Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:07, 7 April 2007

Mackensen's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 22:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC):

Category talk:	18
Category:	249
Image:	53
Mainspace	13483
Portal:	1
Talk:	841
Template talk:	95
Template:	2015
User talk:	1823
User:	1230
Misplaced Pages talk:	458
Misplaced Pages:	3634
avg edits per page	1.88
earliest	23:59, 24 August 2003
number of unique pages	12742
total	23900
2003/8 	18 	
2003/9 	33 	
2003/10 	0 	
2003/11 	0 	
2003/12 	22 	
2004/1 	241 	
2004/2 	185 	
2004/3 	64 	
2004/4 	230 	
2004/5 	255 	
2004/6 	47 	
2004/7 	134 	
2004/8 	39 	
2004/9 	185 	
2004/10 	421 	
2004/11 	456 	
2004/12 	662 	
2005/1 	357 	
2005/2 	148 	
2005/3 	91 	
2005/4 	318 	
2005/5 	363 	
2005/6 	584 	
2005/7 	492 	
2005/8 	280 	
2005/9 	154 	
2005/10 	46 	
2005/11 	61 	
2005/12 	450 	
2006/1 	1070 	
2006/2 	643 	
2006/3 	1342 	
2006/4 	560 	
2006/5 	1174 	
2006/6 	569 	
2006/7 	799 	
2006/8 	772 	
2006/9 	569 	
2006/10 	375 	
2006/11 	857 	
2006/12 	2428 	
2007/1 	1151 	
2007/2 	2896 	
2007/3 	1925 	
2007/4 	434 	
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
182	Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield
67	Kalamazoo, Michigan
61	List of Baronies in the Peerages of the British Isles
57	List of Baronetcies
57	Otto von Bismarck
44	Henry Kissinger
41	Winston Churchill
41	List of Earldoms
39	Margaret Thatcher
34	George W. Bush
31	Paul von Hindenburg
28	United States
28	Robert Peel
28	Members of the House of Lords
28	August von Mackensen
Talk:
25	Henry Kissinger/Archive 1
24	Communism/Archive 8
15	Germany
14	Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield
12	Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell
11	List of United States foreign interventions since 1945
11	Norm Coleman
9	Dick DeVos
8	Winston Churchill
8	Pope Benedict XVI
7	British Peerage
6	Henry Kissinger
6	Batman Begins
5	William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington
5	September 11, 2001 attacks
Category talk:
5	British Secretaries of State
4	Peers
2	Rail succession templates
2	Extinct dukedoms
Category:
6	Candidates for speedy deletion
4	Amtrak stations in Michigan
3	Railway stations in Connecticut
3	Amtrak stations in Washington
2	Amtrak stations in New Mexico
2	Railway stations in Arizona
2	Railway stations in Illinois
2	Bus stations in the United Kingdom
2	Amtrak stations in South Carolina
2	Amtrak stations in Alabama
2	Bus stations in Michigan
2	Railway stations in Minnesota
2	Amtrak stations in Texas
2	British barons
2	Amtrak stations in New Hampshire
Image:
4	Gallwitz.jpg
3	Eye of mackensen.jpg
2	Graf Roon .jpg
2	A-foreign-field.jpg
2	Farhill Transport, 14th Mar 1939.png
2	Max Hoffmann.jpg
2	Earl of aberdeen.jpg
2	Blackbox-debian-screen.jpg
2	Graf conrad.jpg
2	West1914.jpg
2	Robert lowe wiki.jpg
2	Benjamin disraeli.png
2	Hans von Seeckt.jpg
2	Colleville memorial 2003 01 small.jpg
2	Colmar von der goltz.jpg
Template:
49	S-rail/lines
46	Amtrak stations
46	S-line
41	Infobox Station
29	LUL stations
21	SBB stations
19	SEPTA stations
19	S-line-jnct
18	S-rail
18	Infobox Ship Class
16	Amtrak lines
14	MSB stations
14	Rail color box
14	MBTA color
14	DB-RB stations
Template talk:
15	Infobox Station
14	S-line
13	Succession box
9	S-start
6	Infobox Ship Class
5	Succession
4	Amtrak station
3	Did you know
3	User freedom
3	PeerNavbox
2	Sequence
2	Leaders of the Liberal Democrats
2	UKConservativePartyLeader
2	Airntd
User:
127	Mackensen
124	Mackensen/Orphaned transit boxes
52	Mackensen/Schlieffen Plan
47	Mackensen/Infobox Station
33	Mackensen/Sandbox
22	Mackensen/MPs elected in the UK general election, 1852
19	Mackensen/Peers whose tables give me a headache
16	Mackensen/S-rail
14	Mackensen/Archiv
14	Mackensen/Template:Infobox PM
11	Mackensen/Otto von Bismarck
9	Mackensen/Proposed adminship
8	Mackensen/monobook.js
6	TheMadTim
6	Mackensen/Rail color box
User talk:
544	Mackensen
50	John Kenney
20	Lord Emsworth
19	Proteus
17	Mackensen/Archive3
16	Madame Sosostris
12	El C
12	Dbiv
11	Jtdirl
11	RickK
10	Jossi/AMA Kickstart70
10	Bishonen
9	Everyking
8	172
8	Ugen64
Misplaced Pages:
473	Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
277	Administrators' noticeboard
219	Requests for checkuser
116	Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived
84	Requests for arbitration
49	Deletion review
44	Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop
27	Redirects for discussion
23	Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Proposed decision
21	Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9
21	Archived delete debates
21	Articles for deletion/Old
20	Cleanup
18	Mackensen's Proposal/Straw Poll
18	Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Proposed decision
Misplaced Pages talk:
66	Mackensen's Proposal
55	WikiProject Trains
51	WikiProject Peerage
26	Requests for checkuser
22	Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision
20	Manual of Style (biographies)
11	Manual of Style/(biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles
11	WikiProject British Government
10	Criteria for speedy deletion
10	Requests for adminship
9	Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive
8	Off-wiki policy discussion
8	Requests for arbitration
7	Sock puppetry
6	WikiProject UK Railways
Block log: 1311
Deletion log: 2384
Protection log: 57

