Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

RFC for admin conduct

Is the present wording really a good description?

"If the administrator... is unable to provide a satisfactory response to the community, it is expected... that the administrator will resign"

Is it? Always, and enough to state as an "expectation"? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I may have written that sentence, but I'm not very fond of the passive construction. Perhaps. "is unable to provide a satisfactory response to the community, then the administrator may resign." As a practical matter that is often, but not always, what happens. Jehochman ^Talk 01:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, an admin "may" resign at any time. So this isn't saying much. May need a rewrite? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify - I mean that the sentence doesn't add much as it stands, even if reworded to "may resign"; it might benefit from considering the intention behind it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewritten entire section - should be okay now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins don't have a special status

@Xeno: I'd gone and strengthened the wording emphasizing that admins don't have a special status (they just have a flag), but you've removed my wording *AND* removed the rest of that wording too.

Are you sure that's a good idea?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I think you're talking about these edits of mine. I made these edits because this page is supposed to describe policies and requirements of administrators, starting to say "oh and other editors should do this too" everywhere seems unnecessary and will just mean the page becomes excessively wordy. –xeno^talk 18:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that "everyone else" is seldom called upon to answer questions about their administrator actions. :) I think what you're talking about is already amply covered in WP:CIVIL. While admins may be just users with a flag, there's no doubt that these days they are expected to hold to a pretty high standard of behavior, though. Perhaps that's changed since 2005? I wouldn't know, since I wasn't even registered then. It seems to me as if the text in this policy is meant to reinforce that, not to tell other users that they're off the hook. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Everyone must be able to justify each of their actions on wikipedia. That's what history and logs are for: so we can look up what someone has done. We can then ask them questions about what they have done.

There's no excuse for anyone to misbehave, obviously. Admins are just watched more carefully. :-P

But it's a good point : if you can remove the "everyone else", because everyone else is already covered elsewhere, then the admins are covered by the same policy in the same spot; so you could remove the entire lines or paragraphs in question from this page and make it shorter.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just it though: regular users aren't expected (when we say "expected", it is a nice way of saying "required") to justify their actions. We would like them to, but they can just as easily ignore threads made on their talk page (for-the-most-part). An administrator who routinely ignores threads on their talk page gets taken to the cleaners. –xeno^talk 19:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, a user who routinely ignores threads on their talk page gets blocked. Prodego ^talk 19:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if it's a blockable offense. –xeno^talk 19:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking literally: "Just like everyone else, administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions"...admins are not expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrator actions just like everyone else, because everyone else has no admin actions to respond to. But, Prodego, I have more than once seen people chastised for harassment when they've continued communicating with people who've asked them to stay off of their talk pages. I'm not entirely sure an admin could (or should) get away with that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Catch. Hmm, we might add parens: "Just like everyone else, administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and (administrator) actions". Though there might be a more elegant way to put it. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You cannot tell people to not raise valid concerns on your talk page. But if you ask someone to not comment there, and then they do without such a reason, then that is just harassment. With an admin or with a user, the best option if they refuse to respond to your concerns (and/or tell you to stop asking) is to file a user conduct RfC. Prodego ^talk 19:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the responders at ANI are with you there, at least not completely. I've more than once seen somebody told that if there are valid concerns, somebody else can raise them. (And probably with good reason; there are certainly some users who develop an unhealthy interest in others.) But I don't tend to wade into much controversy (including routinely reading ANI), so perhaps there are people who are asked to stay away from certain admins as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If people keep asking non-constructive/ bad faith questions, they can eventually be asked to keet off people's talk pages, yes.

However, under normal circumstances, refusing to answer a (routine) good-faith query on your talk page can escalate rapidly, and ultimately lead to a block.

This can even happen if you simply remove the request.

On the other hand: Somewhat naughtily: if you merely ignore a request, people can't prove that you saw it -and you can always claim you were busy/away/on holiday- so you might manage to squeak through. ;-) [*]

The underlying mechanism is that consensus requires good faith discussion and negotiation. Refusal to take part in the consensus process gums up the works, and is not very good faith; so people will be frustrated with you.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC) [*]Under certain circumstances (quashing rumors, resolving disputes, tactical work) it becomes imperative to answer people as quickly as possible.

Admins are appointed for clue, and may be removed for lack of it. Part of clue is that undefinable sense of when something might be commonsense or uncontentious, when to be bold (WP:BRD), when to consult formally or informally, when to act and when to go gently or discuss first, and so on.

Good adminship more than requires - it mandates - a mix of those (and as many users note, some tasks need some of these more than others). Tying oneself to any one fixed approach ("one size fits all") will often cause a problem for any given approach tried. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought admins were appointed for being able to Not Blow Up The Wiki. (though with the current diminishing standards, possibly not even that :-P ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've heard stories about the "olden days." :) But the diminishing standards statement seems to run counter to the scuttlebutt I hear. I'm not sure if there are more current charts, but if nothing else time-in-saddle requirements seem to have risen substantially between 2005 and 2006 (File:AverageEditCountatRfA.png; File:AverageEditCountatRfA-2006.png). This seems to have coincided with an overall decline in success rates in 2006 (User:White Cat/Adminship survey summary#Success Rate RfA - 2006) According to this chart, success rates in general declined dramatically between 2004 and 2009. Now, that doesn't say anything to the relative explosive tendencies of candidates ca. 2004 vs. 2009, but it suggests that the way Wikipedia perceives adminship may have shifted somewhat since the days of an 80% pass rate. It doesn't look like 2010 is reversing the trend. Through May, our success rate is hovering about 29%. Surely some of the 71% who failed might, but would all of them have failed a Not Blow Up the Wiki test? Perhaps we've just become more more skeptical about the ability of candidates to pass that test. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal/review of admin access

There was a substantial edit and revert today, bringing it here to explain the edit and reach consensus. Putting the reverted version 1st as this was close to the original.

