Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Proposal for removal of adminship process

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

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)

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

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

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

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?

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)

Strengthening WP:INVOLVED

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?

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

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 · 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?

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?

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

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:INVOLVED and "changed visibility of a revision on page"

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)

WP:UNINVOLVED exception: Appeals

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)

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

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?

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)

Kind request to delete a image / blasphemy

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

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

Please I need to be a admin

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)

Moderators

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

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

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)

Wheel warring

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)There would need to be a direct conflict o
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)

There have been cases where I think an admin action should not be reversed and I will not do it. However another admin has told me they think it is a good idea, I will out of respect give them my blessing to proceed while refusing to do it myself.

This most often happens when another admin wants to give a user another chance and I think it will end badly. I will not unblock myself but will indicate that the other admin may do so if they take responsibility for the outcome.

This is of course not wheel warring. It already says "when you know that another administrator opposes it" so I think this is covered. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

sa.wikipedia.org problem

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)

Hi admin

Please explain why you put some protection on my page.

Sorry, this Wikipedia can do nothing about how other Wikipedias are run. You need to take this up with the community of your Wikipedia.  Sandstein  16:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Martín Hernández

Martín Hernández can oly be created by an administrator. Can an administrator please create the page? See the hidden wikitext below. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 11:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have lifted the protection so you can create it yourself and be credited. You may want to reduce his height from 202 m. Another time you can post to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
PrimeHunter, thank you! Indeed he is not 202m ;) Yes, I will do that next time.) Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 12:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Admin colors

On Wikipedia, administrators I need is marked in dark red, so Wikipedia must be updated with the group colors. --Allen talk 23:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why? the panda ₯’ 09:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you trying to locate rouge admins? Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It should be the same thing on Wikipedia as admins are in dark red/maroon (#AA0000) and bureaucrats are in light blue (#4E6EFF), I like that color! --Allen talk 00:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@AllenHAcNguyen: There's no way to identify admins on Wikipedia with CSS. The only way to do that would be a selector for every admin's name. I made a quick pastebin of the code you can put in your Skin.css, but you need to update it yourself if any admins/crats leave/join in the future. —142.255.99.37 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@142.255.99.137: Thank you for mentioning that, so I need user color identification for admins and bureaucrats, and would be the same going on my Skin.css page on Wikipedia or MediaWiki? --Allen talk 23:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The script you want is at User:Theopolisme/Scripts/adminhighlighter. Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Involved wording change discussion

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrats#involved_change NE Ent 15:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-administrator arbitrators

WP:ARB says the following about arbitrator candidates: No candidate has ever been appointed who is not an administrator (usually with years of experience), although there is no prohibition against appointments of non-administrators. With the arbitration committee elections coming up, the current committee started a userrights-related discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that has included the difficulties a non-administrator arbitrator would face. Since the committee can't do anything about that, per se, I'd like to see some of the following (someone please improve the wording) added to the "Becoming an administrator" section here:

Administrative rights will be granted without an RFA to a non-administrator who is elected to the Arbitration Committee. Users gaining administrative rights in this manner may retain them after leaving the Committee.

