Wikipedia talk:Administrators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.
the Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Proposal for removal of adminship process[edit]

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new process to allow for removal of adminship through community discussion. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 16:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a new user-right group[edit]

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for administrators to request instead of requesting removal of the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 16:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Missing edit tool bar in the admin related areas[edit]

I'm sorry if this question have been answered before ... I miss some important features of the standard edit tool bar (such as Internal link and External link) in the admin related areas (delete, block) - there's no edit tool bar. I think it would make editing easier, as we could mark an internal or external link (it is needed quite often) much faster than by copying and pasting the bracket (not a standard sign on keyboards in my country). I apologize if my question is naive, I'm a technical dilettante. Thanks in advance for any constructive answer. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 March 2013[edit]

Please change ETH Zurich Faculty of Architecture to ETH Zurich Department of Architecture because this is the only correct appelation since 1999, source: http://www.arch.ethz.ch/darch/vorsteher_geschichte.php?lang=de&print=1 Ethz darch (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

From what I see, the article ETH Zurich only mentions department of architechure and never faculty of architecture.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Administrators. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Resigning adminship in anger[edit]

Pretty clear that this one will go nowhere.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Occasionally, an admin will resign his tools in anger over having been on the losing side of a dispute, and will request that his admin tools be removed. Should resigning one's adminship in this manner be treated as resignation under a cloud for purposes of readminship, thus requiring the admin to have to undergo RFA before regaining the tools? As a separate point, should such a policy be retroactive, and apply to administrators that have already resigned in this fashion?—Kww(talk) 00:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Under a cloud: I think this is an essential component of Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas. Having a hissy fit over having been on the losing side of a dispute reveals a temperament that is not suitable for adminship. I certainly would not support adminship for anyone that had displayed such a profound lack of profound lack of maturity. I also have no objection to making this requirement retroactive, but don't feel strongly about this aspect one way or the other.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • While I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment that admins should be sufficiently mature to not walk off in a huff, I'm not sure there's been a sufficiently bad problem to justify making more rules about the situation. Can you give us some examples of situations where this would have improved outcomes? Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm currently disturbed by the reassurances given both Drmies and Boing! said Zedebee that their resignations were not seen as being "under a cloud". To me, that's ridiculous, but I'm powerless to do anything about it. Even if I can't fix those cases because of concerns about retroactive policy writing, I would like to make certain that we don't get reoccurrences. —Kww(talk) 01:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. You might want to point to those discussions, and the previous disputes, as being the catalysts for your concern, because not everyone coming across this RfC is going to know the relevant history. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know what "losing side in a dispute" Kww is talking about when it comes to me, or to Boing for that matter. I find it funny that Kww and others think they know why a person they don't know from Adam (and a person they haven't asked) makes a certain decision. Until they do, I think it would be wise if they wouldn't presume. A few people know a bit about why I asked to be relieved of the tool (temporarily, perhaps), but the ones who presume to know are not in that crowd. If anyone really cares, they can ask. Kww doesn't really care so he doesn't need to ask me. Newyorkbrad knows a bit; whether Brad will confirm or not that I resigned the tool out of a diva-ish sense of anger, I can't tell. But I will say this much: the block of Eric had very little to do with my decision. Kww may recall, since he seems to know me so well, that Eric has been blocked before without my giving up the tool. What I found most disturbing in recent weeks, maybe months, is the behavior of some administrators, and I'm not angry at all, just sad. BTW, I am not aware that I was given a cloudless pass (though I think it was said to Boing); I didn't ask for one, but I am not sure why there should be a cloud, or why it should be such a big deal to other admins. Unless, of course, those administrators like to think that admin-status equals infallability and invincibility, and that Boing's and my actions take away from their own status.