As reverted and updated

As edited and updated

Voluntary removal Administrators may request that their access to administrative tools be removed at m:Steward requests/Permissions. Administrators who are facing (or may imminently face) a serious concern over their adminship may also voluntarily stand down at any time, and this will usually lead to the cessation of issues related to their adminship access. Such administrators are deemed to have resigned in controversial circumstances (or "under a cloud") Some administrators may become inactive for a period of time, or may retire altogether. In these instances, as noted on the Perennial Proposals page, consensus has been that they will retain their rights unless they specifically request to have them removed. Return of administrator access after voluntary removal Administrators who stepped down in good standing (that is, "not under a cloud") may have their administrator status restored automatically, at any time after they have made a request to a bureaucrat (this is commonly done at the bureaucrats' noticeboard). Administrators who stepped down in controversial circumstances ("under a cloud") cannot have their status restored automatically as such administrators will need to either: make a new request for adminship in accordance with the usual norms of #Becoming_an_administrator, or; make an application to the Arbitration Committee for the return of their administrator access. Disputes or complaints Further information: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Administrators are expected to conduct themselves appropriately, in accordance with #Administrator_conduct. Perfection is not expected, but attempts should be made to avoid lapses in judgement. Because adminship is based on trust, serious concerns may arise over access to admin tools or conduct as an administrator. Forcible removal of adminship and most sanctions related to substandard adminship are in the hands of the Arbitration Committee, which can act unilaterally at any time. However a number of community processes exist and these are usually to be tried first. Where disputes arise, concerns should be discussed civilly with the administrator in question, and attempts should be made by others to avoid making exaggerated claims (such as "admin abuse") without good grounds. Similarly, administrators should genuinely and courteously attempt to resolve concerns. This involves correcting clear mistakes, being helpful, and being ready to discuss, even if the situation is highly divisive. Administrators are expected to explain their actions and respond constructively to evidenced concerns, so non-responsiveness or unsatisfactory resolution can be escalated (typically to WP:ANI) if needed. If the matter reflects seriously on an user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgement or conduct issues), then other steps are available below. Administrator recall (if offered) Some administrators place themselves "open to recall", whereby they pledge to voluntarily step down if a certain number of editors in good standing request so. The specific criteria are set by each administrator for themselves, and is usually detailed in their userspace. The process is entirely voluntary and administrators may change their criteria at any time, or decline to adhere to previously made recall pledges. If an administrator steps down as a result of a recall, he or she then requests removal at m:Steward requests/Permissions. Requests for comment on administrator conduct This is an involuntary process that is used to develop voluntary agreements (particularly between parties), as well as collect information (particularly communal views). A request for comment on administrator conduct is filed when a certifying party is concerned that an administrator has misused their administrator access, or engaged in behavior that is incompatible with adminship. This is sometimes considered the second last step in dispute resolution. Administrators who fail to satisfactorily respond to community feedback are likely to become the subject of an Arbitration Committee review. Arbitration Committee review This is an involuntary process. Generally, the Arbitration Committee requires that other steps of dispute resolution should be tried before it intervenes in a dispute. However, if the matter is serious enough, the Arbitration Committee may intervene without a request for comment on administrator conduct. Examples have included gross or egregious misuse of tools (wheel warring, self-unblocking, overturning Arbitration enforcement actions). Remedies that may be imposed, at the discretion of the Committee, include warnings, admonishments, restrictions, or a summary removal of administrator privilleges. If the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block and/or email the Arbitration Committee directly. The Arbitration Committee should also be contacted by email for sensitive issues (such as privacy/harassment issues, admin sock-puppetry, or more serious abuse by an administrator).

Disputes or complaints Administrators are usually approachable. They are expected to be courteous, willing to explain, willing to help or put clear mistakes right, or advise on obtaining further review, especially following a simple good faith mistake or in highly divisive situations. Perfection is not expected and lapses can occur. So discussion and normal dispute resolution are often the best way to resolve a complaint. Administrators are expected to explain their actions and respond constructively to evidenced concerns, so non-responsiveness or unsatisfactory resolution can be escalated (typically to WP:ANI) if needed. Likewise users should not make exaggerated claims or claim "admin abuse" without good grounds. If the matter reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgement or conduct issues), then other steps are available - see below for details. If the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block, or if unable to edit at all, may appeal by email to the Arbitration Committee. Requesting removal of admin access while in good standing Any administrator may request to have adminship removed from their account by simple request at Steward requests/Permissions. Administrators who stepped down in good standing (that is, not in controversial circumstances) may request their administrator status be restored at any time by a bureaucrat. This is commonly done at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. Review and removal of adminship due to questionable administrator conduct Because adminship is based on trust, serious concerns may arise over access to admin tools or over standing or conduct as an administrator. Forcible removal of adminship and most sanctions related to substandard adminship are in the hands of the Arbitration Committee, which can act unilaterally at any time. However a number of community processes exist and as a rule in most cases these are usually tried first. Administrators who are facing (or may imminently face) a serious concern over their adminship may voluntarily stand down and this will lead to the cessation of issues related to their adminship access. They would be deemed to have resigned in controversial circumstances (or "under a cloud") and will not be granted the tools back upon request until any pending or suspended matters have been addressed. Processes applicable when a concern exists include: Discussion and dispute resolution - see above, usually the best starting place. Administrator noticeboard for incidents and if needed Request for comments on administrator conduct - to obtain communal views or discussion on a serious concern related to misuse of an administrator's access or behavior. May be used to request feedback and views, to provide feedback to the admin in question, to agree a way forward, or a step prior to formal request for desysopping. Concerns that gain substantial endorsement by the community should be taken seriously by the administrator since failure to satisfactorily respond to community feedback may well result in an escalation to Arbitration Committee review. Recall (if offered) - some administrators state they will resign if a complaint is made and a given level of support for resignation (which they have specified) is reached. Recall is non-binding and may be changed or withdrawn at any time. Arbitration Committee review - used when the issue is significant enough that removal or direct ArbCom review is probably more appropriate than personal or community discussion, or if the matter appears serious enough to lead to summary removal, restriction or other formal sanction. Examples have included gross or egregious misuse of tools (wheel warring, self-unblocking, overturning Arbitration enforcement actions) and very gross breaches of standards. The Committee may make any decision it sees fit, including warnings, restrictions, sanctions, or temporary or permanent removal of administrator privileges. For sensitive issues (such as privacy/harassment issues, admin sock-puppetry, or more serious abuse by an administrator) contact ArbCom by email in the first instance for guidance. Retirement Administrators may become inactive for a period of time, or may retire altogether. In these instances, as noted on the Perennial Proposals page, consensus has been that they will retain their rights unless they specifically request to have them removed, and may regain them upon request as usual.

