Misplaced Pages

RFA:Dannyboy1209

I started a thread at WT:RFA about this RFA's transclustion. I personally think this should just go away, but too many have commented for me to do it myself. If a crat or admin could take a look. Thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, any admin can close a clearly WP:NOTNOW RFA. I've done so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone can admin or not if its obvious enough. Monty₈₄₅ 20:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the 'crats comments, especially Deskana, on the matter of WP:NOTNOW/WP:SNOW are pretty clear too. Snowolf 20:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

@Monty: You're quite right that it doesn't have to be an admin; however, it should be made clear somewhere that it should be an experienced user. There are some well-meaning but relatively green editors who frequent RFA, and it would be a bad idea IMHO to encourage them to "be bold" in closing an RFA to "gain admin-like experience" for a future RFA of their own. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Floquenbeam. I'd considered doing it myself, but realized at least four of the !voters were admins, and as a non-admin I figured it was safer ask someone to check my thinking.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough De-sysop

Hey crats. Is one of you available to desysop Rich Farmbrough. I am starting to close the case and that remedy has passes. As an arbcom clerk, --Guerillero | My Talk 18:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done, but in the future, could you please link to the case? (I mean, I was able to find Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision easily enough from your contribs, but it's always nice to have that up front) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would have waited until the case was actually closed, but as it is was going to be a fait accompli, it shouldn't matter that much. -- Avi (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Perhaps we should get these requests after the cases are closed? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: Rich's two flagged bots were blocked, so I've gone ahead and removed the flags from Helpful Pixie Bot (talk · contribs) and Femto Bot (talk · contribs) just to keep things nice and tidy. He had two other potential bots in Mirror Bot (talk · contribs) and Translate Bot (talk · contribs), but those are largely inactive and, since they're not flagged as bots, I Officially™ don't care about them. I rarely involve myself in Arbcom issues, so I dunno if any action needs to be taken about them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings on this topic --Guerillero | My Talk 00:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Apathy, woo! ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the 'crats

I have been navel-gazing about admin recall and about ways to practically unbundle the admin tools without getting the software changed. I'd really like to avoid, for now, getting into a discussion of whether either would be a good idea or not, and what all the details would be like, what color the bike shed would be, and all the other stuff that always, without exception, 100% of the time hopelessly bogs down a WT:RFA thread. I'm just after some data from the current 'crats, as I continue to mull the idea over.

1. If a current admin stated clearly and unambiguously "From now on, I will never block anyone, no matter what the circumstances, and understand that I'll be immediately desysopped if I do, whether or not it was a good block, and understand I can't renege on this promise without going thru a new RFA", would any of you current 'crats, without requiring a change to current policy, desysop the admin if they blocked someone in the future, assuming when the time came they didn't want to be desysopped?
2. If an RFA candidate clearly and unambiguously stated the same thing in their RFA, and assuming that consensus was clear that adminship was only supported contingent on that promise, would any of you current 'crats, without requiring a change to current policy, close such an RFA as "successful, with the limitation that the user may never block anyone for any reason, on threat of immediate involuntary desysop" without requiring a change to current policy?
3. If an RFA was ever closed as described in #2, would any of you current 'crats desysop the admin if they blocked someone in the future, assuming when the time came they didn't want to be desysopped?
4. If the RFA had been closed without the limitation, would any of you current 'crats desysop the admin if they blocked someone in the future, assuming when the time came they didn't want to be desysopped?

I'm using blocking as an example, but I assume the answer wouldn't change if "block anyone" was replaced by any other admin action that comes in the bundle.

Please keep in mind the clarity and unambiguity of the promise; this would not require you to judge the consensus of a desysop discussion, or make a messy judgment call about whether the infraction was "serious" or not, or whether they're a "good admin" or not, or anything else where people could complain you weren't being reasonable or fair. It would be a strict "did they or didn't they" determination.

Again, I'm much more interested if any of you feel you would currently do the desysop, if such a thing happened tomorrow, without an RFC or a policy change discussion somewhere to support it.