    Or, to the point of the RfC, since Kww will never be able to prove that anger was in play here, the question has a baseless presumption and thus is invalid. At least as it applies to me, and I think to Boing as well. Retroactively punishing (former) admins based on some wild speculation is both illogical and unjustifiable. I believe, but ask Newyorkbrad to make sure, that in the real world such a thing would never fly legally. Also, thanks for the notification, Kevin. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Whether this would apply to you in this specific case is a different question, Drmies. If you believe that most people could be persuaded that this pair of resignations was not in response to a block against Eric Corbett finally being allowed to stay in place, that's fine: the policy change wouldn't apply to you. I think the chances of you persuading most people of that is fairly slim.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • One of the worst ideas I've ever seen. Even Jesus lost his cool sometimes. Horrendous idea.PumpkinSky talk 02:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't interpret the mentioned resignations as "hissy fits", but as legitimate ways of communicating frustration or alienation, or as a legitimate form of taking a break of administrative duties, or as a legitimate way of distancing oneself of a certain mindset or as ... How narrow and unimaginative to implicitly call them divas! Moreover, I didn't see these actions (admittedly powerful actions which I as a non-admin will never be able to emulate) as the result of "having been on the losing side of a dispute" (a quick rewinding check of how the two mentioned administrators have reacted to other events in the past where they somehow wound up on "the losing side" will suffice to show that they are not poor losers, not that that matters, this cannot be about being the most graceful Wikispock). Frankly, I am perplexed by this proposal and strongly oppose it. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • What next? Occasionally an admin will propose a silly RfC—should they be deemed to have resigned their adminship under a cloud? Until we get WP:FLOW, Wikipedia is not a forum, and existentialist discussions over the motivations rather than the actions of an editor are not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Kww - I have to admit that I'm beginning to question your judgement here. First you edit war to keep open a proposal at WT:RfA that was an obvious snow close as oppose. Now you're citing an essay in WP:DIVA (nice as it is) which is actually a contradiction to our real rules in the WP:AGF guideline. An admin. may resign his tools for many reasons: To focus on content without the distraction of other duties, frustration at the inconsistencies which are often so prevalent here, tiredness due to real life or issues here, and yes, perhaps anger (or as you so eloquently put it "hissy fit") over a perceived wrong or injustice. That we would even TRY to judge a person's motivation is the height of foolishness. We should not, because we can not, try to evaluate the WHY any person does what they do. What we should do is deal with the posts and their value to the project. If all your posts on this matter are simply your own proclamation that "it was a good block", then you are entitled to your opinion - but others may well disagree with that assessment. — Ched :  ?  03:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What may actually be helpful would be allowing crats to put a desysop request on hold for 24 hours, like the stewards do on Meta, to make sure that the admin really wants to resign. --Rschen7754 03:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I could easily support that. — Ched :  ?  03:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Why does anyone even resign adminship? If you don't want to fulfill the duties the community agreed to let you handle, just... don't use the tools anymore. You want to retire from Wikipedia altogether? Scramble your password or something. The tools will be removed after some while for inactivity. Resigning the tools, at the present time, feels more like the user is "making a statement", and franky, I fail to see how such puerile drama-mongering helps the project. :) ·Salvidrim!·  03:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Because they want to continue to create and improve content without the badge? Because they wish to say "enough is enough". Because they're weary of adminship. Because they're channeling Groucho Marx? Because they're scared of the temptation and possibly couldn't resist protecting a page though they'd prefer not to? A statement does not equate puerile drama-mongering. I wouldn't oppose Rschen7754's proposal, though the time necessarily invested in de- and re-sysoping disgruntled staff appears negligible compared to the time invested in debating, discussing, berating, and fussing over whether a cloud has manifested itself over fed-up heads of disgruntled admins or not. I don't think this would change much, but it wouldn't change much for the worse either, so go ahead. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Salvidrim!, would you meekly drop away, say, Wikipedia went fully commercial (with ads and everything), or would you prefer to make a statement? Personally, I'd resign. If the community were to enforce certain standards, say everything must be about something for which there are English-language sources (or even worse, we can only use English-language sources) I'd most likely resign. If I or one of my Wikifriends were pestered day-in and day-out by persons who never quite cross the incivility threshhold, but are clearly pushing an agenda and have a clique of admins supporting them, I'd very likely resign. A statement is, at times, necessary. First they came for the communists, and I said... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Hissy fitting is not well respected at RfA. Someone who has turned to hissy fitting should seek re-confirmation as an opportunity to apologize. If point-making adminship resignations are reversible on a simple request, then what's the point? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Support assuming a resignation behavior so immature of otherwise incompatible with adminship that it would have been a good reason to oppose at RfA. This does not include resigning due to frustration, or due to a wish to take a break from adminship tasks & expectations. I think that this view fits within bureaucrat discretion of WP:Cloud. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
