" / having avoided contentious situations. Impacts have already been felt and will get worse. The other problem is a complete blending of:

• Type #1"no big deal" tool belt functions with
• Type #2 other "big deal" "judge" type immense powers given to these folks (such as being able to sanction established individual editors, close complex and contentious discussions). This is conferred also by policies and practices, not just by software definitions of the tool belt.

Solution: 30,000' view

Many of the problems stem from "bundling" these two things together. On the cadre side, folks meeting the low "no big deal" bar back then have been given immense powers with really no basis. Some that are not suitable for this task have done significant harm to editors. Conversely, the "immense powers" has supported the RFA process being immensely restrictive, albeit in a way that misses the mark. A thorough analysis makes the solution (at least in general terms) clear:

• Split the role. But the needed split is NOT by software defined tools, it is between Type #1 and Type #2 above.
• Type #1 needs a lower threshold to get in. Type #2 needs a high but more "on target" threshold to get in.

Solution: 20,000' view including implementation

Phase 1

• Define the qualities needed for Type #2 (beyond the Type #1 qualities which are also required) Define the situations that will require a person with these individual qualities. These may include things like wisdom, kindness, fairness, thoroughness (when needed), a decision-making process which includes first learning and confirming everything that is relevant and then a very sound decision making process, self control in that they never do anything really bad, extensive knowledge of policies and key guidelines, and of how how they are applied in practice, Design a framework for the RFA Type 2 process that will guide the discussions and voting to be more around the desired qualities (including history etc. to build the case that they have those qualities. Compared to the current process, these will remain just as tough but more on-target.
• Decide on details to lower the threshold for Type #1, and make it more targeted on the qualities needed. The two main qualities are competency and trust that they will not use the technical capabilities of the toolbelt to do harm. Design a framework for the RFA Type 1 process that will guide the discussions and voting to be more around the desired qualities.
• Write policies and guidelines covering the above, to take effect after a 1 year delay.
• Give better names to Type 1 & 2. Example: Type #1 = administrator, Type #2 = Yoda.

Phase 2

Announce that exactly 1 year from then, all current admin positions (that have not been transitioned to type #2) will become type #1. For the one year period, Type#1 RFA continues with the current process, possibly with stopgap refinements to be more "on target". The Type #2 RFA process starts rolling, and non-admins who pass this receive the Type #2 status plus receive the tool belt (if they don't have it already)

Phase 3

At the one year point, implement the remainder of the above, including the looser standards for Type #1, and requirement that only Type #2 folks can do type #2 jobs.

COI note

It should be noted that since current admins would lose and need to "re-apply" for a few powers that they already have, they have an inherent high risk of COI regarding this new idea and such should be declared and taken into account in any discussions.

By North8000

Discussion

I am guessing the above was written by User:North8000?

As for the "split" I've tried that several times, in several ways. I haven't despaired of it yet, though it's funny that I try one way, and feedback is to try another way, then I try an rfc that new way and the feedback is to try the way we tried in the first place : )

I do think that the user-right and responsibility breakdown at WP:MOD is probably the best place to split, but implementation seems to be difficult since (among other things) there are those who fear what may result for them if such an option is implemented. Adminship for some is apparently territorial. And also worth noting that everyone has an opinion, so if a proposal would appear to stand in the way of someone else's proposal, that "someone else" will kneejerk "vote" against.

And of course the whole question of "granting", when dealing with deleted content. So to be implemented it would need to be a discussion like RfA, where the community vetts the candidate. This was apparently revisited recently concerning whether the arbcom election met that requirement in regards to CU and OS.

Enough time has gone by that I may try another rfc in the near future, but I have a few other things I'd like to catch up on first : ) - jc37 17:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I posted it....had "North" in the title but forgot to sign. I thought of another more incremental step towards the above. That would be to define the qualities / credentials for #2, (I'm thinking immense experience and understanding of how Wikipediia works, very strong and careful approach to analysis, fairness, unemotional impartiality, impartiality, a kind person, etc.) some mechanism to review and "bestow" that certification (no tool changes required, it could even be a project page or something) and informally those folks with be most trusted for the really difficult situations. Then, if works, something like the above transition could happen later.North8000 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Updating the counts

Why does nobody ever do it right? I don't mean to be grouchy, honestly, but I'm always having to finish the job. So can I politely remind people of what needs to be done when updating the counts after closing an RFA? For example, for a successful RFA...