The reasons for editing to (2) were:

• Brevity - the original explains each process in some detail but on this page it isn't much benefit. A quick summary of the key processes available and their key features if there is a concern over adminship is fine as users will then look those up if they want to know the details of the process involved. Important extra points are also covered.
• It also fixes awkward and questionable wordings such as "Administrators who fail to satisfactorily respond to community feedback are likely to become the subject of an Arbitration Committee review" - which may or may not be the case and need more words to explain them. Better to just list the processes and their key features.
• It also contextualizes the processes more - the original is literally just a list of processes.

• More seriously the original organized desysopping with "one section per route or process" (voluntary/disputes/recall/rfc/rfar). This left problems in how "good standing" and "questionable standing" were addressed, because multiple processes may take place together or intervene in each other. For example voluntarily desysop can be requested both in good standing, and before or during a concern, and can even derail or negate other processes.

  If it's organized not by "route of desysopping" (applicable processes list) but by circumstance (whether it's in good standing or questionable standing) it becomes a lot simpler to read, not least because the one thing that's always completely clear is the nature of the circumstances.

Hopefully it makes more sense now. I think that the edited version would be much easier to think through in the context of removal, review or concern over adminship. The edited version is also tighter and in places more precise.

Part of the concern stated that the edits "caused necessary details to be omitted, and also contradicted what is written in RfC/U or ArbCom process" [1]. If something's lacking or there are concerns, let's look at them. But I think ordering the section by circumstance not process and describing in a context not just summarizing processes (the main change) is helpful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think omitting important details is not the same as a quick summary. I think the important points are covered in the original version, and especially explain clear distinctions that are granted under policy (including with recall). I also think it is important for users to understand what sort of final remedies they can expect from each process, and that cannot be covered adequately with the type of "quick summary" you refer to. Users come to this policy page to understand what they're entitled to - admins to know what they can do and they can't do, while aggrieved editors try to find out their options and want an idea of what each process accomplishes in practice. The sensitive issues clause needs to be reworded in my opinion (if it is to be included); I don't think this is clear on any level, and it also might give editors the wrong impression that they must contact ArbCom for everything - (eg) a sockpuppet investigation does not require ArbCom on the first instance. Any CU can handle it and forward it as appropriate, or as more often happens to be the case, the user notifies ArbCom of something too. ArbCom might want to take over, but should an user prefer to have a single non-ArbCom CU look into the request, they are welcome to (and might find there is no concern to be forwarded anyway). I also think that the emphasis on good standing and questionable standing is undue - really, all processes can fall under either category, and I think we could just add an extra couple of lines to each process instead. As I recall, some users in good standing have had their position removed by ArbCom, or questioned in RfC/U, or brought up in recall, though they were in good standing. :) The real flaw (if any) in my version, I think, is that there is not enough content on RfC/Us. That said, I didn't think your version on RfC/Us on admin conduct was quite up to scratch either - RfC/Us are not limited to "serious concerns"; any number of minor concerns have resulted in legitimate RfC/Us too. This means we need another wording on that too. Apologies for the disorganised reply/criticism/whatever; I limited the reverting to the bits where I could see issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The only concern I have (and it's with both versions) is that it implies that WP:RECALL is policy when it is not. Ncmvocalist has repeatedly claimed that it is policy simply because someone placed that section on this page and it's hung around for a couple years. However, there have been multiple discussions regarding admin recall, and all of them have ended with either no consensus or consensus against the proposal. Just because it was able to sit on this page unmolested for a couple years doesn't give it default policy status. It just means that people didn't notice that others were trying to slip it in without getting the required consensus. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this point must be a bit confused. Factually WP:RECALL exists. Presumably "implying it was policy" would mean saying it was mandatory or something. Describing it or saying it may be "available" isn't the same as saying something is a "policy", although listing it as a "process" could imply it's always available. How about rewording to:

• Recall (sometimes) - a voluntary commitment made by some administrators to resign if a complaint is made and certain conditions (which they have specified) are reached.
• Recall (if offered) - some administrators state they will resign if a complaint is made and a given level of support for resignation (which they have specified) is reached. Recall is non-binding and may be changed or withdrawn at any time

Either of these better? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Policy, for as long as I can think of, has said: "There have been several procedures suggested for a community based desysopping process, but none of them have achieved consensus." Note: WP:RECALL is not the same as a binding community desysop process, although some users have erroneously considered them to be identical. I haven't referred to an binding vote in my version, and I know that the WP:RECALL doesn't say anything about a process where the community vote becomes binding, and FT2's version seems no different. Recall is part of policy in so far as granting admins a legitimate option - Herostratus or any admins can (in good faith) use any reasonable process to help them determine whether they want to keep their tools. This is something that is granted by dispute resolution policy too - a voluntary agreement can be made during an RfC/U as to how a dispute will move forward, and this may include an RFA-type method to solicit input from RFA regulars (RFA as a process happens to receive more input than voluntary dispute resolution anyway). Similarly, Herostratus or any other admin may request for the removal of their tools at any time without any voluntary recall criteria/process, because policy grants them this legitimate option - it is not mandatory for every admin to resign only after going through a specified/unspecified determinative process. To summarise, these options are voluntary and available, and have been a core fundamental of this project since as early as the RfC/U process came into force. Nihonjoe has tried to make strawman arguments about unmolested policy in an attempt to prohibit admins from receiving input from RFA regulars in a RFA-type format and force them into RfC/U - such a prohibition was rejected by the community as a whole. If Herostratus' RFA happens to persuade other admins to voluntarily submit themselves to this process in the future, that's not something that Nihonjoe can prohibit. However, if Herostratus' RFA persuades admins that they should not use this process in the future, it's not a process that Nihonjoe can force on those admins (against their wishes) either. I think that addresses the real issue at play. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see any of that affecting the proposed edit above, though - it seems to mostly be tangential. As my focus here is on clarity of review/removal and not on recent RFA/RFCU events, can you summarize any ways that the edited suggestion is inaccurate, misses key points, or is less accurate than the existing (mostly reverted) wording? (Note we edit-conflicted as I was adding the wording Recall is non-binding and may be changed or withdrawn at any time to the proposed edit, if that helps, and have added "or to agree a way forward" which I think you're right about) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See my 10:22 comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, missed that, thanks. There's a lot there. Quick summary to see if I have it right:

1. "Important details may be left out" - I've checked the details for each process - voluntary removal, recall, disputes/complaints, RFC/U and RFAR. Differences I can see are:
   • RFC/U - original states "Misuse of administrator access or behavior that is incompatible with adminship", edit states "a serious concern related to an administrator". Comment: Effectively the same, edit is shorter. Perhaps reword as "a serious concern related to misuse of administrator access or an administrator's behavior" to resolve this?
   • RFC/U - original states "Administrators who fail to satisfactorily respond to community feedback are likely to become the subject of an Arbitration Committee review". Edited states "to agree a way forward, or a step prior to formal request for desysopping". Comment: I don't think the rest is needed. Lack of response will clearly result in escalation as with all DR processes. It could go in, if needed, I suppose.
   • AC - original states "Generally, the Arbitration Committee requires that other steps of dispute resolution should be tried before it intervenes in a dispute. However, if the matter is serious enough, the Arbitration Committee may intervene without a request for comment on administrator conduct." Edited states "Used when a serious issue exists such that a direct request for ArbCom review and consideration is appropriate, or if the matter may be serious enough to lead to summary removal or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship". Comment: Edited is more accurate. For matters possibly needing desysopping and of sufficient seriousness, prior resolution efforts are not needed. It's one of the times a direct RFAR may be appropriate.
   • AC - original states "if the matter is serious enough, the Arbitration Committee may intervene without a request for comment on administrator conduct." Edited doesn't state AC can "take over" the matter at will. Comment: It probably should.
   • AC - original states that remedies can "include warnings, admonishments, restrictions, or a summary removal of administrator privilleges". Edited version states "The Committee may make any decision it sees fit, including conditions, temporary, or permanent desysopping". Comment: Edited seems accurate enough. Perhaps add "warnings and restrictions" if needed.
2. Sensitive issues - perhaps. Take a look at WP:SPI and WP:DR for similar clauses. How about this: For sensitive issues (such as privacy/harassment issues, socking, or more serious abuse by an administrator) contact ArbCom by email in the first instance for guidance. Although they don't have to, admin sock investigations do tend to go direct to AC and not to other checkusers.
3. Good/questionable standing - I think this helps. The one thing a user knows when they want to see how adminship is reviewed or revoked, is whether the admin is under suspicion of misconduct. If the user feels the admin's conduct is fine, then the only route is voluntary removal. If it's questionable then (and only then) do we need to give more guidance on the processes and what happens if the admin resigns during them. (See also #4)
4. Users questioned at RFAR/RFC/Recall, or desysopped by AC, by definition ended up at those venues because someone felt their adminship was questionable. This underlines the same point as before - that dividing into "good standing v. questionable would help clarify it.

Back to you! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• This seems to have the disagreement down pat (because the agreement doesn't really need any separate discussion).
  • "Concerns related to..."? I suppose that could satisfy my concern.
  • I think the rest is needed; it acts as a caution to admins as to how serious this step can be if they don't make the reasonable effort to resolve it as early as possible.
  • I don't quite agree. Yes, there are times that AC can intervene directly, but how often has that really happened? Why make the parties go back and forwards between disputes if an issue hasn't advanced that far? It can take over a week for a request for arbitration to have enough prelimary votes; it's better if that week was spent trying to come to some sort of agreement on the scope of issues If they resolve their issues in earlier steps than great. If not, then at least they've made an attempt (the whole spirit of actual DR). If it is so serious that it needs to be advanced, I'm pretty sure there will be a community member who is more than ready to push it there before it gets to that point.
  • I don't see a need to digress from the original.
• I am still not comfortable with "in the first instance for guidance" on this point. I prefer to let users keep their options open. I don't mind something like "ArbCom may also be contacted by email for sensitive issues (such as [examples])." Perhaps that isn't a bad idea.
• I'm (still) also not convinced that the format restructure is helpful. It seems to unnecessarily shift the focus onto good/questionable standing, which (I think) will eventually open problems of its own if it's not kept broad enough. Though more importantly, this page is (supposed to be) telling users of methods of removal, and how disputes/complaints are to be dealt with in regards to administrators - I think the headings from the original are more relevant in this sense and focus on conveying this. I think lines about good/questionable standing can be added as an introduction to this "Review and removal of adminship" section in explaining how it might be relevant, but that level of detail is more than sufficient with respect to standing as far as I can see. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the text under "edited" quite a bit. Not only accomodating the above changes but also other important points that on review weren't stated. Leaving section order and structure to a side, can you review the actual content of the "edited" column and see what you think of it now? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the "edited" inadvertantly missed some my stated concerns, and I had new concerns on a few issues. Accordingly, I've updated the text under "reverted" to resolve those issues, as well as to include quite a few of the changes you've proposed (or made in "edited"). Perhaps we are coming closer to an agreed wording? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Setting aside the order of sections and "list or section", the text differences we have are:

Updated wording comparison...