That definition of "cloud" only encompasses behaviour that is quite likely to get the bit forcibly removed. That's an extremely strict standard. It's tough to forcibly remove an admin's bit.—Kww(talk) 05:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it includes behavior that that could lead to a reasonable editor choosing to initiate an RFCU. If the resignation statement itself can be read incorporating an ATTACK, or any behavior severely unbecoming an administrator, then I would consider there to be a CLOUD. As in real life, you can resign discretely, and you can burn your bridges. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Idealism vs Pragmatism. As are so many of the subjective disagreements around Wikipedia.
    Ideally, nobody would ever have a bad day and make a decision in the heat of the moment - nor after hours, or days, or weeks, or months, of mounting frustration. Ideally, we would have a vast surplus of active admins and not be concerned if some choose to step away for a while. In an ideal situation, it would be possible to objectively point to a decision like this, and say "it was purely because of x". Those situations do not occur, because Wikipedia is built by humans, and humans are fantastically varied and flawed and complex, each in our own ways.
    If an incident was merely the straw that broke the camel's back, then we can't state that the incident was the only reason the [resignation-]action resulted. It's an imperfect way to make a statement, but we deal with thousands of imperfect situations in every realm of human existence. We (hopefully) try to make the best of it, not escalate the problem. –Quiddity (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, largely per Quiddity. While I don't think resigning adminship in frustration and then reclaiming it is an optimal practice, I don't think that forbidding it would resolve any actual problem, and I do think people should be allowed to change their minds. (I can also confirm that I received a thoughful and informative e-mail from Drmies several days ago, though I'd rather keep this discussion focused on the general proposal rather than a specific case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
On what planet would that be an immediate (or even delayed) block for anyone? Not the English Wikipedia, that's for sure (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Requires making an intrusive judgement as to motivation. Let's let the bureaucrats do their jobs and determine whether someone asking for their tools back should receive them, or whether they resigned "under a cloud". Yngvadottir (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Speaking from experience, I resigned my tools for several months a couple years ago, when dealing with burnout and utter frustration left me at a low ebb. Thankfully, my friends were there to "cushion the fall", so to speak, and I returned later and did quite well. If someone is frustrated, we shouldn't be looking for ways to punish them. SirFozzie (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In fact it requires a struggle (which I have made) to attribute good faith to the suggestion. Bongomatic 05:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and, as Bongo says, it is hard to believe this RFC is in good faith. Resigning in protest over a particular treatment of editors, or a change in direction taken which one honestly believes is detrimental to the encyclopedia (how many admins would quit if Wikipedia went commercial?), should be within the right of all administrators. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a terrible idea, guaranteed to further polarize and fracture the community if implemented. I'm honestly surprised someone as experienced as Kww would propose such a thing. 28bytes (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Editors leave all the time, under various different reasons. Some do it quietly, others do it loudly. Unless the admin goes out via vandalizing everything in sight (as has happened before), then this is the classic example of a punitive action. I would welcome back Drmies and Boing! right now, if they wanted to become sysops - they've got more clue than half of the admins put together. Also, several people in here really need to stop quoting WP:DIVA as if it is either policy or gospel fact; it's neither of those. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose At first I was going to call this a pointy waste of time. But actually this thread tells us a lot about the lack of empathy, or simple awareness of ordinary human emotions and behaviour, of some of our admins most heavily involved in sanctioning and "controlling" other people here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose even if we can accurately determine the reason why someone resigned their adminship, I don't see any reason to think that resigning in this way means an editor cannot be trusted with the tools, the proposal comes across as punitive and it will probably harm editor retention. Hut 8.5 11:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Anthonyhcole, 28bytes, Crisco 1492 and Newyorkbrad above. Andreas JN466 11:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. In my guide for last year's ArbCom electons, I opined of Kww that "In general, I don't see the empathy and understanding for other editors that I would want to see in an Arb". I have no more to add to that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposal does not appear to make the system any more rational. What should occur is any resignation requires (re)application in the usual community way. There should be a Crat system for voluntary time off (with suspension of access) in cases of need. There should be no claim that (re)application to the community is punishment. As for discussion of whether some conduct is apparently divaish, sometimes and in someways that's appropriate, sometimes and in someways it's not. But as the present proposal only compounds the cloudy irrationalities, it does not appear to be an improvement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Um. The only reasons I can think of for this RfC are not good ones so I'll just leave my opinion as an oppose. --regentspark (comment) 13:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per much of the above. Newyorkbrad is right, this solves no problems. An editor resigns the bit, and you're gonna go "OK, but how do you feel about it?" Absurd. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Quiddity, NYB & Anthonyhcole. Being a wikipedia editor is voluntary. Being an admin is doublely so - sysops volunteer to administrate volunteers. While walking away "in anger" is not a good reason to resign the bit, that, in and of itself, is no reason to refuse to reinstate it. Such a policy just wouldn't make sense anywhere but more especially in a volunteer environment--Cailil talk 14:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Are any of these wheel-warring?[edit]

