Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting

[Sophie]

Really cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?

[Beeblebrox]

Really cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?

What the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.

[Zoloft]

Really cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?

What the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.

Beeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.

[Osborne]

Beeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.

I couldn't have written it better myself. Well said. Beeblebrox, please act as professional as on-wiki in your capacity as an arbitrator.

[Beeblebrox]

Really cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?

What the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.

Beeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.

Sophie is the one who re-opened this thread. She started this whole renewed conversation quite deliberately, specifically to talk about this appeal, and now that she's been called out for not making a cogent argument she's saying she can't because of harassment.

But I said fuck so now I'm the bad guy, what is this, a Wikipedia talk page?

[Eric Corbett]

Really cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?

What the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.

Beeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.

Sophie is the one who re-opened this thread. She started this whole renewed conversation quite deliberately, specifically to talk about this appeal, and now that she's been called out for not making a cogent argument she's saying she can't because of harassment.

But I said fuck so now I'm the bad guy, what is this, a Wikipedia talk page?

Your hypocrisy is quite staggering.

[Vigilant]

Really cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?

What the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.

Beeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.

Sophie is the one who re-opened this thread. She started this whole renewed conversation quite deliberately, specifically to talk about this appeal, and now that she's been called out for not making a cogent argument she's saying she can't because of harassment.

But I said fuck so now I'm the bad guy, what is this, a Wikipedia talk page?

Your hypocrisy is quite staggering.

STFU, Eric.
You are the poster child for hypocrisy here.

[Osborne]

Beeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.

Sophie is the one who re-opened this thread. She started this whole renewed conversation quite deliberately, specifically to talk about this appeal, and now that she's been called out for not making a cogent argument she's saying she can't because of harassment.
But I said fuck so now I'm the bad guy, what is this, a Wikipedia talk page?

There's no bad guy and girl in this situation. It's simple feedback about the unexpectedly out-of-character responses you gave. Arguing and even further escalating is not what people expect from an arb, the beneficial action both to you and us would be to understand the complaint and let it be forgotten.

[Beeblebrox]

How is one to understand a complaint that the complainer refuses to define in any meaningful way, and where their reasons for refusing to do so keep changing? Such techniques reek of bullshit, and I don't care if your name is Sophie or Jimbo or anything else, I don't have a lot of patience for people who throw bullshit at others and then play the victim when called out on it.

[Vigilant]

<snip>

[Midsize Jake]

How is one to understand a complaint that the complainer refuses to define in any meaningful way, and where their reasons for refusing to do so keep changing? Such techniques reek of bullshit, and I don't care if your name is Sophie or Jimbo or anything else, I don't have a lot of patience for people who throw bullshit at others and then play the victim when called out on it.

Speaking only for myself, I understand that it's frustrating and (to some degree) unfair. Even on a relatively small-time site like this, admins have to put up with a lot of stuff like that and I, for one, can sympathize. But the word "bullshit" implies that this is an implausible scenario, and it's really not an implausible scenario. Most people who get pissed off at admin actions on WP still want to maintain the viability of their WP accounts, and the fear of retaliation and/or escalation makes them extremely reluctant to give any details about specific incidents or disputes they were involved in.

But if and when you do find out what they did to get banned (or whatever), it often turns out that they were doing something they thought was useful, one particular admin decided it wasn't and told them to stop in a rude or brusque sort of way, they objected, and that was that — and now the person despises all admins, because the other admins did nothing (or not enough) to stop the first guy. From your perspective this is irrational, and it may well be "objectively" irrational, but of course the problem with Wikipedia is that you can't pre-screen for rationality.

Still, this allows you to assume that the person is extrapolating a general negative tendency (on the part of admins) from a single personal experience, and that's an advantage, but logically speaking it doesn't really allow you to dismiss the notion of the general tendency itself. On a site like this, that's not such a problem, and sometimes we can even admit to such tendencies and most people will at least appreciate that we're admitting to... something. But of course on Wikipedia the stakes are way, waaay higher, and there are far more admins.

[Zoloft]

Really cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?

What the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.

Beeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.

Sophie is the one who re-opened this thread. She started this whole renewed conversation quite deliberately, specifically to talk about this appeal, and now that she's been called out for not making a cogent argument she's saying she can't because of harassment.

But I said fuck so now I'm the bad guy, what is this, a Wikipedia talk page?