Obviously I'm not in any position to demand others not sidetrack these specific questions into a discussion about whether people making these promises is a good idea or not, or whether they would consider such a promise when voting in an RFA, etc. But I'll ask it anyway.

Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I only speak for myslef, but my answer would be "no" to each of the four scenarios. If you read the first line of Misplaced Pages:ADMIN#Review_and_removal_of_adminship carefully, you will note that crats are specifically not listed as the type of user who can remove admin rights for abuse. I would view blocking in violation of a promise not to block as an abuse of admin rights and therefore not something crats could handle. Also, while Misplaced Pages:ADMIN#Administrator_recall permits an admin to vary their individual criteria, it makes it presumptively mandatory that they can always back out of a recall request, even after being recalled. I would read this provision as superseding their promise or the crat's RFA close. Basically, I don't believe someone can contract their way out of the concept of voluntary or inactive removal by the crats to provide an involuntary remedy. MBisanz 17:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-crat comment but all of the 4 questions would require writing new policies for the answer to be "yes". The current set of policy and practices clearly does not provide for any concept of "limited adminship" beyond specific sanctions the community or the arbcom might want to impose on a specific users, and which clearly can include "dont block anybody ever", silly as that may be. Snowolf 01:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Perspective on the process of removal of inactive administrators

Last year, I logged into Misplaced Pages to make an edit, and saw that my administrator privileges had been removed. It felt almost like a punch in the face. But I understood the logic behind it--even though I would check my talk page once or twice month, I hadn't edited in a long time. But it left a bitter taste in my mouth any time I thought about making an edit or even donating during a fundraiser, and I never came back.

I wasn't going to cause any drama, or black out my user page or anything. I just didn't come back. But earlier this year, I got an e-mail about a survey about a worsening problem of inactive administrators (I have no idea if the survey was legitimate or not) and it made me wonder if you all knew how these actions were perceived...and as a man on the outside, I figured I'd give you my perspective.

I joined Misplaced Pages and became an administrator when I was in medical school. I stayed pretty active throughout residency and into becoming an attending physician. I worked on a mixture of article writing and administrative tasks, and I think I was well regarded for the quality of my writing and how I dealt with problematic users. I started Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine and the Collaboration of the Fortnight (later week, now month).

Positive interactions with colleagues and appreciation of the Misplaced Pages community were major motivators for me. Even during periods where my clinical practice has been very busy, I would still try to pop back in once I had more time. But when I logged in and saw User:RL0919's message, it felt like going somewhere I thought I'd been welcome, and finding they'd changed the locks specifically for me. Especially since no one had bothered to ask me if I was still around. I was checking my talk page at least once a month, and checking e-mail multiple times a day. It would have taken someone less than a minute to just ask me before summarily suspending my privileges.

Even though User:RL0919's message was careful to state that the suspension was procedural only, I knew that even if I requested to be reinstated, this involuntary suspension would always be on my log, a record tainted. Adding insult was this edit to my user page by User:MZMcBride. The action and edit summary ("not an admin") were correct, but it made it sound like I had falsely claimed to be an administrator.

Perhaps Misplaced Pages has a surplus of article writers and administrators and it's not worth it to coddle and soothe the ones you don't need anymore. I recognize that most of them are probably not coming back and that it would take a lot of time in aggregate to be more tactful. But I'm sure there are others like me. For a man who's been a member for six years, a hiatus of a year isn't unthinkable. You have Wikipedians who are professionals, who may have extremely busy careers, and yet be extremely valuable contributors. Consider treating them with a little more tact. I am gratified to see that you're now informing administrators prior to involuntarily removing their privileges. This belated decision is one I strongly support, and that's the main reason I'm writing to you today. I'm sure it takes significant time and effort both to contact the administrators and to ensure that everyone's been contacted before you remove their privileges. But I'm very glad you're doing it. Had such a system been in place last year, I would probably still be a part of this project.

Thanks for all you do. I'm writing this because I want this project to continue to thrive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)