Background

  1. On 4 July User:Fram blocked User:Eric Corbett for one month
  2. on 5 July User:Scottywong modifed the block duration with an edit summary claiming user request
  3. On 5 July User:Floquenbeam restored the block duration
  4. On 24 July INeverCry unblocked Eric
  5. On 24 July Prodego restored the block
  6. On 24 July INeverCry unblocked Eric

Question

Which of these admin actions constitute Wheel-warring (WW)?

The definition is:

Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another admin, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action.

While I have known that WW was the second reversal (third action), rather than the first reversal, I hadn't appreciated until just now that the definition includes the qualifier "combative fashion".

A finding of WW has serious consequences, "reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents". Therefore, it would be useful to see how the community views these actions. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • This raises two different albeit interconnected issues: 1) whether it is wheel warring; and 2) assuming it is wheel warring, whether any remedy should be applied (do nothing, or reprimand and caution, temporary block, or desysopping). The first issue is a technical discussion of sometimes some heat applying the definition. The second issue is a prudential discussion, of sometimes some heat, which turns on varying judgement issues concerning the degree and consequence of the offense. Defintional issues will always have clear and unclear cases, prudential issues even more so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • One thing that's not reflected in the chart is the level of consensus involved in each subsequent administrator action. An admin action can always be reversed after a duly-considered discussion, which also generally means that there will be a new administrator to assess consensus and take action. Looking only at the bare summaries without their underlying discussions, action 6 is probably grounds for an emergency desysop, and not simply wheel warring. Jclemens (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The answer to this depends on when you start counting. If the original block is deemed to be the first admin action, and INeverCry's first unblock the second, then both INeverCry and Prodego wheel warred. However I think it is significant that several weeks elapsed between these admin actions. During that time the block was discussed in a number of venues and was not overturned, so I think there was arguably de facto consensus that the block should stand. In which case INeverCry's first unblock should be treated as the first admin action, and so Prodego did not wheel war. Either way INeverCry did.

    Of course the other issue we have to address here is whether our wheel war policy produces a desirable outcome. It leads to a situation in which it is virtually impossible to block an editor who has a number of friends and sympathisers prepared to make noise on their behalf. If someone does block them a sympathetic admin will unblock, and it isn't possible to get the block reinstated, because any admin who does so without a clear consensus at some noticeboard will have wheel warred, and the blocked editor has enough friends to turn any noticeboard discussion into a no consensus mess. The result is not exactly desirable. Hut 8.5 15:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • In my view, both #5 and #6 were wheel-warring; User:Prodego reinstated User:Fram's block after User:INeverCry undid it, which goes against both the letter and the spirit of WP:WHEEL: "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." Quite clearly INeverCry opposed it, so discussion with INeverCry should have been the next step rather than reinstating the block. Automatically (and "procedurally") reblocking people we're unhappy have been unblocked is a recipe for disaster, as this episode has demonstrated. 28bytes (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In my view, #5 was not wheel-warring. Inadvisable, definitely; sanctionable, perhaps; but not wheel-warring. The key reason is that there was community consensus to not overturn the block. At that point, "blocked" became the status quo. INeverCry made an administrative decision, to unblock - against status quo. Prodego disagreed and restored the status quo. INeverCry unblocked again, that was where the wheel war occured. It would have been better for Prodego to not press the button and allow discussion to happen - but that's not wheel warring. WormTT(talk) 15:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree that "there was community consensus to not overturn the block". The discussion is here; it seems clear to me from both the closing comments and a fresh read at the thread itself that there was substantial opposition to the block. You could reasonably say "there was no community consensus to overturn the block" due to the thread being cut short by EC's (brief) retirement, but that's a critical difference in that the block (and block length) was not given the imprimatur of the community. The closers' comments don't claim a consensus, and I think they were correct not to claim one. I'm just not seeing the consensus you see. Regardless, I'm not sure how reinstating an undone block without any discussion could not be considered wheel warring. It would be different if the reblock were made as a result of a community discussion, but as we saw from the followup discussion, there was even less support for a reblock than there was for the original block, so it can't reasonably be said that Prodego was enforcing consensus; such a consensus simply didn't exist. (That's not to say I think Prodego should be sanctioned in any way; I just don't want to see a precedent set that these "procedural" reblocks are an acceptable exception to our "don't reinstate an undone administrative action" bright line.) 28bytes (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
You are right. I didn't follow the entire conversation, and looking at how it ended, there was not consensus. That does make the situation a little more difficult and Prodego's actions more problematic. Discussion should be key, and I see no reason that he should have reblocked without discussion. I still don't agree it was wheelwarring due to the timescales involved, but it's less clear cut than I believed it to be. WormTT(talk) 08:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED and "changed visibility of a revision on page"[edit]

I have recently come across an instance where an admin deleted content on a page where a fairly intense debate was happening and that admin was involved in the debate. I spoke to the admin about it and they seemd coginsant of my concerns, which I appreciate, but I would like to bring the issue up to the community as a whole.

