Wikipedia talk:Administrators

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External videos
video icon Wheel warring

Question[edit]

How to become an administrator? Mood segregate (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is literally on the table of contents for the linked page Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator. — xaosflux Talk 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you I just didn't find it last night Mood segregate (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help distinguish admin actions from general editor conversation[edit]

caveat: Bishonen is shown as an example but this post isn't about him/her

I've had a few encounters with admins over the past 6 weeks and though the end result was managed well, I found the initial notice to be unclear. The use of vague language and casual tone make it ambiguous as to how the accused is meant to respond. This goes against the Care & Judgement guidance for admins

Recommendations[edit]

  1. Can we recommend admins add "admin" to their sig so their role and responsibilities are clear
  2. Can we have admins use a template (like template:admin) with threatening an admin action like "block" to make the escalation clear? This would clearly distinguish admin action from general discussion with the admin
  3. Do better to gather context before threatening admin action.
  4. Clarify where the accused is in the process. e.g. 1st warning, 2nd warning etc
  5. remember that admins are also editors and should have WP:AGF with the accused

Examples & Issues[edit]

Tonymetz 💬 18:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For cultural reasons we choose not to make who admins are super obvious. At the end of the day our culture is that admins are just like other editors, except they have a few extra "tools". However a good solution to this might be to install a user highlighter script, which would highlight admin signatures a different color for just you. My preferred admin highlighter script. Other admin highlighter scripts. If an admin is speaking with their "admin hat on", they will sometimes say so in text, or it can be inferred (e.g. "I will block you if you continue doing X", only admins can block so hopefully only an admin would say this). I have not reviewed your 3 diffs of user behavior and will leave that to someone else. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the user script is helpful. Tonymetz 💬 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For cultural reasons we choose not to make who admins are super obvious.
I like this overall. One idea would be to have a conditional signature that admins display to distinguish dmin duties. Tonymetz 💬 01:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I installed the user highlighter and it's a big help now that I see the admin highlighting in discussions and edit histories Tonymetz 💬 01:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did the second one so I am responding to it. There was a warning that asked you to declare why your alternate account follows the sockpuppetry policy at User talk:Tonymetz#Multiple accounts. You ignore the first part where I said If you are using the alternate account as an account that you will use to edit on public computers, please indicate so. If it is a doppelganger, no edits should be made from that account and only added the template to your user page. As your usernames were Tonymet and Tonymetz at that time, it could cause a lot of confusion. I thought it was probably a WP:DOPPELGANGER, but you kept editing from both accounts. Now, arguably the block wasn't needed, so this is bad on my part, but it did help alleviate the confusion one may have from those usernames by unblocking after you have renamed your account to TonymetzAlt. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for adding context. if you look at the comment from a new-user's perspective (who doesn't know about blocks) , it's not clear that the next action will result in a block. It would be nice to have a clearer template that an admin is involved and a block is the next step.
I'm not disputing the block action, but I'm trying to help the admin team to distinguish admin actions and communications from general editor discussions. Tonymetz 💬 01:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A terrible idea. I welcome new editors, tell them when they aren't using a reliable source, etc, trying to help them. I'm doing this as a regular editor, not an Admin, but if my signature glared out ADMIN TELLING YOU THIS how do you think they'll react? I do not want to scare new good faith editors. See WP:BITE. Most of the work I do is not in my Admin role. Also there not 4 steps before being blocked. Twinkle has 4 steps, Admins have discretion. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 RFCs that affect administrators[edit]

For your information, there are many WP:RFA2024 RFCs that recently closed that affect administrators. You may wish to examine these in more detail at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review#Phase I. A quick summary:

Today I edited this policy page to reflect proposals 14 and 25 since those look straightforward. Will hold off on editing in the other proposals for various reasons (only approved for trial, needs a follow-up RFC to flesh out details, etc.) –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we consider revising criteria for procedural removal of administrator tools?[edit]

I think we should add something about not logging administrative actions. There was a recent case where a semi-active editor was desysopped because they made a controversial reverse of a block after not logging any administrative actions for years.

I think if a user has logged zero administrative actions within 2 years (including editing protected pages, deleting pages, protecting pages, blocking editors, but not rollback, new pages patrol, or moving pages without leaving a redirect), excluding admin actions that have been self reverted, then the user should have their rights removed, with reversal at BNB for up to 3 years after removal. We need to find a way to handle the gaming where administrators try to maintain a level of activity just to keep the tools, even as they slowly lose touch with changing community expectations for the tools. There is no point in having admin access with users that won't use it; in fact it can do more harm especially as such accounts can be broken into and compromised. Awesome Aasim 02:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this has been discussed in the past, one objection has always been that "logged actions" tends to not include edits that happen to be administrative actions, like pronouncements at WP:AE or block threats or AFD closes or refusals to take a certain administrative action or edits to protected pages. The second-to-last one especially, that such a rule could incentivize people taking administrative actions where they shouldn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editing protected pages does not generate a log entry. An editor who is attempting to game inactivity with the tools can just as easily delete one page in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion every 2 years as they can at present so it doesn't solve the problem of out-of-touch admins but does, per Jo-Jo Eumerus, potentially incentivise bad admin actions.
The only thing I can think of that would solve the issue of out-of-touch admins is mandatory periodic reconfirmation RFAs, but they have their own suite of issues (not least scalability and disincentivising potentially controversial admin actions) and have been rejected by the community multiple times. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, protected edits are logged at Special:AbuseFilter/942 but it's not an inherent feature of the software the way e.g Special:Log/protect is. And it's not a widely known feature, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and it misses cascade-prot edits. It is still a useful AF log though! — xaosflux Talk 15:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't even saying a "reconfirmation RfA". An admin's only edits should not be to remove themselves from Project:Missing Wikipedians or to make minor edits, etc. I could imagine all sorts of gaming to try to avoid procedural removal of the tools. For example, we desysop if a user has made less than 100 edits in the past 5 years. But what if on year 4 they go and make 99 minor or copy edits to articles? That feels like gaming to me. They still are very inactive and they still might be falling out of touch with the expectations of administrators. Awesome Aasim 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that your proposal doesn't solve the problem it sets out to solve but would create new problems, and therefore it's not one that I can support. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they go and make 99 minor or copy edits to articles - that sounds like they're improving Wikipedia, which is what they should be doing. I find it rather unlikely that someone would get the "you're about to be desysopped" notice, panic and make 100 edits really quickly, and then disappear again for another two years; if one gets motivated by the warning, they'll stick around for a bit. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&oldid=1220371907"