I support this idea for several reasons: first off the elections require substantially more community trust than a typical RFA does, so Arbcom membership isn't a shortcut around RFA. As well, since we elect just a few people to the Committee every year, this won't affect the numbers substantially. Finally, current arbitrators already gain the oversight and checkuser rights, and they're allowed to retain them when they leave Arbcom, so former arbitrators also ought to keep admin if they gained it for membership. Please move this section to another page if this talk page isn't the right place for this discussion. Advertised at WP:VPR. Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue with this I imagine is that it's WMF stipulation that administrators -must- pass an RfA in order to become an administrator. (I've only heard that being described, and unsure of where exactly/when it was stated.) But otherwise, I see other issues such as a master puppet master trying to game to be an ArbCom clerk just to get admin privileges and such. Tutelary (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
WMF requires that an adminstrator has gone through a community-wide election process, of which Arbcom elections certainly is an example.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The question was explicitly asked a couple of years ago (I can't remember exactly when) and the official response from the WMF was that being elected as an arbitrator was a sufficiently rigorous process to be equivalent to passing an RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Tutelary, please re-read my proposal: I'm only talking about actual members of the Committee, and if successful, this proposal won't affect the rights of clerks. Meanwhile, arbitrators must identify to the Foundation, if for no other reason than that WMF requires ID for the checkuser and oversight permissions that arbitrators automatically get if they ask for them, and passing RFA (while absurdly hard) is substantially easier than getting on Arbcom. Finally, imagine that you're a rogue arbitrator without admin rights — your checkuser and oversight userrights are substantially more "powerful" and abuseable than ordinary admin rights. The only way you'll benefit from this proposal is if you're working in good faith, since you'll need the admin tools for routine housekeeping and routine committee work. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – One of the advantages of having non-administrator arbitrators is that they do not have the powers that an administrator does, and hence bring a non-administrator perspective to the table that would otherwise be unheard. Giving them these powers would destroy their non-administrator status, and hence change their outlook in a way that would be undesirable. We need non-administrator arbitrators who are actually not administrators. RGloucester — ☎ 18:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with this perspective on the idea. The only thing that I might suggest is that a couple rights be added as part of the OS usergroup that allow OS to see content that they should have permission to see, abusefilter-view-private, spamblacklistlog, and titleblacklistlog are the only three that they would be unable to see as far as I can tell without admin. In order for a non-admin checkuser to be able to do their job, the block, blockemail, and ipblock-exempt user rights should probably be added to the checkuser group. Alternatively, it may be more appropriate and community acceptable to simply create a new group Arbitrator with all of the rights that an arbitrator would need to carry out their duties that would be added when they got a seat and removed when their term was up or they stepped down. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 19:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal. Give them have the tools they need to carry out their duties, but no more. RGloucester — ☎ 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - If trusted to be an arbitrator, the user is also trustworthy enough to have the administrative tools. An arbitrator can't function if they can't look at deleted materials. An arbitrator can simply ignore and not use any of the tools they don't want, such as blocking or protection. Jehochman Talk 19:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support agree with arguments give in proposal. Arbs need to have admin like powers to fulfil role, becoming and arb is as much passing a community vetting process as an RfA. While some of the tools in theory could be split just for arbitrators as another option that seems useless for the very small number of editors concerned. I don't think that giving someone admin rights suddenly completely changes them wiki-personality wise. All the admins that I knew as plain editors seem mostly the same after getting the mop. So I'm not concerned with some inside vs outside thing. PaleAqua (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    It sounds like some of the access that is required might be available ( or easily made available ) through other permissions available to arbitrators. If that is the case, the need to make them admins seems to be lessened. That said while not all rolls are hierarchal to each other, arbitrators seems to be more like a higher tier of admin than even bureaucrats are in terms of their roles. Though I do understand that some candidates might object to receiving the admin bit, I'm not sure I would want an arbitrator that I don't think would make a good admin yet. PaleAqua (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per PaleAqua. I don't buy the non-admin perspective thing - it is not having access to the tools that changes this, but wide experience of using them. Any non-admin could simply choose not to use the tools outside of doing the arbitration tasks and resign them at the end of their term. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Giving them administrator powers implies that arbitrators must have administrator tools, and implies a hierarchical structure we should not promote. Tools should only be given to those who need and use them. When one becomes an arbitrator, one only needs certain tools. Those are the tools one should receive. When one applies to be an arbitrator, one is not applying to be an administrator. Non-administrators should be able to sit on the Committee. There is no reason why they should not be able to. RGloucester — ☎ 20:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments to supporter's of this proposal above, while attempting to stay neutral:
    • Jehochman, while I generally agree that the level of trust required to be an arbitrator likely surpasses the level required to be an administrator, I don't entirely agree that it is all about trust. As far as them not being able to see deleted materials, they actually can see all deleted materials. The only things that they should be able to see, but can't, I've outlined in my comment to RGloucester above. The only additional tools I can see that they need to use CU effectively, I've outlined in my comment to RGloucester above. It's about having the tools needed to preform tasks set in front of you. No more and no less.
    • PaleAqua, I do agree that I don't think that giving someone admin rights suddenly completely changes them wiki-personality wise., I do think that the general community perspective of that editor is that they are no longer "just another editor" but instead become "an admin". While I agree that whether or not a user has a set of tools is no big deal, I know there are a number of ekditors who don't see it that way (including some administrators). Perhaps that is just human nature. What I can say, is if (yes, that is a big if) I was to get a seat as an arbitrator as a non-admin candidate, I would not want to receive the admin toolset just because I was an arbitrator.
    • Thryduulf, it's less of a matter of whether or not they have the tools or whether or not they use the tools because they have them. To me, it's a matter of community perspective about that user. Having arbitrators that are not administrators, while giving them the tools they need, might strengthen the bond between "general editors" and "administrators" and make some general editors feel less threatened by administrators.
Perhaps I'm way off base on what I think about this proposal, and if this proposal becomes and official RfC on whether or not this should happen I request that the whomever reviews and closes this to take my comments as all neutral unless I make a formal !vote below. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Such tools as are reasonably necessary to function as a member of the committee should be provided. The concept that admins are a "special class of people" is contrary to the principle that admin tools are primarily to be used as "mops" ("no big deal") and not as fasces of authority. Collect (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This is certainly an interesting topic. On one hand, the mop and bucket would certainly be useful to non-admins who haven't gone through RfA for one reason or another. On the other hand, there is, perhaps, a reason that that individual hasn't gone through an RfA. If they passed the strenuous task of getting onto the Committee, why not allow them to go through an RfA to formally get the bits? It'd be interesting to hear from non-admin candidates on what they would like to happen should they get elected onto the committee. I, myself, don't necessarily want the bits. Oversight would allow me to view deleted text and one of my colleagues would be able to make any necessary blocks as part of remedies. Just my two cents. Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Dusti, imagine that you're elected to the Committee. Without administrative rights, you'd be able to look at revisions that had been oversighted, but normal deleted revisions you wouldn't be able to see — you wouldn't even be able to see that a page had been deleted (or be able to see whether it had any deleted revisions!) without checking the deletion log. Oversighters can oversight deleted revisions: would you even be able to do that, since you wouldn't be able to see them in the first place? Perhaps the current members of the committee will correct me, but I can't imagine how the committee's work would be anything except less efficient if you're stuck asking other people for help with ordinary deleted revisions. Many oversight and checkuser requests are made privately, and if you have to tell someone "sorry, but I can't oversight those deleted revisions because I can't see them", everyone's held up. It just doesn't work for holders of these rights not to have admin rights, and since we permit non-admins to get the advanced permissions, we might as well just make them admins. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I quote LFaraone's comment at the abovelinked Arbcom motion. "If there are technical restrictions to the utility of these tools to non-administrator arbitrators, I believe they can be worked around through requesting changes to the rights given by a group to include the minimum rights needed to use the tool. Specifically: Oversight: Grant the delete, deletedhistory, deletedtext, deletelogentryt, undelete, suppressrevision, and viewsuppressed permissions to the Oversight group or create a new group for it." In other words, you'd be unable to delete pages, view deleted history pages, view the contents of deleted pages, redact logs, undelete pages, revdelete entries, or view revdeleted entries. LFaraone was responding to something said by arbitrator Worm That Turned; LFaraone was sympathetic to granting admin rights (although with restrictions that I don't support), and Worm That Turned is "definitely not keen" on adjusting the packet of userrights involved in the oversight permission. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I see. You apparently seem to be relying on secondary information by people who have apparently not completely researched their comments or the available rights per group have been changed since the comment was made. Either way, the appropriate thing to do is to clarify what is already available to OSers using the checklist you have quoted:
Things that might be useful to add to the toolset that aren't mentioned in your list for OS include:
  • abusefilter-view-private - Would be useful in cases where private AFs had been triggered to be able to see what the coding for those AFs is.
  • spamblacklistlog - just a log that should be visible.
  • titleblacklistlog - just a log that should be visible.