WP:INVOLVED says that an admin should not do administrative actions to a page in which they are involved in the debate except in "straightforward cases (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator". My problem is in cases where the admin has privileges to change the visibility of a revision. In that case it is impossible for "normal" editors to determine if the case was "straightforward" or not. I am of the opinion that the policy should be rephrased to say that unverifiable cases cannot be considered "straightforward" and that admins should defer to an uninvolved admin. The biggest problem is that although another admin can verify that what the involved admin did, that is unlikley to happen due to the sheer volume of edits an admin does, therefore there should be a blanket ban and "normal" editors should be able to call the admin out for unverifiable (to them) changes. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, all admins have the ability to revdel an edit so that only other admins can see it. That, in and of itself, should not affect whether the admin is involved. If there's a basis for deleting the revision, there's no problem. If a non-admin wants to question whether the admin's action was appropriate, the can do the usual, go to the admin and ask, and if they don't obtain satisfaction, take it to ANI. I see no basis for changing the policy itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There's another possibility, one I endorse, as I would not like to push for a blanket ban. In cases where an admin has some contributions to the content, then sees something requiring an admin action, they have done so, then immediately posted to AN for review. While some might prefer a posting on AN asking for the action, sometimes time is an issue, so I am comfortable taking the action, and then asking for review. Clearly, if an admin found their judgement challenged a few times, they should rethink the approach, but if most are upheld, with a rare reversal, no harm is done.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I personaly think the more eyes on any change the better, but SPhilbrick, your idea is good as long as there is guaranteed eyes on the change, and it does allow for quick action. Maybe we could say "use the administrator noticeboard(SPhilbrick's method) only for urgent matters, otherwise let another admin take care of it"? CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
That works for me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Strengthening WP:INVOLVED[edit]

Right now WP:INVOLVED is quite weak, I am of the opinion that it needs to be strengthened. There are enough administrators that it should not be hard for any administrator that is even peripherally involved in an indecent or has even a mildly strong opinion on a topic to get another entirely uninvolved admin to take a look at the problem and have that entirely uninvolved admin use the tools. Why is WP:INVOLVED so weak? How can we strengthen it? CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There are many highly contentious topics which involve battles going back years. Wikipedia relies on a very small number of admins who have the skill and patience (and sometimes a vague interest in the topic) to follow at least some of the back-and-forth surrounding a particular topic. It might take a "specialist" admin an hour to explain to a squeaky-clean uninvolved admin what problem requires a remedy—sometimes a bitter fight involves just a couple of letters in the name of a region, and an outsider has no idea about the real-world historical impact of those letters, nor the Wikipedia history of related Arbcom cases and arbitration enforcement requests. Adding a strict definition that UNINVOLVED = "has never commented or edited or acted on the topic" would mean that admins would abandon the many highly contentious areas and leave the participants to battle it out. The same thing applies on a much smaller scale to obvious cases such as blatant BLP violations—requiring an admin who is vaguely following a dispute to take the extra time and effort to explain the problem to another admin may tip the balance such that it is easier to just ignore the problem area. In the case where there may be some doubt about UNINVOLVED, the admin can act (for example, to remove a BLP violation), then post at WP:AN for review. Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The outcome of the ArbCom case "Perth" has, I believe, indirectly strengthened WP:INVOLVED. The rulings suggest that admins should avoid using the tools in any kind of controversial way on articles they have edited, even in the quite distant past. Ben MacDui 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
So if I've reverted vandalism in an article, or protected it because of vandalism or sock puppetry, I'm barred from using my tools? I agree with Johnuniq. It's better to take action and then ask for a review sometimes. In any case, I disagree with the suggestion that Perth requires us to make a change, indeed it doesn't seem to suggest anything of the kind. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that it suggested a change to the existing wording, although it is certainly a cautionary tale. Ben MacDui 17:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's a cautionary tale, but I don't think it has anything to say about INVOLVED, although it does provide a warning for any admin considering whether they should wheel war over the who-cares title of an article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The headlines were about wheel warring but my old sparring partner, Ye Deacone, was "admonished for use of administrative tools while involved" - and his expressing an opinion on a talk page 3 years prior to the main action was cited as evidence. I am not expressing an opinion one way or the other about ArbCom's decision, but other than IP vandals there must be very few pages on my watch list about which it would not be possible to find some kind of evidence that I had once expressed an opinion on the general topic. My reading of this is therefore that any controversial use of tools in areas where you are knowledgeable and active, very broadly construed, is discouraged. Action against obvious vandalism and sock-puppetry would be fine, it's the POV pushers that are a much less black and white issue. Ben MacDui 09:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Such proposals accomplish very little than to slow response time and to eventually paralyze admins. A lot of us get drawn into articles that are of very little personal interest. My vandalism reversion eventually resulted in a lot of Disney Channel related articles being on my watchlist. Since I check the contributions and revert vandalism on other articles once I notice one piece, it's approaching a complete set. When I revert vandalism, I tend to look at the article and find a lot of problems created by the children that tend to edit in this area, which I then fix. Am I now "involved" with the Disney Channel? No, and since I'm one of a vanishingly small number of admins that pays attention to the area, it would cripple me to have to go ask someone else every time I had to do something. There's no reason at all for me to expect that some other admin would eventually notice.—Kww(talk) 18:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your analysis about Disney Channel, but to re-iterate what I wrote above, action against obvious vandalism and sock-puppetry is fine, it's the POV pushers that are the problem. Ben MacDui 09:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Who responds?[edit]