1. Add a new line for the candidate at Misplaced Pages:Successful requests for adminship/2013 (or whatever year it is), adding a new month header if necessary.
2. Update the number of successful candidacies in the month header.
3. Update the total number of successful candidacies for the year-to-date at the top.
4. Head over to Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)/2013 and update the number of successful candidacies for the month there too.

Number 1 always gets done, but almost nobody ever manages to do all of the other three.

Thanking you kindly, GrumpyBoing (aka -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC))

I'm pretty sure I did do that for Callanecc's RFA. Nobody ever speaks up when it's done correctly. Anyway - just fix it instead of grousing about it. Andrevan@ 00:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee:. I can answer this but its going to sound a bit snarky. The reason it isn't being done right, is the same reason many other things aren't getting done. It is a somewhat technical task to do, remembering to do all 4 of those tasks and frankly, the RFA system largely stopped promoting technical editors to admins years ago. Now, in order to be an admin, you have to be a mediator...technical skillz not required. Most admins admit freely that they don't have technical skills yet its exclusively admins that have access to the restricted pages (with the exception of the Template editors now having some ability). That is a problem no matter how you look at it. Most of the technical admins have had the tools since 2006 when Misplaced Pages was apparently doing things horribly wrong and it was easier to become an admin. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

But you don't need to be an admin, or even logged in in order to edit either of those pages. Nor do you need templating skills, I'm sure I've updated those table before now. That isn't to say we don't need more admins and especially technical ones, of course we do. But backlogs of actions that don't require use of the tools are not evidence for that. ϢereSpielChequers 01:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

True but updating the "admin" numbers is an inherently administrative task that should and is generally done by admins and bureaucrats. If they aren't doing it correctly that only validates my assertions that we need more technical admins. Another perfect example is the protected templates. Prior to the new right all people had to do is do the change in the sandbox and notify an admin to implement. Easy enough right. But yet when the template editor right was created dozens of fixes were done by technical editors, most of which have applied to and been denied admin rights. Some of these changes were fixes to problems that have been on the template for a long time, a couple for over a year. Its the same thing here. Many editors won't touch it if it looks administrative and they don't have the tools. They may not make a fuss about that like I do, but the end result is the same. The communities failure to trust its longterm contributors is costing the project from improving. Some agree with me on that and some don't but the actions reflected by creating userights for Rollbacker, template editor and file mover all prove that the community will help if they are allowed too. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hi folks, Sorry if I came across as grousing - I did the "GrumpBoing" thing as an attempt at injecting humour into what was meant as a polite reminder, but that doesn't always work in this text-only medium. And Andrevan, you're right that nobody ever speaks up when it's done correctly - I should know, cos it's often me who does it ;-) I'm happy to fix it up from time to time, but come on guys, not every time! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  Reading your edit summaries, it's not only here that you're coming across a bit strong: "Do it properly", "Why does nobody ever do this properly?!" If you don't want to tidy up these lists, feel free not to do so. They aren't really that important, which is probably why they aren't a major focus of the closing bcrat's attention (certainly not to the extent of cross checking another list that may not be up to date anyway). If you do want to do this task, please do so with good grace. We're all volunteers here... WJBscribe (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  Aye, fair enough -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that my good friend Δ would give us a functioning script to automate this utterly mundane task within 48 hours of being asked if he were around, more certain that a functioning script is the best approach to mitigate the occurrence of short closures, and most certain that Δ would be around if able. If only I would remember to stay in my place. Kumbaya my Kobayashi Maru—John Cline (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately Arbcom et al ran Δ from this site like so many others...Kumioko (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