Compare Sophie's probable path on Wikipedia to your path and then you will understand why I'm asking you to politely de-escalate. So far, you're doing the opposite, and as one other poster remarked, you could just move on from Sophie's remarks and let yours be forgotten. Try that instead.

[Tarc]

If you're handing out indulgences and all under this revised sacrament, is now the time I should ask for my long overdue absolution?

If I'm reading your block log correctly and this is you https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... type=block then you would not be eligible for an appeal to arbcom. You can do it the easy way on your talk page if you're serious. 14 years is a long time and I actually wouldn't be surprised if your appeal was accepted.

Well, hell, if you're gonna let him back, maybe I'll appeal too.

[Beeblebrox]

Well, hell, if you're gonna let him back, maybe I'll appeal too.

Arbcom wrote:
For continued serious breaches of policy, including off-wiki harassment, Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned.

Not impossible, but you'd need to write a very compelling appeal. I wasn't on the committee in 2015 (and was deliberately ignoring what it was doing) so I don't know exactly what this was about, but harassment is a hot-button issue that won't be easy to overcome, plus whatever these other "serious policy violations" were.

[Midsize Jake]

...I don't know exactly what this was about, but harassment is a hot-button issue that won't be easy to overcome, plus whatever these other "serious policy violations" were.

The precipitating event (which we covered in this thread, registration required, sorry) was that he posted something mean about User:Masem (T-C-L) on Twitter, but before that he'd engaged in an "experiment" (lasting about three months or so) during which he pretended to be a black dude.

I mean, we can laugh about it now...

[turnedworm]

I think Beeblebrox is being a bit unfair in giving the impression that anyone could make a return, especially members of this forum. He's probably correct that given the right appeal, most people could clear the hurdle of persuading 8 out of 15 people who barely spend any time on the "shop floor"

However, it's not just that group that has to be persuaded. We do consult, be it the community by voting in public (or historically simply a community consultation) - or sometimes the Checkusers / functionaries as a group.... The fact is, if there is one person who holds a grudge against you who turns up, they can be very persuasive - and you don't get a right of reply.

Yes, I'm aware it's not fair. Appeals are stacked against the appellant. And No, I won't be putting in the herculean effort to get that changed for 3 reasons.
1) the stakes are too low. Wikipedia is just a website when all is said and done - there are far more important things to worry about
2) to have reached the "Arbcom appeal" eligibility, the appellant has crossed a line somewhere. If you haven't but are still eligible, the committee unblocks without rigmarole.
3) there are... other ways back. I am a strong advocate of a "quiet return" - where an individual comes back under the radar without the behaviours that got them in such a mess in the first place. I have user essay on the subject and it has been discussed here before.

I will generally make a bit more effort finding a solution for those people who edit under their real name, but I think that explains my stance generally.

[Vigilant]

Do me next!

[Osborne]

Do me next!

I'm not sure if this is an insult or a serious request...

[Vigilant]

Do me next!

I'm not sure if this is an insult or a serious request...

It's an opportunity to demonstrate worm's seriousness.

[turnedworm]

It's an opportunity to demonstrate worm's seriousness.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There are certain members of this forum - Vigilant, I include you in this number - who stand a snowball's chance in hell of returning in their current form. There are too many hurdles to overcome.

[Vigilant]

It's an opportunity to demonstrate worm's seriousness.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There are certain members of this forum - Vigilant, I include you in this number - who stand a snowball's chance in hell of returning in their current form. There are too many hurdles to overcome.

I appreciate your honesty.

Given that it's been 14 years and that I was blocked out of process in the first place, doesn't it seem like the rules might be counter productive?

Doesn't it seem like a more formal and less subjective formulation of governance might be a better approach?
Does 100 angry chimps at ANI seem like the best approach to handling problems?

en.wp usually gets a chance to do the right thing. They just so rarely take it.

[turnedworm]

I appreciate your honesty.

Given that it's been 14 years and that I was blocked out of process in the first place, doesn't it seem like the rules might be counter productive?

Doesn't it seem like a more formal and less subjective formulation of governance might be a better approach?
Does 100 angry chimps at ANI seem like the best approach to handling problems?

en.wp usually gets a chance to do the right thing. They just so rarely take it.

It's not been 14 years though, as you have been active here, and that would be taken into account.