These tables are interesting but incomplete. It would be very useful to know who responds to the messages and returns to activity...50%? 1 out of 10? None?
This practice has two benefits A) weeding out Admins who have stopped working on Wikipedia and have moved on and B) reconnecting with inactive Admins and inviting them back to active service. It seems like A is being done but this tells us nothing about B.
Can someone who maintains this page provide some comparison of Admins who either responded or fell off the inactive list once contacted? Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

87.249.103.164[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you could deal/block? with this vandal, unfortunately, I do not know how to do this, but he does it on different wikipedia's. Thanks. De.vos.katja (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We can only deal with what happens on this Wikipedia, sorry. The vandalism by 87.249.103.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is nothing out of the ordinary. I've applied a short block. In the future, please use WP:AIV to report instances of vandalism.  Sandstein  11:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

When is an Admin acting as an administrators?[edit]

If an Admin reports me to WP:AN, are they always acting in their capacity as an administrator, or can they be acting as just a editor? If the latter, at which point do their actions become Admin actions? When they discuss bans? Threaten bans? Actually make a ban? --Iantresman (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

None of the above. Any editor can report someone to AN/ANI, and by reporting you to AN/ANI they are quite distinctly NOT acting as an admin. Any editor can discuss bans, warn about blocks. Only the community can ban...although there are indeed various types of bans. ES&L 13:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Mass message?[edit]

So, I cannot use mass message because I am not an administrator?

If this is the case, it might be time to take the plunge. I've never had an overwhelming desire to become an admin, but I do already have many rights, and I imagine some of the tools would be quite helpful (there are probably even some tasks I do now that would be much easier with tools unfamiliar to me). Please let me know if there is another way to distribute messages in mass, so that I do not have to manually invite project members to every single meetup or campaign. Thank you! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a proposal to create a way to give non-admins the right, and it is almost certainly going to pass (nobody has opposed it yet). User:EdwardsBot seems to be still operating. Hut 8.5 07:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying WP:INVOLVED[edit]

Seeking agreement for this edit, which ought to be included to spare admins from needless harassment from outside parties. Imagine that I'm in a bigtime dispute with another editor, and then I go off and delete several pages in her userspace — because she had tagged them with {{db-u1}}, and they unquestioningly qualified. She isn't going to complain, but we've got enough people here who jump into situations looking for a fight, and this might well be taken as a WP:INVOLVED violation. The point of the section is that you shouldn't gain an advantage with the tools, not that you shouldn't use them uncontroversially when an unrelated dispute exists. Nyttend (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd support this change. The existing wording seems to assume admins are not content editors. Why should an admin be prevented from protecting a page they have edited or moving a page over a redirect that is of interest to a project they are a member of if there is no dispute? Ben MacDui 09:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNINVOLVED exception: Appeals[edit]

WP:UNINVOLVED states: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved .. One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role".