KumiokoCleanStart, I know I wouldn't be the first to suggest that your incessant rhetoric about how broken our RfA system is, by virtue of the fact you haven't passed one yet, is becoming tiresome. I can't stop you from beating this drum over and over and over, but can you please possibly consider restricting it to discussions to which it is actually pertinent? Comments like the ones you've flooded this particular discussion with have become ever-present on this page and it's becoming impossible to have a rational discussion about anything without you derailing it into a conversation about how unfair it is that the community hasn't given you the mop yet. I'm sorry, I honestly don't mean to cause offence, but I don't think it helps either your cause or everyone else's productivity to make this point ad nauseam as you do. Basalisk ⁄_berate 00:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Believe it or not I am completely beyond caring if I get the tools. That does not change the fact that RFA is broken, backlogs continue to grow, Arbcom is straying farther off mandate, admins are becoming more abusive and increasing the gap between admins and editors and editors, particularly IP's are treated with contempt. Your right, several have told me to let it go, to move on and to just go away. But that won't fix the problems. BTW I am not the only one who sees these problems. Most of these have been admitted by many including Jimbo but all of them fail to do anything about it They all claim they are powerless to act. As I have stated elsewhere though I a going to stop commenting after the first of the year. Think of it like a resolution. Not because people don't believe there is a problem, not because they don't care what I have to say about it, but because at this point I honestly believe that no one cares enough about the project to fix it and that is going to be the projects undoing. I don't have any sympathy for those backlogs anymore because I and others want to help but we're not wanted. They want editors who will stay in their corner and not push the system or try to improve it. You can make edits but don't question the Adminarchy, that is unacceptable. Kumioko (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's just file a bot for this and see what the people at WP:BAG do. This honestly seems like a routine, tedious, administrative, and technical task better left to an automated counter. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries

To whomsoever it may concern - please, when removing RfAs from this page, link to them in your edit summary. It is a massive pain in the butt to have to scrape through page history to get to a recently-closed RfA after seeing a closure notice in your watchlist. Thank you! — Scott • talk 13:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh? They don't get removed from this page - this is the talk page and they get removed from the 'flip side' of this page....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Normally we can find them easily through the "Latest RfXs" box on both this page and the project page. But for some reason the recent RfA by JamesMoose aka BigPimpinBrah is not displayed there. Is it because of the mid-discussion change of username? --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That table is only of use if you catch it while the RfX you're interested in is still listed. It may not even have been added properly, as you mention; or the RfX you're interested in seeing may have been an anomalous one that got removed swiftly and so was never put in the table. A practice of invariably linking to RfXs in edit summaries would provide a fast route to any closed RfX from the page (yes Cas, the page - not here, its talk page)'s history. — Scott • talk 15:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Catching the outcome of a recently closed RfX is probably easier from the table than from the edit summaries, where you'd have to either be cruising the page's history or catch it go by in your watchlist, but of course as you say, it relies on the table being updated. I encourage closers (or lurkers) to update the table with all closed RfX requests, even the swiftly closed ones. isaacl (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You can always check:

Successful requests for adminship

Unsuccessful requests for adminship

Liz 17:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• See above section. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A perfect example of the RFA problem

The current RFA for Acather96 is a perfect example of the inconsistency and failure of the RFA process. Although Acather96 is a good person they have zero need for the tools, no demonstrated technical capability to use them, no Featured content work and has just come back from a long break. The main reason they seem to be applying for the tools is because they are getting bored with regular editing. This RFA seems to be a landslide support but yet all the failures of this candidate have derailed dozens RFA's, many in the last few months. A few examples, this month New Age Retro Hippie 3 failed because they didn't have enough experience at AFD, XFD or activity in the last couple years, all apply to the current candidate; several have been derailed since this summer for lacking content building experience including Lugia2453 where several supporters of the current RFA opposed; etc, etc. A couple even state openly they don't meet "all or some of their criteria". It seems to appear that pure luck is what passes an RFA these days rather than a demonstrated need and capability to use the tools and a fair amount of hypocrisy is present on the case of the voters opposing other candidates and then supporting this one for the very same reasons. Kumioko (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is not unreasonable for an editor to apply to be an admin even if they have "zero need for the tools". They might have had their fill of regular editing and want to do a new job that will be useful to the encyclopedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC).