  • @Technical 13: It depends if you're giving them the userright to use or just to observe. If it's use then they definitely need the 'undelete' right so that they are able to undelete a page then suppress it. I'm fairly sure that they need the 'delete' right to be able to view the delete action page and hence be able to delete and suppress an entire page - Legoktm can you confirm? They will also need 'flow-delete' (plus probably 'flow-edit-post') per the precedent with being able to revdel. It's probably also worth them having the 'block' (and possibly 'blockemail') rights so that they can make OS blocks and also block and suppress usernames. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not strongly opposed, but I would prefer it if the tools were automatically returned after the ArbCom turn, if only for appearances. On the one hand, involving a visible non-admin perspective is valuable in itself. And on the other hand, we don't want ArbCom candidates to be seen as people who try to get admin status "through the back door". Caesar's wife and all that... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm following this discussion with interest in case I'm elected as a non-admin Committee member. I would prefer to receive a partial toolset consisting of just the tools I would need as a member, explicitly not including the block tool. I like the idea of the tools expiring with my term.→StaniStani 19:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Questions: (1) Does anyone recall how this was handled in the earliest days of ArbCom (ca. 2004-2006), when there were a couple of non-administrator arbitrators? (2) Does anyone know how this is handled on other wikis with ArbComs? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
According to Meta:Arbcom, the following arbitration committees exist on non-English Wikipedias:
I'm thinking of writing a message such as "en:wp is discussing the idea of granting administrative rights to non-administrators who are elected to Arbcom, should such a situation arise. Have non-administrators ever been elected to your Arbcom, and if so, were they given administrative rights in connection with becoming a committee member? Your response at en:WT:ADMIN, section "Non-administrator arbitrators", would be appreciated; if you do not speak English, you will be welcome to write in [local language] and we will translate for you". I'd provide this text in English and in a Google Translate version of the local language, so everyone could partly understand and so that any English-speaking users could make a more sensible translation. As for early years, Fred Bauder might well know (he was apparently a member of the first committee), so I'll request his participation. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Be extremely careful with Google translations. For example, German often returns the opposite of what you want to say, and although Google offers Thai, translations are roughly 90% gibberish (I work with Thai every day). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The statement that no one who was not an administrator was ever appointed to arbitrator is correct. Among the possibilities: a responsible editor who is not an administrator (Many decent editors could never run the current gauntlet) or someone who, as a matter of "principle," is in opposition. The appointment of editors who are in opposition to enforcement of policy to a body that enforces policy is nuts. However, if that is who is being elected, best to give the money back to the contributors and shut down. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The rights configuration on my TestWiki might be different, but I just removed all rights from myself with the exception of CheckUser, Rollback, and Oversight and I can still see deleted pages and their content. I think it's because of the deletedhistory and deletedtext rights Oversight grants. Granted, we can't delete pages, but we can still view contents of deleted pages. I haven't tried RevDel yet but I'll do that now. Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, since RevDel is just revision deletion (one step up from Suppression) I'm fairly certain that Oversighters without the admin toolset will still be able to view RevDel'd pages, since they're the ones that would go one step further and suppress it. Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
In response to Nyttend's question, I know that de and nl grant administrator status, but I believe it is removed once the term is over. Pinging User:DerHexer and User:Trijnstel for more details. --Rschen7754 06:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
ru.wp does not grant admin rights to elected arbitrators, and non-admins were and, I believe, are still elected to arbcom on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Grant with the explicit understanding they will only be used for reviewing others actions (e.g. a non-admin arb should not be blocking anyone). Remove automatically upon term expiration. NE Ent 09:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Administrative privileges pro tempore seem fine, if the proposal were amended to temporary, I could support it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC) But let me be clear, I am not supporting anything presently, and I am not supporting the proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I'd also be happy with temporary permissions. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose To pass RfA, one needs 75+% support. To be elected as an Arb, one only needs over 50% percent support, provided they finish in the top 8 or 9 or however many seats are being filled. The processes are not equal and, to me, should not be equated. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The two electoral systems are fundamentally different. To be realistic, there are candidates in the current line up who may, or more importantly, might not pass a traditional RfA. a) I see no reason to relinquish anyone from the rigours of an RfA process. b) Due to the number of ArbCom candidates, there is a real risk that seats will be filled by default. c) Unlike RfA, the election participants have no real influence over the voting. d) The threshold for entering an ArbCom candidacy is, IMO, exceptionally low, and I believe adminship (or a former admin who has not been desysoped under a cloud) to be an absolute minimum requirement. I would go as far as to suggest that this should be the subject of a major policy RfA RfC and that the election be postponed (however long it takes) until the community has voiced a clear consensus. Failing that, non-admin arbs should have to make do without the admin tools until such times as they have passed an RfA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. If the individual tools cannot be granted, we could issue the "admin" bit, but it should expire when the person leaves Arbcom, either through "retirement", or through the end of the term and not being re-elected. (Note: I am an admin.