I think there is an exception: in an WP:RFAR appeal. Here, the original admins are being held accountable for their original decisions per WP:ADMINACCT, and should explain and account for their actions in the "Comments" section, and not make any decisions in the "Results" sections, as there is a perceived conflict of interest. Otherwise it is like asking the police to investigate themselves. --Iantresman (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Admins are discussing potential results - including an admin who was involved in the original decision. Just like they have a right (and responsibility) to chime in during an unblock request, they have similar requirements here. Now, if that admin was the CLOSER and implemented/denied something, then we have an issue - but the current wording already covers that ES&L 12:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
(ec) In my view, what Iantresman says is true, but it applies only to the administrator who actually imposed the sanction under appeal, and not to any administrators who commented (favorably, disfavorably or ambiguously) in the discussion leading up to the sanction. That's because arbitration enforcement actions, like blocks, are individual actions, not consensus-based actions. This issue is relevant only for the appeal of discretionary sanctions, and is discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review#Involvedness of admins who have previously expressed an opinion about the sanction.  Sandstein  12:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
In many cases, the Admin who actually imposed a sanction, is rubber-stamping the consensus they feel has been reached. But the admins who reach consensus are clearly involved in reaching this decision. This only becomes an apparent conflict of interest during an appeal (see Appellate court which is separate from a trial court). I am not saying that these admins should not take part, only that they should not take part in the decision making process of an appeal in the "Results" section. Thanks for the link to the earlier discussion on this. --Iantresman (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Per the Cynic's Guide, #8, Iantresman has a specific instance in mind in raising this question. I don't think it's reasonable to carve out an exception here. If an AE case is reviewed by 5 or 6 admins, all of whom agree that a sanction is warranted, then it doesn't make sense to disqualify all 5 or 6 from commenting on an appeal. First of all, the potential for gaming the system is obvious. Secondly, as a practical matter I don't think there are sufficient active AE admins to provide a completely new, non-overlapping panel everytime a sanctioned editor appeals. I do think it's a best practice for an admin commenting on an appeal to disclose that they were involved in the initial sanction discussion, but I think it's unreasonable (and clearly inconsistent with written policy and practice) to consider such admins "involved" or ineligible to participate. MastCell Talk 01:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
While my enquiry was based on a specific instance, you will note that I did not include any names, or make any accusations against anyone. I did this in order to try and keep this discussion as neutral as possible, and not involve personalities, with one exception [1] as a courtesy. --Iantresman (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I demur -- if an admin can be perceived by an outside observer as not being able to view any matter in a neutral and dispassionate manner, then such an admin should consider himself "involved: precisely to the extent to which he "already has made up his mind." The purpose of any review in this world is to get fresh and dispassionate eyes on it, not to have the same people making the same judgements a second time. Where the appeal is specifically about an admin, then the admin is not there as a dispassionate observer, but as a party to what is being reviewed -- it is not an "exception" therefore. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wheel warring[edit]

Anyone object to the addition of something to WP:WHEEL saying basically "It's also not wheel warring if the other administrator changes his mind and agrees to the reversion". My perspective is basically that there's no real difference between you self-reverting and you giving the other guy permission to revert you — and I can imagine plenty of situations in which a revert would require a lot more time than just hitting "undo", so you might do this if you didn't have time to fix it but the other guy did and was willing to do it. WP:WHEEL is meant to prohibit people from fighting, not to keep them from changing their minds and agreeing on a certain action. Nyttend (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Overall sensible, but why doesnt the admin undo their own action? Anyway, could 'agrees' be 'explicitly agrees', or some other way of stipulating that ambiguous or casual off-hand remarks like "Whatever!" cant be interpreted as agreement to bypass the wheel war provision. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
As I say, imagine that you're pressed for time, and/or the undo will require a bunch of work to make all the software work correctly. After all, if the situation's in dispute, you don't want to self-revert without explaining what's going on; if the other guy has convinced you that you really shouldn't have re-un-protected the page that's the center of a big dispute, it might take a while to write up a good explanation as a message to the disputants. If he's willing, he might do a lot better job than you at writing that message, especially if you're about to run out the door. And note that I wasn't attempting to propose specific wording or criteria; it was just a concept with rationale, and the suggested text was basically so that you'd know what I was proposing. "Explicit agreement" or something like that would be good, precisely for the reason you suggest. Nyttend (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The 'running out the door' justification is, IMO, only worth supporting if the revert is time sensitive, in which case IAR is probably good enough. Weakening the definition of wheel warring is creating work for everyone, esp. ARBCOM, as they sort through the occasional mess that results. Rather than using 'agreement to revert', we could use 'requested to revert'. This makes it more explicit, and there are many policies which could benefit from the concept of an agent acting on behalf of another person. If the 'running out the door' admin knows they need to request it, explicitly, then the language of the discussion will be focused on appropriateness of the revert, then switch to who is going to do what with a 'could you do that for me because ...' request. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever; I don't particularly care about the wording, but you know how many wikilawyers will call for people's heads and ignore IAR totally. When something is good, better to have policy explicitly permit it than have to rely on IAR. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Username requests from users who have RfA page(s), etc.[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Username requests from users who have RfA page(s), etc.. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Should admins inform the community when taking a wikibreak?[edit]