I could agree with that if the editor had some demonstrated experience in admin areas, and I should clarify that the current RFA is only one example of a larger problem and I am not targeted that editor specifically. When editors support one candidate as they are but then oppose others for reasons that the currently supported candidate clearly doesn't have, it proves that the current process isn't working. Kumioko (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Some people support or oppose based purely on their 'gut feelings' of a candidate, or the candidate's personability. I think most Wikipedians' intuitions have been spot on. -- œ 00:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That may be true but I still don't think this user has demonstrated a need for the tools or the technical ability to use them. It looks to me like another of those editors who will get the tools and not use them. Its unfortunate that these days the only ones who can pass are the ones who don't get involved in admin areas prior to getting the tools. That is not how the process should work. Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, if you've got a point to make, head across the road to the RfA in question and !vote. I don't think it's particularly fair to begin what is essentially a bashing thread against a candidate whose RfA is currently running. And this from an editor who has consistently criticised the hostile atmosphere surrounding RfA. Basalisk ⁄_berate 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You might want to take another look Basalisk because I did vote oppose. I also stated clearly that this isnt about this individual. Its in reference to the fact that several of the people who have supported this candidate opposed others for the very shortcomings this editor has stated or less. It gives the impression (and not too subtlely I might add) that getting the tools is less about what you know and more about staying below the radar until you get them. I would also clarify that I told the individual on their talk page it wasn't peronsal towards them and I waited until the RFA was essentially locked into a win before i started the thread. Now I know that you don't care about reforming RFA and just want me to go away, andI plan to do that in about 3 days, soo drop you droll about how this is only about my not getting access to the tools, its not and never has been. That's just PR from editors who don't like me getting the better of you. How about you step up and do something to make this process better since I am doing so badly at it. Also I honestly don't think anyone else really wants this process to change, after all it worked well enough to get them access to the tools so to say it isn't working would also be to say they didn't get the tools fairly right. I mean its not like we dont have enough adminsn to do all the tasks, we certainly don't have any backlogs of admin tasks and we didn't have to create 3 new roles over the years (rollback filemover and Template editor) to compensate for the lack of admins. Nope, I am just dreaming all of that. So please, please put your time where your mouth is and help improve this process. Kumioko (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well what I'm implying is that your !vote is sufficient, there isn't any need for yet another barrage on the talk page to follow it up. Telling someone "it's not personal" doesn't make any difference to how personal a criticism feels. If you go up to someone and say "you're a fucking asshole, nothing personal" it doesn't magically become impersonal. I just think the last thing someone needs when he's running the gauntlet of RfA is to be made the thinly-veiled subject of a critical piece on the talk page. Boring garden-variety straw man at the end there too, accusing me of being "against RfA reform" on the basis that I'm against the language you use to address it - "you're against x so you're clearly also against y". And please don't tell us yet again that you're leaving. I'd like you to stay, if you're going to leave so be it, but please stop saying you're going to leave if you're not Basalisk ⁄_berate 17:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would have liked to stay too but I am of no use to this project. I can't participate in the areas want to participate in so there isn't any point in staying. The editing environment has become toxic and the site has become a joke to most of the word outside its editors for a variety of reasons. Even longtime supporters and funding providers are cutting ties. I used to have a lot of passion for the project and pride in being an editor here and more and more I am embarrassed to tell people I edit Misplaced Pages, the encyclopedia very few can edit and those that do are severely restricted. Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding that the nature of running an RfA at this particular time coincides with abnormal editing routines, i.e. I'm personally unlikely to be scheduling in the amount of research I'd normally expect to undertake. The same may be the case for others. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm guilty of having done less research this time than I normally would. It would be surprising if we're the only two. Maybe there should be a moratorium on launching RfAs between, say, 14 December and 28 December. If in future years an RfA is launched when it will run over the festive season, I may just ABF and oppose on principle ;) --Stfg (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally find it disappointing and annoying that the ones who get the tools are the ones who really don't need them and show no signs of using them. Those that do meddle in admin areas are shot down because the mentality is they have shown they could do the tasks without the tools. Or they have participated in those areas long enough to make some enemies. Its meaningless to me any more I have taken the hint, that's why I only comment in discussions now. Soon enough not even that. But if I were other editors like Wikid and Cyberpower who routinely do admin stuff and keep getting told no only to hand the tools out to others who have no demonstrated need or knowledge of the tools I would feel pretty insulted. Too many admin tasks rely on non admins helping out and the admins forget that. Kumioko (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@Trevj: Surely that isn't cheating, is it? Maybe the running of that RfA was just a coincidence and not a previously planned delay in launching a RfA. Epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I wasn't suggesting cheating... just that it could've perhaps been more thoughtfully timed. Of course, there are no rules regarding the timing, and candidates need to consider their own availability to promptly answer questions. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There were more than 80 participants, and though it ended over Christmas the busiest time in most RFAs is the first couple of days which were clearly not in the holiday season. As this was the only RFA running from the 21st to the 24th I would consider that it had more scrutiny than many of our current admins had in their RFAs. However as this is not the first time that the holiday issue has come up, perhaps those for whom it is an issue could list the days that should be disregarded when calculating the length of RFAs and propose an RFC to extend all RFAs from 7 days to "7 days ignoring Diwali, Good Friday, New Years Day, Christmas Day and April the 1st". I'm not sure if I'd agree with you, but I've no objection to people trying to change policy via RFC, whilst I do find it distasteful to see people try to change policy by objecting to people who follow it. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that you necessarily need to have FAs, or have participated in AfDs and XfDs or whatnot to be an admin. Some admins just get the tools for a single purpose (for example, Trappist the monk got admin tools solely so they can edit protected templates). Other admins just apply for adminship so they can have bundled user rights, not necessarily so that they can do admin tasks. Besides, the admins who don't use the tools now may use them later. Just because these admins have no need for the tools now does not mean that they will not use them at all, ever. Who knows, Acather96 may end up making thousands of page protections, page deletions, blocks, pagemoves, etc. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Rereading Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Acather96 and especially his answers to q1 and q2 there are some obvious differences between his RFA and certain ones that failed. His q1 answer illustrated a use of the tools for which he was qualified - no surprise that he already has 273 logged admin actions and his q2 answer demonstrated that he has content creation under his belt. There are some editors who want to see FAs, but the consensus at RFA seems to be that the content creation test is that you need to have demonstrated the ability to add content cited to reliable sources. I've seen RFAs that failed for several common reasons, but Acather96 avoided all of them, not because of lack of scrutiny but because he was a qualified candidate who avoided certain pitfalls. ϢereSpielChequers 21:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Having voted on almost all RfAs over the past few years and closely studied dozens of older ones, I notice that trends in voting appear to come and go in waves. The past year or so appears to have placed rather more emphasis on participation in GA and FA. While solid content contribution and ideally some immaculate creations beyond stubs is essential to have demonstrated that those who wish to police pages should know how to produce them, a correct and useful participation in admin related areas is just as important and possibly even more so. These are also the areas where voters should do their own research rather than piling on with support or oppose votes 'as per' other participants who may well have got their voting rationales quite wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that fashions in the question section come and go, but the content creation threshold seems to have been fairly stable for some years. FAs and GAs are of course an autopass for the content creation test, but the threshold for support is much lower, and going back to Kumioko's three examples at the start of this thread, neither of the two who failed had demonstrated an ability to add reliably sourced information to the Wiki, whilst the candidate who succeeded had passed that test. We do sometimes get opposes for lack of an FA, but I'm not aware of any RFA ever where that alone has sufficed to fail a candidate. We also have a consistent test re need for the tools, here I'm sometimes on the losing side as I hold the view that if we can persuade a qualified member of the community to carry the mop they will perforce find themselves using those extra buttons, and perhaps more cautiously than some. However I wouldn't nominate a candidate unless they could credibly convince the community with their Q1 answer, and if a candidate's answer to Q1 fails to make a