Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Misplaced Pages proposals: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:01, 31 July 2012 editRFC bot (talk | contribs)216,124 edits Removed: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals).← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:01, 22 January 2025 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,671,924 edits Added: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude> <noinclude>
{{rfclistintro}}
'''The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:'''
</noinclude> </noinclude>
''']''' ''']'''
{{rfcquote|text= {{rfcquote|text=
Which of the following best describes the reliability of '']''?
], the list that determines sports events that get posted as "In the News" to the mainpage without specific consensus, should be blanked and new discussions should be held with a view to gaining consensus as to what sporting events should be listed there. ] (]) 00:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)}}
* Option 1: ]
''']'''
* Option 2: ]
* Option 3: ]
* Option 4: ]
— ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}}
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text= {{rfcquote|text=
Please opine on the below questions related to the ] process. –] <small>(])</small> 10:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
One of the most frequent comments at ] regarding the high benchmark at RfA was that it is too hard to remove an incumbent administrator: once elected, it is a job for life. This topic has recently come up again, at both ] and ].
''']'''

Per the essay on ], there are currently five methods for removing administrator rights. Three of the five (1–3) are under the control of the administrator themselves; 4 and 5 are not:
#'''Resignation''' – any administrator can request the removal of their own rights at any time;
#''']''' – if an administrator makes no edits in the space of 12 months, their rights can be removed, though they can be replaced on request at a bureaucrat's discretion;
#''']''' – an administrator can set up criteria for their own recall, they agree to resignation if the criteria is met. However, this is unenforceable and relies on the administrator's discretion.
#'''Arbitration requests''' – either by motion or by a full case. Significant requirements before a case is accepted, e.g. other methods of ] have been attempted.
#'''Emergency situations''' - in an emergency, a bureaucrat, a steward or Jimbo Wales can remove permissions.

The purpose of this RfC is to decide whether some form of community de-adminship process should be created, to discuss a number of concepts associated with community de-adminship, and to provide a place for suggested methods and commentary on those suggested methods. Once this RfC is complete, it should allow further discussion on the most likely methods of community de-adminship, if any.
{{TOC limit|3}}

{{/Proposals}}

{{/Suggestions}}

''' General discussion '''

*'''Comment''' I've always been of the opinion that '''adminship should be easy to obtain and even easier to lose'''. Admins should not fear the community. Yes, they might be concerned about individual editors, but they should not be concerned about the whole community. Misplaced Pages works because the good out number the bad by a significant proportion. A number of admins take the stance "''You can have my bit when you pry it from my cold dead hands''" and that's contrary to the spirit of cooperation that makes Misplaced Pages work. When admins view the community as ''The Enemy''<sup>TM</sup>, it sets up a conflict which doesn't help the cooperative spirit of building an encyclopedia. The project should function in such a way that it's easy for us to get more than enough admins to do the job—and at the same time—be able to remove admins that are not well suited for the role. ] (]) 22:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)}}
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text= {{rfcquote|text=
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}}
I'm wondering if there is enough of a consensus to bump this up from an "AfD argument to avoid" to a guideline. Above, there are five supports, no opposes. But, for it to become a guideline, we'd need a few more eyeballs on it. Hence this RfC <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 15:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)}}
What is the reliability of ]?
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text=
] is linked from the sidebar of every Misplaced Pages page and gets about 10,000 pageviews a day, but it's not serving any particular purpose except duplicating existing material from more highly-trafficked, popular pages. Based on ] and ] about the CP, most Wikipedians don't know or care about it, and most readers/new editors who find it use it to ask questions about articles or Misplaced Pages itself &ndash; unfortunately, as previously mentioned, most experienced editors have abandoned it, so either those questions go unanswered or the new people are redirected to a more lively help/reference/questions space.


* '''Option 1: ]'''
I'm proposing that we temporarily use the CP as a testing ground for improvements, measuring high-level data about clicks and impressions, to figure out what information would be most useful here. Specifically, I'd like to remove the clutter and try to focus on one specific theme for the page each week: one week of featuring task suggestions/recommendations, one week of featuring a couple of WikiProjects and collaborations, one week of featuring some members of the community (sort of like the hosts page on the ]) to highlight the human aspect of Misplaced Pages, one week of featuring mentors who are looking to adopt new users, etc. I can write out a more detailed plan of action if people are generally okay with the testing idea, but I don't want to get too far ahead of myself if not :)
* '''Option 2: ]'''

* '''Option 3: ]'''
As I said, I'm okay with this being a temporary change &ndash; if none of the experiments seem to do anything for upping pageviews, increasing the quality of collaborations, or matching new users to open tasks or help spaces, we can always revert the CP back to what it is now (or get rid of it altogether, as a couple of people have suggested).
* '''Option 4: ]'''

Please indicate whether you support '''testing''' or '''maintaining the page as is'''. Thanks, ] (]) 19:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)}} ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text=
I propose that we redo the Babel templates to (mostly) conform to the ].

*language-1: User conveys and understands only general meaning in very familiar situations.
*language-2: User has partial command of the language, coping with overall meaning in most situations, though is likely to make many mistakes. Should be able to handle basic communication in their own field.
*language-3: User has generally effective command of the language despite some inaccuracies, inappropriacies and misunderstandings. Can use and understand fairly complex language, particularly in familiar situations.
*language-4: User has full operational command of the language with only occasional unsystematic inaccuracies and inappropriacies. Misunderstandings may occur in unfamiliar situations. Handles complex detailed argumentation well.
*language-5: User has full operational command of the language: appropriate, accurate and fluent with complete understanding.

As you may notice, I've excluded the Native Speaker designation. Whether or not someone is a native speaker in a particular language is irrelevant to their skill in the language.

I'm open to any proposed rewordings of the proposed scale. —] ]/] ( 偉特 ) 19:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)}}
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text=
The Article Feedback interface at ] provides a variety of options to respond to feedback. We need to develop and adopt a guideline on how to respond to various types of feedback, both positive and negative. ]] 21:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)}}
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text=
Per discussion at ]; it would be useful and convenient to activate the section 0 edit link by default, so that entire pages are not conflict-prone when editing the non-headered section at the top of pages. This is especially the case for high traffic and current events pages that receive many edits and would result in many edit conflicts, as every edit would conflict with editing section 0. -- ] (]) 06:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)}}
{{RFC list footer|prop|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} {{RFC list footer|prop|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }}

Latest revision as of 13:01, 22 January 2025

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Jacobin (magazine)?

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections

Please opine on the below questions related to the English Misplaced Pages administrator elections process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

What is the reliability of NewsNation?

Chetsford (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


Requests for comment (All)
Articles (All)
Non-articles (All)
InstructionsTo add a discussion to this list:
  • Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Report problems to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot.
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals: Difference between revisions Add topic