Admin User:Toddst1 apparently is on an 11 month wikibreak. While that piece of information is available here, that isn't the location I would tend to look if I were trying to contact someone. I suggest that the Expectations of adminship should include a requirement that an admin on a wikibreak should make an announcement at the top of their talk page. We can wordsmith the exact provision, but I suggest first we find out if there is general agreement that an admin should share this information is a more public way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any single chance this proposal would ever succeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
That's not particularly helpful. Do you think it would fall afoul of some existing policy? Written or unwritten? Do you think it is a bad idea for admins to communicate, or do you object to expressing it as a requirement? Frankly, I think it is implied by the failure to communicate wording in Accountability, but I think it should be a bit more explicit. I can also imagine that the circumstances leading someone to take a wikibreak might be the same circumstances that cause them to forget such a routine polite announcement, but I also know it is generally considered impolite to add notices to someone else's talk page; if such an announcement were required, then someone could add it on their behalf if they fail to.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I just think that such policy simply can not be implemented - what would you do to an admin who failed to communicate that they are on a wikibreak? And if they had good reasons, like an accident or smth? For this reason I believe the policy will not have any support. But you can try of course.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Just place the standard wiki break template on his talk page and be done with it, no need to create a new rule about it. -- John Reaves 22:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Kind request to delete a image / blasphemy[edit]

Dear Wiki

I am your regular reader / visitor. I would like to request your kind organization to remove 1 image mentioned with the below link as a picture mentioning our Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) in the page of black stone showing the person who is fixing the Black Stone which is in our views is not allowed in our religion and is blasphemy which may hurt muslims feeling and may cause to unpeaceful situations

I am requesting you to remove this image from the page this will be not an issue for you to remove an image and caring feelings of the muslims fellow I am not sure how did this picture get there and who put that , any how Please remove the image name mentioned below with the link url :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone

Image name : 250px-Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg


full url detail : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

I really appreciate and am thankful if you delete this for me which is a good manner to care about feelings of others who are especially your regular reader

God bless you all

[phone number removed] Ahmed Hassan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.203.137.245 (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but the community of Wikipedia editors has discussed this issue at length and decided that we will not remove images because of religious concerns. Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which explains this and tells you how you can configure Wikipedia so that these images are not displayed to you.  Sandstein  09:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

IBCPirates[edit]

on my IBCPirates page, I accidentally posted too much information about myself. I got a notice about it, and I immediately changed it and tried not to reveal to much. Can getting one notice result in me getting banned from wikipedia? IBCPirates (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)IBCPirates

@IBCPirates: no, it can't, don't worry about it. The information has been suppressed so that no-one can see it. Do read the good advice that Risker left on your talk page, though. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
So I cannot get banned from that incident? IBCPirates (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)IBCPirates
No, you can't get banned because of it, that's what I just said above. Everyone makes mistakes, the thing to do after a mistake is, learn from it and don't make that mistake again. See the poem called THE ROAD TO WISDOM? by Piet Hein on the page Grook. JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you said, just making sure. 'The Road to Wisdom'? What's that? IBCPirates (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I have one last question or concern. I didn't know images were supposed to be copyrighted, and I posted an image of Pirates of the Caribbean in commons that was copyrighted, and I got a notification. Could I get blocked for that? IBCPirates (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)IBCPirates

Moderators[edit]

Can Wikipedia offer moderator positions which include patroller, autopatroller, rollbacker functions as well as delete and block articles Some of members of my Wiki did not want to be administrators because of overload responsibilities but they are quite happy to be moderators to help community as much as they can. Alphama (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Reading your post, at first I thought you were referencing a "moderator" type user group for use on the English Wikipedia. If you are, you should check out Wikipedia:PERENNIAL#Hierarchical_structures and Wikipedia:Moderators/Proposal. Yet you state that "Some of members of my Wiki", which means, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have your own Wiki using the Mediawiki software. I think it's possible to create your own usergroups using the software, which you can find out at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Contents, and if it's not covered there, ask at the support desk. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please I need to be a admin[edit]

I know that I need to be an admin. TropicalCyclones243 (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

TropicalCyclones243, requests to be made an admin should be made at WP:RFA, but users with your level of experience are not typically given adminship. I recommend you work as a normal editor for a while before attempting to become an admin. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014[edit]

182.182.17.207 (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

sa.wikipedia.org problem[edit]

Hi ! I want to share some problems with you, because you are connected with sa.wikipedia.org. Our admin is neglecting us. Admin is not involving us in policy making process and when we are propose some requests, then also he don't even reply us. I and many other users of sa.wikipedia.org are felt helpless against our Admin. Please guide us in this problem. if you will not take it seriously, then in future it may be a big problem of sa.wikipedia.org. NehalDaveND (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)