Calling all rogue bureaucrats

You know, it would be fun if one of the current bureaucrats adopted Mackensen's own philosophy and promoted him despite being under 85% support. The irony would be spectacular, but at the same time laudable, to me at least. Grandmasterka 12:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Observation

I confess that I find all these opposes grounded in the idea that I propose some kind of despotism surprising. Eliminating a focus on numbers increases the importance of individual comments and, if anything, ought to encourage engaged participation. The focus on borderline cases is worrying–in the vast majority of candidacies the outcome ought to be obvious. The major change, hopefully, would be the encouraging of additional people to run together with a loosening of requirements (requirements not grounded in any policy) which would eliminate the phenomenon of people doing certain actions just to pass RfA. That kind of culture is not healthy and has been criticized by the same people opposing these changes. If possible, I'd like to start some dialogue here as the main page is quite long enough already. Mackensen (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Allowing any Wikipedian to play the role of "the decider" with respect to a candidate's qualifications is going to be percieved as despotic to a significant number of Wikipedians. One thing you may not have appreciated is that the historical role of Bureaucrats is to judge consensus, not to judge qualifications. In other words that they are supposed to look at the strength of agreement or disagreement with respect to promoting the candidate, but are not generally expected to make value judgments about whether this or that kind of opposition makes sense or should be given greater or less weight. I suspect some of the opposition you are seeing stems your desire to change from consensus judging model to a candidate judging one.

On a second point, you'd have a hard time finding any requirements clearly identified in any written policy. RFA has historically rejected establishing any criteria whatsoever with respect to candidacy requirements, and as a result essentially anything goes when it comes to oppositon. I've proposed in the past drafting a set of guidelines for what makes a good admin (e.g. Must communicate well with others; Have experience writing articles; Remain civil, etc) and requiring oppose voters to demonstrate how the candidate fails to meet such criteria, but such proposals have never gained much traction. Dragons flight 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is quite clear why people reject any criteria for voting on adminship and why they don't want the bureaucrats to have more say. People want to know that their opinion matters (even if other people think a given opinion is silly). Any attempts to make individual voices less relevant will be unpopular. And for good reason, I think crowds are more trustworthy than bureaucrats. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My principal concern here is that making people feel their opinion is valued may not be of any tangible benefit to the encyclopedia. I admit that I value the encyclopedia more highly than any individual editor's feelings, including my own. This may be a blind spot but there we are. I'm slightly offended that your apparent distrust of bureaucrats en masse (correct me if I misunderstood you) has been transferred to me. Are bureaucrats inherently untrustworthy and liable to harm the encyclopedia? Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've written up a brief proposal for improving RfA. The process would remain the same up until closure. RfA that aren't obvious pass/fails enter a discussion period of all bureaucrats. I believe this would help to reduce the perception of "rogue" bureaucrats and also increase the number of successful RfAs by widening the discretionary range to 60-80% support. I welcome any feedback and hope this can be refined into a workable process. Thanks! Note: I'm posting this here as well as WT:RFA since it's mostly related to bureaucrats. ChazBeckett 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I really like it. The biggest problem I see with Mackensen's proposal is that potentially controversial decisions can be made by a single bureaucrat. If there'd be a rule that states that at least 2 (or 3?) bureaucrats have to be involved in controversial RFA closings, it'd be much easier for me to support this RfB. Don't get me wrong, I trust our bureaucrats, and I trust Mackensen, but we're all human after all, and humans make mistakes from time to time. --Conti|✉ 18:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see no problem with that, and endorsed the idea in principle in response to an earlier question. Mackensen (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)