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose By the time many voters make a choice there will be megabytes of discussion spread over many different pages. It is not realistic to expect that voters will examine each page in detail to see whether specific problems are claimed. For example, some people are skilled at working out what should be said, even if they don't mean it. Such a person might present an excellent statement, and that might be the only thing a voter sees in some cases, and the voter may support the candidate to fill out their nine votes. If the voter had known about issues revealed on a discussion page somewhere, they may have voted to oppose. Therefore it is not reasonable to grant all rights to successful candidates. By contrast, there is only one relevant page in an RfA, and all objections are clearly on display, and all attention is focused on the one candidate without the distractions from a field of twenty. What evidence is there that rights are necessary? How would those rights help with the current cases before Arbcom? Why couldn't an arbitrator without rights simply ask other arbs (via email) for any information required? Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose but with this idea as a compromise. Allow non-admins to be elected on condition that they begin the RfA process, with the signature accepting the nomination, and the edit to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship that transcludes the new nom, both being dated no later than 23:59, 24 December of the year in which the election is held. This RfA shall be no different from any other RfA and so they may be nominated either by themselves or another user. The arbitrator-elect must pass that RfA in order to be formally appointed to ArbCom; and their admin rights, if granted, need not be surrendered when their term as an Arb expires. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I might also be able to support something like this but why would the Arb-elect not take their seat? They could just take their seat without the privileges. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Can anyone point to a specific case where it was necessary that every person in the discussion needed CU rights, for example? I suggest that the election is a sufficiently high bar as to give a presumption of competence to those elected, and there have, in fact, been "genuine admins" who ended up not being proper arbitrators in the past. Let's allow the election process to run - and trust in its result. The concept of "no non-admin shall ever be allowed to become an arb" is a perverse one indeed. Collect (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Comment. Honestly, I think the minimum requirements for becoming an arbitrator are absurdly low (500 edits??). I think that being an administrator should be a requirement, which would, of course, eliminate this entire discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's quite obvious that a person trusted to be an Arb could be trusted to be an admin for the length of their term. --Biblioworm 20:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Partial support Given the level of trust needed to be elected an arb I support them being given the admin bit while they are a member of the Committee, but I think they should do an RFA (or whatever it's changed to) if they want to keep them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RGloucester because the perspective does change with the tools. If some one is elected without the tools, the community might have elected them partially because of that reason and that advantage (or lack of advantage so as to keep the perspective of the majority of the community) should be kept intact. Having NPOV discussions related to article space all day at wikipedia, we should most understand this. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Choice Let the newly elected arb choose if they want to be an admin, and if they want to, a simple poll can be held (edit:after they are successfully elected) in place of the normal RfA process. The non admin candidates will mention their intention beforehand in the candidate statement, so that the community may know if they are electing someone with a non admin perspective. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 13:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Partial support - It's sensible to grant admin powers to seated arbs, but I'm not comfortable with users retaining the bit past the end of their term. I would be comfortable if we could create an RfA process that lowers the bar for granting admin rights to align more closely with the process for electing arbitrators and if we had a complementary process for removing admin rights via mandatory reconfirmation, or some similar process.- MrX 19:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Partial support - I might favor something more along the lines of (although this particular phrasing sucks) "any arbitrators who do not have administrator privileges can be granted such privileges as are deemed necessary for the duration of their term as an arbitrator with the support of one other, admin, arbitrator." So, if one admin arb thinks a non-admin arb needs to have certain privileges to function effectively, the non-admin arb gets them. If certain admin rights, maybe like blocking, don't seem to ever be required for someone to function as an arb by admin arbs, then there is no particular need to receive those powers separately. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the fact that someone can be trusted with one sensitive position doesn't necessarily mean they can be trusted with another, different sensitive position. I don't have a problem with the idea of non-admin arbitrators and such a person ought to be given access to deleted edits (since they might well be asked to look at deleted evidence), and if this can't technically be done without granting adminship then we could give them admin rights on condition that they only be used to view deleted edits. Hut 8.5 22:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment When I vote for someone to become and Arb, I'm voting because I think they have the ability to judge cases well; I don't EXPECT them to have to gather evidence themselves, just to weigh it. Weighing presented evidence doesn't require rights. — xaosflux Talk 04:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: @Newyorkbrad: (and others interested in other wikis): we just got this request from the German Wikipedia, so it is done elsewhere. --Rschen7754 23:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