I don't actually know the circumstances of your original block, or indeed your on-wiki username. I don't bother with researching individuals, I go by the debate that they are willing to provide in the location they provide it.

But to the general point, bans on Wikipedia are farcical. They are made by a tiny subset of the active community. De facto bans (where no one was willing to unblock) and this new 3 strike ban, moreso.

That's not to say that those subjected to bans should be unbanned. You'll probably find that most banned individuals would do better away from Wikipedia. When it comes down to it, so would most unbanned individuals.

[Poetlister]

most banned individuals would do better away from Wikipedia. When it comes down to it, so would most unbanned individuals.

Mods: Can we adopt that as the Board motto?

[Beeblebrox]

I certainly didn't mean to imply it would be easy, but in Vig's case it wouldn't even be arbcom because it isn't the sort of block we review. A regular unblock request could be posted at any time to be reviewed by any admin. That being said, I get the impression Mr. Vigilant doesn't actually care and isn't going to file any such request, so this is all very hypothetical.

Tarc's case is far more involved and clearly within the committees remit. But again, not sure if he's serious, plus it seems related to gamergate, which is not an area I'm keen to get involved in again without a very compelling reason.

[Vigilant]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vigilant~enwiki
I'm not sure I still have the pw.

I think this could be interesting.

Sadly, Vigilant is also taken.
I'll make a new account that is incontrovertibly me and announce such both here and there and let's just see what happens...

[Midsize Jake]

That being said, I get the impression Mr. Vigilant doesn't actually care and isn't going to file any such request, so this is all very hypothetical.

Maybe this is just my opinion, but the desire for vindication seems to last a lot longer than the desire for revenge, and sometimes even longer that the desire for supermodel Bella Hadid. So... don't be too surprised if he follows up on this.

[Eric Corbett]

That being said, I get the impression Mr. Vigilant doesn't actually care and isn't going to file any such request, so this is all very hypothetical.

Maybe this is just my opinion, but the desire for vindication seems to last a lot longer than the desire for revenge, and sometimes even longer that the desire for supermodel Bella Hadid. So... don't be too surprised if he follows up on this.

Do you not think that, given his very public and prolonged vilification of anyone who goes back to Wikipedia, he is being just a tad hypocritical?

[Midsize Jake]

Do you not think that, given his very public and prolonged vilification of anyone who goes back to Wikipedia, he is being just a tad hypocritical?

Hmmm... The short answer would probably be "yes," but you'd have to qualify it by pointing out that every case is different, and at the time, he had a pretty good case. Obviously it was a long time ago, so many of our members won't remember what it was like, but back then the admins were tight — and it was fairly common for some random "cabalist" administrator to just show up and ban someone on the basis of WP:NOTHERE or some other recently-made-up rule, with no discussion, no review, no nothing. Appeals were almost always denied, if not simply ignored. Over the years that mode of admin behavior has been soundly rejected, to the point where they pretty much can't get away with it now — but of course they haven't gone back and said "oops, we're sorry" to the people who got a raw deal because of it.

Like Mr. Turnedworm says, his subsequent ongoing criticism of WP (not to mention the often-coarse way he criticizes it) practically guarantees that he won't be allowed back in, but at the same time, you have to admit that he at least doesn't spend much time obsessing over the circumstances of that ban here, the way some others (cough, cough Kumioko cough) have done.

[Vigilant]

It's an exercise, don't overthink it.

Wouldn't that be funny though?

Corbett banned, Vigilant unbanned...
I can taste the tears already.

[Osborne]

Obviously it was a long time ago, so many of our members won't remember what it was like, but back then the admins were tight — and it was fairly common for some random "cabalist" administrator to just show up and ban someone on the basis of WP:NOTHERE or some other recently-made-up rule, with no discussion, no review, no nothing. Appeals were almost always denied, if not simply ignored. Over the years that mode of admin behavior has been soundly rejected, to the point where they pretty much can't get away with it now — but of course they haven't gone back and said "oops, we're sorry" to the people who got a raw deal because of it.

Unilateral de-facto bans were a common thing back then? Around which years do you put that period when it was common and when did this change?

[Midsize Jake]

Unilateral de-facto bans were a common thing back then? Around which years do you put that period when it was common and when did this change?