As reverted and updated As edited and updated Disputes or complaints Administrators are expected to conduct themselves appropriately, in accordance with #Administrator_conduct. Perfection is not expected, but attempts should be made to avoid lapses in judgement. Because adminship is based on trust, serious concerns may arise over access to admin tools or conduct as an administrator. Forcible removal of adminship and most sanctions related to substandard adminship are in the hands of the Arbitration Committee, which can act unilaterally at any time. However a number of community processes exist and these are usually to be tried first. Where disputes arise, concerns should be discussed civilly with the administrator in question, and attempts should be made by others to avoid making exaggerated claims (such as "admin abuse") without good grounds. Similarly, administrators should genuinely and courteously attempt to resolve concerns. This involves correcting clear mistakes, being helpful, and being ready to discuss, even if the situation is highly divisive. Administrators are expected to explain their actions and respond constructively to evidenced concerns, so non-responsiveness or unsatisfactory resolution can be escalated (typically to WP:ANI) if needed. If the matter reflects seriously on an user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgement or conduct issues), then other steps are available below. Administrators are usually approachable. They are expected to be courteous, willing to explain, willing to help or put clear mistakes right, or advise on obtaining further review, especially following a simple good faith mistake or in highly divisive situations. Perfection is not expected and lapses can occur. So discussion and normal dispute resolution are often the best way to resolve a complaint. Administrators are expected to explain their actions and respond constructively to evidenced concerns, so non-responsiveness or unsatisfactory resolution can be escalated (typically to WP:ANI) if needed. Likewise users should not make exaggerated claims or claim "admin abuse" without good grounds. If the matter reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgement or conduct issues), then other steps are available - see below for details. If the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block, or if unable to edit at all, may appeal by email to the Arbitration Committee. Administrator recall (if offered) Some administrators place themselves "open to recall", whereby they pledge to voluntarily step down if a certain number of editors in good standing request so. The specific criteria are set by each administrator for themselves, and is usually detailed in their userspace. The process is entirely voluntary and administrators may change their criteria at any time, or decline to adhere to previously made recall pledges. If an administrator steps down as a result of a recall, he or she then requests removal at m:Steward requests/Permissions. Recall (if offered) - some administrators state they will resign if a complaint is made and a given level of support for resignation (which they have specified) is reached. Recall is non-binding and may be changed or withdrawn at any time. Arbitration Committee review This is an involuntary process. Generally, the Arbitration Committee requires that other steps of dispute resolution should be tried before it intervenes in a dispute. However, if the matter is serious enough, the Arbitration Committee may intervene without a request for comment on administrator conduct. Examples have included gross or egregious misuse of tools (wheel warring, self-unblocking, overturning Arbitration enforcement actions). Remedies that may be imposed, at the discretion of the Committee, include warnings, admonishments, restrictions, or a summary removal of administrator privilleges. If the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block and/or email the Arbitration Committee directly. The Arbitration Committee should also be contacted by email for sensitive issues (such as privacy/harassment issues, admin sock-puppetry, or more serious abuse by an administrator). Arbitration Committee review - used when the issue is significant enough that removal or direct ArbCom review is probably more appropriate than personal or community discussion, or if the matter appears serious enough to lead to summary removal, restriction or other formal sanction. Examples have included gross or egregious misuse of tools (wheel warring, self-unblocking, overturning Arbitration enforcement actions) and very gross breaches of standards. The Committee may make any decision it sees fit, including warnings, restrictions, sanctions, or temporary or permanent removal of administrator privileges. For sensitive issues (such as privacy/harassment issues, admin sock-puppetry, or more serious abuse by an administrator) contact ArbCom by email in the first instance for guidance. Requests for comment on administrator conduct This is an involuntary process that is used to develop voluntary agreements (particularly between parties), as well as collect information (particularly communal views). A request for comment on administrator conduct is filed when a certifying party is concerned that an administrator has misused their administrator access, or engaged in behavior that is incompatible with adminship. This is sometimes considered the second last step in dispute resolution. Administrators who fail to satisfactorily respond to community feedback are likely to become the subject of an Arbitration Committee review. Administrator noticeboard for incidents and if needed Request for comments on administrator conduct - to obtain communal views or discussion on a serious concern related to misuse of an administrator's access or behavior. May be used to request feedback and views, to provide feedback to the admin in question, to agree a way forward, or a step prior to formal request for desysopping. Concerns that gain substantial endorsement by the community should be taken seriously by the administrator since failure to satisfactorily respond to community feedback may well result in an escalation to Arbitration Committee review. Retirement Some administrators may become inactive for a period of time, or may retire altogether. In these instances, as noted on the Perennial Proposals page, consensus has been that they will retain their rights unless they specifically request to have them removed. Administrators may become inactive for a period of time, or may retire altogether. In these instances, as noted on the Perennial Proposals page, consensus has been that they will retain their rights unless they specifically request to have them removed, and may regain them upon request as usual. Other stuff (unsorted) Voluntary removal Administrators may request that their access to administrative tools be removed at m:Steward requests/Permissions. Administrators who are facing (or may imminently face) a serious concern over their adminship may also voluntarily stand down at any time, and this will usually lead to the cessation of issues related to their adminship access. Such administrators are deemed to have resigned in controversial circumstances (or "under a cloud") Return of administrator access after voluntary removal Administrators who stepped down in good standing (that is, "not under a cloud") may have their administrator status restored automatically, at any time after they have made a request to a bureaucrat (this is commonly done at the bureaucrats' noticeboard). Administrators who stepped down in controversial circumstances ("under a cloud") cannot have their status restored automatically as such administrators will need to either: make a new request for adminship in accordance with the usual norms of #Becoming_an_administrator, or; make an application to the Arbitration Committee for the return of their administrator access. Requesting removal of admin access while in good standing Any administrator may request to have adminship removed from their account by simple request at Steward requests/Permissions. Administrators who stepped down in good standing (that is, not in controversial circumstances) may request their administrator status be restored at any time by a bureaucrat. This is commonly done at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. Review and removal of adminship due to questionable administrator conduct Because adminship is based on trust, serious concerns may arise over access to admin tools or over standing or conduct as an administrator. Forcible removal of adminship and most sanctions related to substandard adminship are in the hands of the Arbitration Committee, which can act unilaterally at any time. However a number of community processes exist and as a rule in most cases these are usually tried first. Administrators who are facing (or may imminently face) a serious concern over their adminship may voluntarily stand down and this will lead to the cessation of issues related to their adminship access. They would be deemed to have resigned in controversial circumstances (or "under a cloud") and will not be granted the tools back upon request until any pending or suspended matters have been addressed. Processes applicable when a concern exists include: Discussion and dispute resolution - see above, usually the best starting place.

This might make comparison easier. It's mainly a style thing. The version on the left is more formal, wordier, and that on the right is easier to digest if there's actual need. That's my perception anyhow. What do you reckon on the two versions we've got there? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the left version is better (assuming the voluntary removal moves back to the top); I think it is more effective as policy, both stylistically and in its wording. At the same time, there is no superfluous detail; it only provides the details that are necessary & sufficient to cater for newbies, experienced users, administrators, and the like; the need to go to multiple process pages is limited to when the user is sure as to which stage they are at. If I was using the right version, frankly, I'd end up having to go to each and every process page if I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia; it would take some time before I could select the best process (at a particular stage in a dispute) with respect to an admin conduct issue. (Obviously, its of no consequence to me personally at the moment as I am very familiar or experienced with all of these processes and their nuances). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

Considering proposing a rewrite of the first paragraph of the WP:INVOLVED section, as follows.

from:

In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have a conflict of interest in conflicts they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

to:

In general, editors should not act avoid acting as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have a conflict of interest in conflicts they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

Unsure the current paragraph is accurate as written, per the following AN/I discussion (Full disclosure -- I was involved in the preceeding example). If there is community consensus for relaxing WP:INVOLVED, suggest changing the text as above to loosen constraints on use of admin tools. Alternatively it could be changed from a Policy to a Guideline, if there is community consensus for this. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 02:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If policy were meant to be handled legalistically, perhaps it would be necessary to rewrite it because of the existence of a single case in which the prevailing consensus may be construed as contradicting it. But it isn't. So you're kinda still making a WP:POINT about your WP:DEADHORSE. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I provided a single example that doesn't mean there is but a single case. "beating a dead horse" can also be persistence, which is a little less dumb than striking expired equidae. As I commented on Lawrencekhoo's Talk: I bring this up is not to make a point but to clarify a policy that is very important in the heated topic areas where I edit. Partisan editors of every stripe frequently provoke, tag-team edit-war and drag their perceived adversaries off to the noticeboards -- therefore the right to have reports assessed by an uninvolved admin is very important. I want to make sure this is policy, otherwise let's say "guideline" or write an essay. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 07:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A bit of history about the section that you suggest striking. It was added by an admin that got raked over the coals at WP:ANI for admin actions in an area that he would be considered 'involved' in, only if involvement was quite broadly construed. It's there kind of as a warning to admins to be more careful – that historically, the community takes a very broad view of what makes an admin involved. LK (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I also echo what chaos5023 said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Help Croatian grammar

Who and why is deleted Croatian grammar? Please return page Croatian grammar!