New User group

What about a new "Arbitrator" user group that includes access to deleted content, etc. Once the term expires, the right will be removed. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 09:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to me unreasonable, provided we were able to figure out exactly which rights Arbitrators would need. There might be a bit of a question though about maybe creating a user group which doesn't have any or very few members for long periods of time. John Carter (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I could support this - one thing that is hanging all this up is anticipating something that may not be needed - so, my thought is just wait until someone says they need it, and what they need and then yeah we can consider a bare-bones new user group (that can be restricted or expanded over time). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This was one option offered and proposed at the top of this section. I personally think it would be better to add the necessary userrights to CU and OS independently to make sure that all of the tools are available to preform those tasks exclusively without relying on the user being in another usergroup that they are not required to technically be in. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Kindly remove Bergspider.net from blacklist

Kindly remove my website from blacklist: bergspider.net.I have been posting my website on Wikipedia. Please remove the site that were posted in backlist. My website adds value to its visitors by giving them relevant and up-to-date information on the latest technologies. I share the same vision as is of Wikipedia to make information accessible to more and more people. As we share the common goals so it would be kind action on your part to remove my website from your spam filter. Thanking You, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GawenBerg (talk • contribs) 06:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As was explained to you, your site is not considered a reliable source and as such should not be used anywhere here. Your site was blacklisted because of your persistent insertion of it into articles. Your site may not be a spam site, but the way you have been adding it to articles is a violation of WP:SPAM. Blackmane (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
SO How bergspider.net will emove form Blacklish is there any way or can you hep us to remove Bergspider.net form blacklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GawenBerg (talk • contribs) 08:11, 24 June 2015
You were declined (at least twice) at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#bergspider.net and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Bergspider - Protected edit request on 16 June 2015; coming here seems like WP:ADMINSHOPping. Also please see the notices at the top of this page - in particular, the ones saying "this talk page is not the place to post questions for or ask for help from administrators". --Redrose64 (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:INACTIVITY RfC

I've started an RfC regarding the inactivity requirement for administrators here. Sam Walton (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin involvement

I added the following text to WP:INVOLVED: "When the technical ability to perform certain actions is not limited to administrators, in some cases experienced non-administrators are permitted to perform them. These actions, such as closing discussions, are still considered administrative, and as such the same principles apply." My edit summary referenced a current discussion here, which discusses how to determine involved status for non-admins closing RfCs. I don't have any opinion on where guidance on this this should be described, but it was pointed out that it isn't codified anywhere and this seemed like a reasonable place. Any thoughts (or objections, or proposals to change the wording)? Pinging Bbb23 who reverted. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED applies only to administrators, not editors performing an action that administrators also perform. Your text has no place in this policy. The concept of involved may have a broader meaning in other contexts, but its meaning here is narrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Do we have a place where the broader meaning is discussed? I've seen editors discussing that broader context link here. (Either way though, that's still reasonable and I don't intend to push for this.) Sunrise (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

requesting deletion of article OTAHUHU LEOPARDS

Hi Admins

My name is Caroline Matamua, I am from the OTahuhu Leopards -formally Otahuhu Rovers Rugby League Football Club, senior management committee. Mattlore created a article on our Club and the information was incorrect and outdated. He also did not have permission to use our logos and photos.

We made correction including our official club name and he changed it back to his version??

We have made contact with Matt and it is the Clubs decision to request deletion of the page. We do not wish to have un authorized information on our club especially when it is incorrect published.

I have edited and deleted information, I do not know how to delete entire page. Im sorry I am new and very much an amateur.

Can you please help me, We want to avoid the situation getting messy causing confliction

Kind regards Caroline Matamua csmatamua 05:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmatamua (talk • contribs)

Hi, I'm a random volunteer administrator and I'm not officially speaking for Wikipedia, just giving advice. The article Otahuhu Leopards is not going to be deleted. We generally do this only if a topic is not important enough to be covered in Wikipedia, which is not the case here. The images seem to be properly tagged as fair use, which allows us to use your logo in the article, and as the own work of one of the article's authors. I don't see any claim you could make to request the deletion of the article (which nobody owns) or the images, but I recommend that you continue to talk directly to Mattlore (talk · contribs) on his talk page. He is an experienced editor and should be able to discuss any concerns you have with you. If that doesn't work, please see WP:DR for other ways on how to resolve any remaining disagreements over the article's contents.  Sandstein  10:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Caroline. If you have information that is outdated that you want changed, then we will need some reliable sources and we can easily add that information. What in particular about the article are you unhappy about? Mattlore (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Partisans