It coincided with the "explosive growth phase" from the latter half of 2004 through the latter half of 2007. I'd like to say it changed because Wikipedia Review become more widely-read, and I do think that public exposure/scrutiny had a lot to do with it, but there were really a number of factors involved and criticism sites (if not actual critics) were just one of them. A lot of people were really put off by the way Daniel Brandt was treated, for example, though it didn't seem that way at the time; that's really what led to the BLP policy, and while the BLP policy never did go far enough, it did help that it applied to user space too.

This also coincided with the rise of pure soclal-media sites (i.e., Facebook), which finally gave them something significant to feel superior to, and it was also in 2007 that Wikipedia entered the Alexa Top Ten. Once the stakes started rising that high, I suspect some of the people whose behavior had been unconstrained before started to realize they couldn't keep doing what they'd been doing without consequences, or at least not without being noticed. And who knows, maybe a few of them were just getting tired of it.

[Osborne]

It coincided with the "explosive growth phase" from the latter half of 2004 through the latter half of 2007. I'd like to say it changed because Wikipedia Review become more widely-read, and I do think that public exposure/scrutiny had a lot to do with it, but there were really a number of factors involved and criticism sites (if not actual critics) were just one of them. A lot of people were really put off by the way Daniel Brandt was treated, for example, though it didn't seem that way at the time; that's really what led to the BLP policy, and while the BLP policy never did go far enough, it did help that it applied to user space too.

This also coincided with the rise of pure soclal-media sites (i.e., Facebook), which finally gave them something significant to feel superior to, and it was also in 2007 that Wikipedia entered the Alexa Top Ten. Once the stakes started rising that high, I suspect some of the people whose behavior had been unconstrained before started to realize they couldn't keep doing what they'd been doing without consequences, or at least not without being noticed. And who knows, maybe a few of them were just getting tired of it.

Thanks for the recollection. Do you think the new movement target of diversity and civility will give another boost to the visibility of such decisions and behavior - good or bad, does not matter -, in two words: to transparency and accountability?
This question is also addressed to the arbitrators present.

[Midsize Jake]

Thanks for the recollection. Do you think the new movement target of diversity and civility will give another boost to the visibility of such decisions and behavior - good or bad, does not matter -, in two words: to transparency and accountability?
This question is also addressed to the arbitrators present.

I guess nobody can predict the future, but if they do somehow manage to increase user diversity during the next decade, it's probably fair to assume that conventional wisdom should apply — more women will improve internal relations, more ethnicities will upset internal relations. And as we've seen, when really serious ethnic conflicts are translated into disputes between WP users, it puts a lot of pressure on the admins to understand the nature of those conflicts, which is hard for anyone. The temptation to just say "a pox on both your houses" is enormous, but sometimes that just doubles the amount of criticism they get from the people affected.

I'm bloviating a bit here, but I suspect the visibility of the admins (and their decisions) is already about as high as it's likely to get — because as we've also seen, journalists don't like explaining (much less researching) the complex backgrounds of Wikipedia disputes. So if that visibility really is crucial to how they behave, then I doubt their behavior will get much better than it is now.

Meanwhile, it obviously helps a lot that they have Wikipedias for lots of different languages, since that causes users to "self-separate," but of course that's less of an advantage on the English WP because so many people around the world are fluent in English, and en.wiki is much bigger than the others. So the en.wiki admins will disproportionately be affected by increased ethnic diversity, if it ever happens.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying increased ethnic diversity is bad in general, just that it's likely to lead to increasing problems for the admins.

[Poetlister]

What is needed is to have a lot more admins who are active and competent. That's a tall order, especially the competence. As we've seen recently, good candidates can struggle at RfA because what the community seems to be looking for in an admin candidate isn't necessarily well correlated with what we might regard as competence.

[Osborne]

What is needed is to have a lot more admins who are active and competent. That's a tall order, especially the competence. As we've seen recently, good candidates can struggle at RfA because what the community seems to be looking for in an admin candidate isn't necessarily well correlated with what we might regard as competence.

Last time I checked there were more than a thousand admins, but only 3000 very active editors (those who determine policies and outcomes of disputes).
This imho is a manifestation of the insider culture: those who reached the edit count to become admin without getting into trouble with the wrong persons are made exempt of the rules for life and free to abuse those who are unknown, such as new users.
I think your emphasis is on more admins should be "competent", not that we need more admins. I'm stunned at the lack of knowledge, understanding and proper application of policies by those who attained elevated rights.