1. Croatian grammar 1604. (Croat Bartol Kašić, Croatian island Pag - city Dubrovnik form Croatia)
2. Croatian grammar 1997. Dragutin Raguž for Zagreb, Croatia
3. New Croatian grammar 2010. Stjepan Babić, Zagreb Croatia

• Croatian language
• Croatian language code

The place to discuss this is Talk:Croatian grammar. If you don't find consensus there, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unlock pages

I beg to unlock the pages of the "Croatian grammar" so it would be able to properly edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.15.176.67 (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"Desysop" Definition

Desysop is not defined in this article, or, really almost anywhere, as far as I could tell. After a bit I figured it out, but I think it should be defined here, or maybe have a Wictionary entry? Phenylphree (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOD

Does anyone care if I retarget the WP:MOD shortcut to WP:Motto of the day so we can get rid of that unsightly hatnote? M-O-D makes a lot more sense to point to "Motto Of the Day" and I don't think too many people use "Mod" to refer to admins anyway. -- œ^™ 15:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all - I'm a rocker. Ben MacDui 17:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of "involved administrator" rule.

Get rid of the involved administrator rule. WP:UNINVOLVED.

Replace it with, "An administrator should block an useraccount only once. Reblocks should be done by another administrator."

This would solve a lot of problems.

Everyone is an involved administrator after a while. Just because someone is "involved" doesn't mean that they shouldn't block. We have block reviews if the case is egregious. To avoid vendetta action, just require that a different administrator block each time.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have to say the involved administrator rule is so overused that even having an opinion on something tangentially related can invalidate an entire solution. It also puts us in an impossible position. Uninvolved administrators don't care and don't understand enough to put their foot down, so they let disputes continue on. But any administrator familiar enough with the dispute is considered involved, and thus not neutral. I'm not sure this is the ideal way to change policy, but I'd support it just because it's time to try something different. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:UNINVOLVED is clear: "This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have a conflict of interest in conflicts they have been a party to or have strong feelings about". So an admin who simply researches the issue before acting is do a good job. An uninvolved admin can block the same user indefinite times. An involved admin is one that has shown strong feelings about the user, possibly before the admin got the bit, or strong feelings about the issue, e.g. an article. --Philcha (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Blocking many times is a silly thing to do. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I've had to block repeat copyright infringers many times. I usually start with a short warning block and proceed towards indefinite if they won't stop. It doesn't seem like a silly thing to do. :) Repeat infringers don't make me mad or anything; I don't become emotionally involved. But blocking them is important (federally mandated, even), and having to find a different administrator to do it each time seems like unnecessary busywork. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Warning blocks are silly. Get the person who was blocked to promise not to do it again. If they won't, they should be indeffed. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Temporary copyright blocks sometimes do work. People make a lot of promises they don't intend to keep, and a block brings home that policy will be enforced. Most of the indef blocks I've seen for copyvios, while often unavoidable, lead to socking. If people are vested in their identity, the threat of losing it can work to protect the project from disruption. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • • I'd argue that if ONE temporary copyright block works, it works. If you unblock and they start up again, get a second admin to indef. Simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Or a waste of my time and another administrator's time that offers no possible benefit. (Note, though: you don't have to unblock a temporary block; it just expires.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
                • That's laziness, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • I would suggest that's a profound lack of familiarity with the workload in copyright cleanup. Creating hurdles that interfere with efficient work with no demonstrated need is not useful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're telling me that quick short blocks do the trick all the time? No problems at all. You're happy? I guess an exception for copyright work could be made then. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• No; I'm telling you that limiting the tools in the arsenal against copyright violators (the area I know) for no demonstrable good reason serves no benefit to the project. I don't see that you've yet demonstrated how it helps in combatting BLP issues or 3RR issues or any of the other standard blocks we encounter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  I just have seen a lot of evidence pile up that WP:INVOLVED is a headache. I'm surprised that you think blocking the same account many, many times for various lengths is a reasonable thing to have single administrators do. I guess I'll put it another way: there are two kinds of blocks in Wikipedia: blocks that the vast majority of the community thinks are reasonable and blocks that are ridiculously contentious. Most of the argument over the contentious blocks happens because of WP:UNINVOLVED. I don't see how that particular piece of the administration policy helps you since you're essentially ALWAYS uninvolved when it comes to blocking fly-by-nighters. The issue is that WP:INVOLVED cannot be objectively decided. Maybe my proposal isn't good for the reasons you're trying to explain, but the issue is that this part of the administrator policy has only two functions: 1) Irrelevance and 2) to allow people to argue. What good is such a policy? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  There may be good cause to consider better approaches to WP:INVOLVED, but your suggested handling here, as I've indicated below, seems only to add unnecessary red tape in the blocks which are not contentious. There's not enough hours in the day to get the work done as it is. I'm not sure what a good solution to the problem you're trying to address here would be; my mop and I tend to be hyperfocused. Perhaps some community process to simplify where INVOLVED applies, ala the rather toothless WP:WQA? Admins are by and large able to grasp consensus (or should be), and if consensus is that they are involved, they ought to then have the sense to stay away. Yes, I'm suggesting that more process may be the solution, but I think it would be better than imposing additional process (find another admin) across the board. The admins who watch WP:CP, WP:SCV, WP:3RR, and WP:AIV generally are not "involved" to any degree, and if a name passes through multiple times shouldn't have to find somebody else to handle it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think it is vital that only uninvolved admins use their tools on editors (except for dealing with obvious vandalism). This is not just to protect the editor from potential abusive admins but also to protect the admin from potential challenges to their rulings because of their opinions. Strongly oppose any change to this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The protection would be better if admins were only given one shot at blocking. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unless there's evidence of an admin shortage in regards to workload, why's this change necessary? --Cybercobra (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It makes complicated dispute resolution easier when a person claims an administrator is involved even when they're not. Arguing about over whether an administrator is "involved" or not is a waste of time. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. An involved administrator involved in a dispute with someone should not be blocking his or her opponents even once. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Blocks can be overturned. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The possibility of overturning bad blocks is hardly an argument for allowing bad blocks! People falsely convicted can be exonerated as well. An erroneous block leads to damage which cannot be amended by overturning the block. It can drive a user away out of frustration, or cause a lot of resentment which lasts for a long time, even if the block is overturned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • What makes a block "bad"? Being subject to an overturned block is exactly the same as if the block never happened according to Wikipedia policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:UNINVOLVED, as a logical extension of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, is not just a defense for contributors who might otherwise be inappropriately affected by administrator actions but a protection for administrators in situations where passion might overrule reason and a shield for the community's reputation as a whole. Removing this barrier opens the community to too many potential problems to justify the limited situations where thhis change would help. --Allen3 ^talk 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Not if they can only block once. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• The rules on administrative involvement apply to much more than just blocking. –xeno^talk 14:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Page protection can also be appealed. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Rules on administrative involvement apply to pretty much any administrative action an administrator takes. Just because certain decisions can be appealed doesn't mean we should throw out the rules and allow admins to act in situations with which they've been involved and refer to the check/balance that it can be "appealed". They just shouldn't act when involved in the first instance (absent compelling justification). –xeno^talk 15:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • But rules on administrator involvement are easily gamed by all sides. That's the issue here. I'm okay with retaining it as an ideal: but it's unworkable as policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Given a talented enough wikilawyer, all policies and guidelines are easily-gamed. That doesn't mean we should throw them all out. –xeno^talk 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
          • But a gamed policy is effectively one that isn't functioning any more. If I can argue that literally every admin is involved with me, then I'm invincible. Rather than waste the community's time trying to prove that an administrator is not involved, maybe it's better to just let them block the gamers? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Invincible? Not really. More likely community banned for wikilawyering disruption. –xeno^talk 11:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Try to imagine what would happen to AE if the few admins patrolling those pages could only block users once. Find a solution to that and I might change my mind. un☯mi 15:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Longer blocks and less tolerance for recidivism is the solution. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:VPP –xeno^talk 15:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support The "involved rule" is an intrinsically ABF rule. We ask everyone to assume good faith of all people at all times, yet presume that administrators are incapable of good faith. I've been attacked for not having a conflict of interest, but having something someone else can construe as a conflict of interest. Exacerbating the situation, saying "no, actually, I don't have any personal feelings in the matter" is seen as deceitful denial rather than exculpatory honesty. With all the talk on WP:RfA about increasing the number of administrators, getting rid of the rule would have serious, positive implications for administrator recruitment and retention. Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I want to clarify: you support the proposal to place the following in this policy: "An administrator should block a user only once. Reblocks should be done by another administrator."? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The proposal is rather to replace the uninvolved administrators section with that text. While that text is not perfect, it does remedy several issues as I outlined. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The proposal poses problems though too; the current rule doesn't only apply to blocks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It might be noted that I generally favor indef blocks for anything other than 3RR, to be lifted when the blocked editor acknowledges the cause of the block and agrees to change the subject behavior. Thus, I never have cause to "re-block" a user and find that the technique works well. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, I can't get behind that for copyright. :/ We may have no choice but to indef-block, but sockpuppeting copyright violators are a pain in the neck. We have several open WP:CCIs of contributors who have jumped from account to account, and digging through articles to figure out which account's edits need evaluation is a nightmare. I'd much rather rehabilitate when possible, and sometimes temporary blocks do work for that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Wait, what? Indefinite != infinite. Rehabilitation with indef blocks is only limited by the intransigence of the blocked editor (assuming, of course, that the block was proper in the first place). If they're socking because they're indefinitely blocked but would actually abide a short, defined-length block, that's a situation I've not personally run across before. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

