Misplaced Pages

Per the essay on removing administrator rights, 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:

1. Resignation – any administrator can request the removal of their own rights at any time;
2. Inactivity – 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;
3. Administrators open to recall – 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.
4. Arbitration requests – either by motion or by a full case. Significant requirements before a case is accepted, e.g. other methods of dispute resolution have been attempted.
5. 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.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals/Proposals

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia 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, 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. 64.40.54.64 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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 Teahouse) 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 :)

As I said, I'm okay with this being a temporary change – 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).

Please indicate whether you support testing or maintaining the page as is. Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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. —Yutsi / Contributions ( 偉特 ) 19:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Biographies (bio)
• Economy, trade, and companies (econ)
• History and geography (hist)
• Language and linguistics (lang)
• Maths, science, and technology (sci)
• Media, the arts, and architecture (media)
• Politics, government, and law (pol)
• Religion and philosophy (reli)
• Society, sports, and culture (soc)

• Misplaced Pages style and naming (style)
• Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines (policy)
• WikiProjects and collaborations (proj)
• Misplaced Pages technical issues and templates (tech)
• Misplaced Pages proposals (prop)
• Unsorted

• 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.