[Earthy Astringent]

Really cute analogy and I suppose you think you're being clever? However perhaps you should give some consideration as to why I'm being vague? Could it possibly be because I've been subjected to harassment both on and off wiki? No, of course not, that never happens, does it?

What the fuck ever. The subject of this thread is the unblock of Ricky. Your comments apparently aren't even about that, but rather just generalized mudslinging at arbcom with no context. Nobody made you post here, that was your choice, you can't blame others for the fact that you haven't said anything of substance.

Beeblebrox, please dial it back a few notches. Your tone and word usage is escalating rather than defusing. Consider that most users here come from a place of trauma, and that trauma comes from admins, Arbcom, and a poisonous culture. Try not to represent the worst aspects of that culture.

Sophie is the one who re-opened this thread. She started this whole renewed conversation quite deliberately, specifically to talk about this appeal, and now that she's been called out for not making a cogent argument she's saying she can't because of harassment.

But I said fuck so now I'm the bad guy, what is this, a Wikipedia talk page?

Your hypocrisy is quite staggering.

STFU, Eric.
You are the poster child for hypocrisy here.

But is he wrong?

[Anroth]

Most of the time yes.

[Eric Corbett]

Most of the time yes.

I'm not wrong about you though.

[Vigilant]

Most of the time yes.

I'm not wrong about you though.

Behold, Eric Corbett, a chav on the lash, cast rudely from wikipedia and cursed to purgatory... a comedy in seven parts.

[Poetlister]

I think your emphasis is on more admins should be "competent", not that we need more admins. I'm stunned at the lack of knowledge, understanding and proper application of policies by those who attained elevated rights.

That's why I said "active and competent". If all the existing good admins (including ones who have lost the bit through inactivity) could be persuaded to be really active, that would be a vast improvement. (Getting rid of a few less good ones would also help of course.)

[Eric Corbett]

I think your emphasis is on more admins should be "competent", not that we need more admins. I'm stunned at the lack of knowledge, understanding and proper application of policies by those who attained elevated rights.

That's why I said "active and competent". If all the existing good admins (including ones who have lost the bit through inactivity) could be persuaded to be really active, that would be a vast improvement. (Getting rid of a few less good ones would also help of course.)

Before I agreed with you I'd like to have a clearer idea of what it is you think that Wikipedia administrators ought to be doing. The common janitorial reference suggests that they're there to move pages around,, clean up afterwards, delete stuff that really shouldn't be there, and things like that. But too many take it upon themselves to block editors for stupid reasons like using words they don't understand, such as "sycophantic". Removing the ability for administrators to block other editors would be a major step in the right direction.

[Poetlister]

Before I agreed with you I'd like to have a clearer idea of what it is you think that Wikipedia administrators ought to be doing. The common janitorial reference suggests that they're there to move pages around,, clean up afterwards, delete stuff that really shouldn't be there, and things like that. But too many take it upon themselves to block editors for stupid reasons like using words they don't understand, such as "sycophantic". Removing the ability for administrators to block other editors would be a major step in the right direction.

The main function of an admin should be to make editing easier for those who are really there to build an encyclopaedia, by helping novices, resolving disputes and getting rid of troublemakers.

Someone needs to be able to block editors when necessary, but good people will know when it is and is not necessary. I have suggested unbundling admin rights, so there could be a separate "blocker" category of editors. However, even if that were to happen there would doubtless be people who acquired both admin and blocker rights eventually, just at there are people who are at least two of bureaucrat, oversighter and checkuser (and all people with any of those rights are admins).

[Beeblebrox]

That's not entirely true. For some time there Xeno (T-C-L) was a 'crat but not an admin. He only took the tools back after being elected to arbcom, technically making him the first non-admin to ever be elected to the committee.

[Eric Corbett]

That's not entirely true. For some time there Xeno (T-C-L) was a 'crat but not an admin. He only took the tools back after being elected to arbcom, technically making him the first non-admin to ever be elected to the committee.

So in the entire history of Wikipedia you have only one counter example?

[Eric Corbett]

Someone needs to be able to block editors when necessary, but good people will know when it is and is not necessary. I have suggested unbundling admin rights, so there could be a separate "blocker" category of editors. However, even if that were to happen there would doubtless be people who acquired both admin and blocker rights eventually, just at there are people who are at least two of bureaucrat, oversighter and checkuser (and all people with any of those rights are admins).