sufficient case to pass their RFA I may not even bother assessing them sufficiently to !vote. ϢereSpielChequers 09:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The robust success of Acather96's RfA only serves to remind how completely bogus "no need for the tools" is. — Scott • talk 13:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It also shows that if you don't make waves, go with the system and keep your head down you'll get the tools, but if you try and make this project better you stand no chance. That's not the environment most people want to participate in and a key reason why I left. The only reason I am commenting now is because someone sent me an email and asked me to comment because my name was mentioned. The arguments that WereSpielChequers presents that the examples I gave would not make good admins are completely false and only reinforce the current attitude that technical editors have no respect here. Not everyone is going to make FAs (especially since the process heavily favors British speech over American) but because for many of us that's not what they are interested in. Likewise, many don't want to code templates and do stats work. But that's no reason to hold them back and tell them they can be trusted with the ability to block. That argument is a complete fallacy and fundamental problem why the Misplaced Pages editing environment has turned into such a disgrace and an embarrassment. For all of the comments and bullshit being written on this page about how you all want to change this process not one editor on this page except me has any interests in making Misplaced Pages a better place, just business as usual because that what allows you to maintain control. You all should be ashamed! The lack of trust in the editors in this community is disgraceful. Kumioko (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"... not one editor on this page except me has any interests in making Misplaced Pages a better place, just business as usual ..." doesn't make this place better either! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not but no one here is doing anything at all to prove that statement wrong and no one can deny that I tried for years to make it better at the cost of my own reputation. Because it mattered to me to make it better. But instead, because the people in power want to keep it and hold the project back by not allowing editors to contribute we end up with a toxic editing environment where too few people can help out and the project continues to suffer. Then, we split off tools and create new roles like Template editor on the premise of helping the project when in reality the only reason was because there is no trust left in this community and a strong lack of desire to allow technical editors to do what interests them somehow hoping that they will change their inclination and start creating FA's or helping at ANI, CCI or some other admin area without the ability to even be able to help because they don't have access to the tools. Then we only give access to the tools to people who are ultra conservative and won't rock the boat. Then we allow other "admins" who should have had the tools stripped long ago, like Sandstein, bullies like Rschen or editors who don't do anything at all like Guerrilero other than some make believe governing body to continue to have access to tools they abuse continuously or don't use at all. Then we wonder why we have months long backlogs in some areas. Gee I wonder. The question here shouldn't be why is Kumioko being such a jerk. The question should be, what did the community do, to turn a contributor who was once deeply committed to the project and who devoted countless hours to it, to a point where they no longer have any respect for the project at all. Its the same core reason why editor retention in general is a problem here and why fewer and fewer editors join our ranks, a complete lack of trust towards editors who have repeatedly shown devotion to the project only to have the community tell them to fuck off, were better off having backlogs than having your help..your not trusted. Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

IMO one piece of the answer remains obvious. Decide on qualities useful for admin and structure the RFA process to nudge it towards more discussion / evaluation regarding those points. That would make the criteria far less random/wrong. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think your partially correct but what really needs to happen is we need to get back to a point where adminship is no big deal. We need to give the tools out to people who need/will use them and remove them from those who are abusing them. Both need to make it easy. This we can trust the community to promote but not to recognize a bad admin BS needs to stop. I admins are abusing the tools, they need to have the tools removed, at least temporarily. If they aren't using them, remove them. If the ability to block is that important we shouldn't leave it on a dormant account for a year before removing it. If its really that important (and I personally believe that argument is merely an excuse to justify keeping power in the hands of a few) then it should be removed after 30 days and then if they come back they can have it back. No muss no fuss. Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

writer

Eamon Kelly was born in Dublin in 1963 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukekelly2009 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you want Misplaced Pages:Requested articles. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)