          Oh, I know that, having lifted quite a few indefs myself, but quite often in practice it does = infinite. If the contributor feels that the account is not salvageable, they frequently seem to just jump to another account, where we have to identify them and mop up after them all over again. I don't want to name names, but I keep in mind one contributor who was indefinitely blocked for copyright violations, was caught socking and blocked there, came back to work through his indef block and has become a good contributor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

          • I think that in this situation the single indef-block worked properly, right? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

            No; did you miss the part where the sock was blocked? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

            Blocking socks is perfectly allowed under my hypothetical system. It's per account not per individual. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Users" are people not accounts. The language you propose says: "An administrator should block a user only once". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. So changed. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I was blocked by an admin with whom I'd previously had an acrimonious content dispute in the same topic area. I reported this but nothing came of it. Seemed admins didn't want to discipline other admin. My point is, WP:UNINVOLVED is useless if it isn't applied. RomaC ^TALK 16:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:UNINVOLVED has much more to it than just blocking, and therefore replacing it with "An administrator should block a user only once. Reblocks should be done by another administrator" makes no sense. The bottom line is that, outside of emergency situations, an administrator using administrative tools involving an editorial dispute with another editor should be avoided. Kingturtle (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What happens with the disputants disagree as to whether they are in a dispute or not? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • What happens with the huh? Kingturtle (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • If I claim we are in a dispute and you block me, are you involved? Who makes that determination and how? Not easy in some cases. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for several reasons: this would allow administrators to block users they are in disputes with, which is a bad idea; it would allow administrators to use deletion/protection tools on articles they are heavily involved in, which is also a bad idea; and I can't see any reason why the fact that an administrator has blocked someone in the past should by itself be a bar to blocking them again. Hut 8.5 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's already happening, we just waste ridiculous amounts of text trying to "prove" that the administrator is "involved". That system doesn't work. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the current text is not perfect, the proposed replacement is (imo) worse. Drawing from my own experiences (being familiar with them and all), in doing copyright cleanup, I see repeat infringers frequently and have blocked the same user more than once. I'm not emotionally involved because of this; we just usually give them a chance before giving them the boot. I could track down other admins in these cases, but the requirement that I must seems like process wonkery. If somebody feels I've imposed an unfair copyright block, they can easily request unblocking and explain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think indefinite blocks that can be appealed makes sense in such situations. If you can get the user to promise not to do it again, then it worked. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • No. Have you never run into a repeat infringer who promised to stop but then persisted? It happens routinely, particulary with those who seem to have troubling mastering English (though, strangely, not exclusively). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, but this is how I envision such a situation happening: 1) Block offender indefinitely with an explanation of how they can get unblocked. 2) Offender appeals block and promises not to offend again. 3) Offender offends again. 4) Admin finds another admin who hasn't yet blocked offender to block them indefinitely with an explanation that they will need to find a mentor or a proxy editor in order to demonstrate their good faith. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. In other words, repeat infringers should be blocked until we can come up with a system whereby they don't game and do not re-infringe. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
        • And digging up another admin to block here is useful how? And necessary why? I think there's valid concerns to admins blocking contributors with whom they have conlfict, but this proposal seems like unnecessary bureaucracy that will slow things down and double the workload with no value added. It's needless red tape. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - seems to replace a specific rule with a very wide-reaching general one that is counter-intuitive. –xeno^talk 17:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Counter-intuitive until you try to decide how you know whether you are in an editorial dispute or not. It isn't possible to have an objective definition of "involved" while it is possible to count blocks. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Just err on the side of caution. There's nearly 800 active admins, no one needs to go it alone. –xeno^talk 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • With 800 active admins, why should any block more than once per account? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Prior knowledge of the situation and contributor, not needing to have to re-invent the wheel or make a new post to ANI every time a problem user steps out of line. –xeno^talk 11:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose In addition to what Moonriddengirl says (all of which IMO is good sense), I'm thinking about the long-term consequences: All those people who are claiming that every admin is "involved" will then be saying, "Hey! You can't block me! You blocked me six years ago!" Also, in the category of "follow the money", it looks to me like there are twenty different admins represented in ScienceApologist's block log for problems that range from edit warring to arb enforcement to socking. This amounts to a proposal that none of these 20 admins or ArbCom members ever be permitted to block SA again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Many of these admins are no longer active/blocked themselves! We already have people saying, "Hey! You can't block me! You blocked me six years ago!". Follow the money seems to me also to be a type of WP:AGF abrogation, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Yeah... no. If I block a sock of Grawp, should I never block one of his socks again? —fetch·comms 03:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The proposal is not to block individuals but accounts. Different accounts = different chance to block. Block as many socks as you want. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: The idea is to give the person who may be acted upon by Admin tools a fair hearing from someone who isn't directly involved in the conflict. Your proposal would require a significant amount of new admins to deal with the more troublesome users of the community. DISCLAIMER: Not an admin, just someone interested in policy. Hasteur (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Has asking for an uninvolved administrator ever worked in more complicated situations? What's the longest blocklog? Can we quantify this claim of yours? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Typically administrators who are involved in a dispute seek a uninvolved admin to act upon the behavior, thereby removing themselves before questions of their motives get called on the administrative action. The rule as it stands currently, is so that admins who are familiar with the modus operandi of a violator can act on it quickly and the acting on it does not make them involved as it's following the community's rules, not being involved in a dispute. Hasteur (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I feel that this reinforces my suggestion. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Suggest closure: Other than Jclemens who seems to be making a philosophical point rather than supporting the amendment as proposed, there doesn't appear to be any support for this. –xeno^talk 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think there is still valuable discussion happening. Do you think this is disruptive in some way to continue it? Even though everyone is knee-jerk responding in this way, it's useful to see what all the different ways people look at this situation. Also, others have commented in favor of it above. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Please note I won't be responding further to you on this proposal. This should be interpreted as a realization that this proposal as written is going nowhere, rather than an accession to your rebuttal. –xeno^talk 11:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see why this should apply to IP accounts, since they may not be the same user each time. Like socks, IMO there should be no limit there.

However, being blocked is a black mark on one's history. When I've blocked people wrongly, I've tried to make it very clear in the edit summary of the unblock, as well as on their talk page, that it was my mistake, so that it's not dredged up in future conflicts as evidence that they're a problematic editor. I suspect that allowing emotionally involved admins to block would end up damaging innocent users' reputations and cause them credibility problems later on. With the uninvolved rule, if other admins criticize the blocking admin for being involved, a previously blocked user can use that to defend their reputation.

That said, at what point would repeatedly blocking a user be considered getting involved? — kwami (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language and Serbian language is two different languages

Nothing to do with this page

Example; ____________________________________________________________________________________________ English If the gases in the exhaust air and Jerusalem, would be necessary measures to ensure safety! ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Croatian Glede ispušnih plinova i zagađivanja zraka u Jeruzalemu, bilo bi potrebito poduzeti mjere sigurnosti! ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Serbian (official script); У погледу издувних гасова и загађења ваздуха у Јерусалиму, било би потребно да се предузму мере безбедности! (latin script); (U pogledu izduvnih gasova i zagađenja vazduha u Jerusalimu, bilo bi potrebno da se preduzmu mere bezbednosti!) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Documents: http://www.ihjj.hr/index_en.html Institute of Croatian language http://www.cla-croatian.com/?gclid=CNvpsNiSoqMCFQI03wod4T_i5A Croatian language Academy http://www.nsk.hr/UserFiles/File/Slu%C5%BEeno%20prihva%C4%87anje%20izmjena%20ISO%20639-2%20Registration%20Authority.pdf Different languages http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php Language code list http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=292-16 Ethnologue report http://www.muturzikin.com/carteseurope/5.htm Dialects map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Slavic_languages.png Slavic languages map http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/pp114/borna28/LANGUAGE/LangualeofEurope.png Language map of Europe http://learn-croatian.com/imenice.php Croatian grammar http://languagesofeurope.co.uk/Languagesmap.thumb.jpg Language map Eurpe-English http://languagesofeurope.co.uk/frame.page.html Croatian http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5632950-croatian-grammar New Croatian grammar http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/European_language Language and script in Europe modern and history ________________________________________________________________________________________________ PROBLEM: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_grammar&oldid=359782270 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_grammar&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_grammar http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Slavic_languages&action=historysubmit&diff=381420306&oldid=372728193 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Slavic_languages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavic_languages&action=historysubmit&diff=381852792&oldid=381594596 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages Ivan Štambuk is Serbian chauvinist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivan_%C5%A0tambuk He's a Croat. I find it revealing that you think that anyone who disagrees with you must not be. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)