Someone does indeed need to block editors when necessary, but that's not a janitorial role.

I'm not sure a "blocker" category of user is the right way to go though, sounds too much like a nightclub bouncer. A better idea I think would be to have two classes of administrators, ones who can block and ones who can't without applying for that right via a mini RfA. Same applies to other user rights lazily handed out by the developers, such as template editor.

In other words, the "bottom" level of administrator does the basic janitorial tasks only, which would satisfy the WMF's insistence on an RfA for the right to see deleted content.

[Osborne]

I'm not sure a "blocker" category of user is the right way to go though, sounds too much like a nightclub bouncer. A better idea I think would be to have two classes of administrators, ones who can block and ones who can't without applying for that right via a mini RfA. Same applies to other user rights lazily handed out by the developers, such as template editor.

There should be two EXCLUSIVE classes (no two hats for the same person), as Eric suggests. How I would distinguish these roles:

One role who gets the tools for mass-editing, revert, page protection and 2 kinds of damage-mitigating blocks:
* vandals with <100 good edits (these come en masse), whose recent edits were reverted
* temporary 1-day/1-week block for egregious behavior, only on the affected page / namespace (if many pages)
This is practically the current admin role without the abused blocking rights, but retaining the tool for damage-mitigation.

The other role is "Dispute resolver", who's trained in some kind of dispute resolution process such as mediation or arbitration,
tasked with - well - resolving disputes and - if deemed necessary by at least 3 dispute resolvers - having the capability to enact up to one year long blocks.
The agreement must be the outcome of a proper process that evaluates the issues and possible resolutions.

[Eric Corbett]

Too sensible ever to be adopted, and I like your idea about the classes being exclusive.

[Poetlister]

I'm not convinced that the two classes should be exclusive, any more than say checkuser and oversighter should be exclusive. However, that's broadly what I have in mind. The idea that every privilege however trivial, like say rollbacker (easily duplicated with a gadget), should require the equivalent of an RfA sounds like overkill. It would choke up the system. And something like template editor should be decided by people competent to assess that person's ability to perform such a technical function; a mob rule popularity contest would scarcely be sensible there.

[Osborne]

The idea that every privilege however trivial, like say rollbacker (easily duplicated with a gadget), should require the equivalent of an RfA sounds like overkill. It would choke up the system.

The RfA process is already a populist meat-grinder, hardly about the merits of the candidates: the stakes of a for-life, partially above-the-rules position are too high.

Adminship (and rollback usage, etc.) should be instead reviewed annually in a process that's purpose is feedback to the admin, not a requirement to keep the tools.
Editors who know the reviewed admin are asked to share their experiences - good and bad - and the admin is required to address the complaints either with actions in-situ - that is satisfactory to more parties than the original action (fix the problem in other terms) - and/or by promising to improve future actions. These promises serve as a reference for next year's review.
If the administrator is not open to considering the complaints and the complainant finds this a serious issue, then an admin re-RfA should be started with one of the already discussed processes that require a certain number of signatures to start a standard RfA vote. Should that RfA vote fail, the editor can run RfA again a year later.

I see the underpinnings of such a system in the last round of the Movement Strategy proposals. How that will be implemented, is to be seen though.

And something like template editor should be decided by people competent to assess that person's ability to perform such a technical function; a mob rule popularity contest would scarcely be sensible there.

Absolutely. Generally, there should be semi-formal groups for certain responsibilities, transparently declared and accountable. This is also something hinted at in the proposals. I note that there are groups in the communities that make such decisions, however, these are ad-hoc, undeclared and unaccountable, mostly serving personal acquaintances and personal benefits, not the community's, the encyclopedia's and the wider movement's purposes and needs.

[Poetlister]

Adminship (and rollback usage, etc.) should be instead reviewed annually in a process that's purpose is feedback to the admin, not a requirement to keep the tools.

Undoubtedly admins should be reviewed regularly, and I think that on Wikisource there are annual reviews. Considering how much larger WP is, annual reviews there would take quite a lot of time. Maybe there shoud be a review after one year, and after that every three years would do. I see no point in doing it for rollbackers, given how trivial that permission is.