Are there Partisan admins? If so should non-admins (the community at large) be concerned? Should other admins be concerned?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course there are. Why should admins be different than non-admins? I've been accused of being partisan. We need only be concerned if the admins act on their POV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

blocking

I'm trying to block a certain user here and they're threatening me from one Edit I made because I knew it was extremely sensitive information about a very fragile matter. How do I block this user from editing? Who do I talk to? Montygables (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Montygables: You're in the wrong place. Per the box at the top, this talk page is not the place to post questions for administrators. Formalities aside, you cannot block anybody, since you are not an administrator; also for anybody to be blocked, there needs to be a good reason, see the blocking policy.
Presumably this is in relation to the articles Clark Gable (history) and Loretta Young (history) where you appear to be in disagreement with Bookworm857158367 (talk · contribs). After one revert, the proper place to discuss the article content is at the talk pages of those articles, i.e. Talk:Clark Gable and Talk:Loretta Young respectively. I see that Bookworm857158367 has posted on both of those, but you have not. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Correction to history section

"In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators".

This is not true. The admin function as we know it only came into existence in February 2002 with the switch to MediaWiki. Around 30 people were directly appointed by Jimbo as admins at that time. During the first year (under the UseModWiki software) the only "admins" were Jimbo and Tim Shell. Larry Sanger also had the server password, but by agreement he did not do any "admin" functions [2] Manning (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Definition of 'wheel' in 'wheel warring'

I've added a small item under "wheel warring" to explain that the term "wheel" comes from the PDP-10 and Decsystem-20 mainframes as the term for their highest-privileged account type, similar to root on linux. The term is esotertic and identifying it should make it easier to understand. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC for binding administrator recall

Hello. You are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall, where a discussion regarding a process for de-sysopping is taking place. ~ RobTalk 05:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrator:Shyamal

Shyamal has contributed a lot to Wikipedia for more than 12 years. Nowadays in RFAs some people just talk about content creation. Then why no one gives any barnstar or Wikilove to Shyamal. Just look how much work he does. No one invites him for Wikimania. Why other administrators don't appreciate his hard work especially those who say Administrator must be a good content creator ?

Please have a look, https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/index.php?user=Shyamal&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects --112.79.36.128 (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you anon but you have some bits wrong, folks have given me barnstars, its hidden away in my talk page archives and do not really matter to me or anyone really (it would be a different matter if Mediawiki had a rating system for editors / edits). Wikimania is not by invitation, and I have attended once. As for RfA, I am quite sure I would not make it in these times. My admin actions are also rather limited and gnomish. Shyamal (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course in 12 years you may have received some. I have checked talk pages of other content creators and contributors whose talk pages are full of wikiloves, happy new year animation, wikiproject barnstar. And they get appreciated regularly.112.79.36.128 (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a certain degree of mutualism involved in that. How editors choose to spend time is a personal freedom. Also note that this page is not meant to be used for such discussions. Let us consider this closed. Shyamal (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Archiving?

Came here to read about some issues and realized that there are sections on here that are over 2 1/2 years old. I'd archive some of the apparently-outdated content myself but this isn't my talk page, isn't an article talk page, it kind of is in the admins bailiwick. Just wanted to mention that the present length makes it hard for editors to wade through all the content. Shearonink (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I just had the exact same thought coming here, before even reading your message!! It looks like this page is manually archived, and hasn't been archived since about 2012! In this day and age, isn't it, like, crazy, not to have this page auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III?! Heck, the archiving period can even be set to "730d" if Admins are worried about it!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Archiving can just be returned to before [3]. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 Done – I've (hopefully) restored autoarchiving to this Talk page. I set the archiving to effectively one year – so hopefully any threads on this page older than a year should be archived soon... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey! It worked!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to offload backlogged Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old

Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old is backlogged.

Editors with Wikipedia:File mover rights are almost certainly trustworthy enough to be allowed to clear this backlog.

Technically, clearing this backlog could easily be done with the assistance of an admin-bot that only those with file-mover (and, by default, administrator) rights could use. This would help with this backlog and free up administrators to work on other tasks.

The only "downside" is that the community and other powers-that-be (WMF, ARBCOM) would be unlikely to approve allowing File Movers to call the bot to "undo" their actions, so there would have to be an orderly process for a "File Mover" to get an administrator's attention on the rare occasions when he hits thew wrong button by mistake.

Is it worth starting an community discussion to "unbundle" this task to the already-trusted group of "File movers"? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:INVOLVED

WP:INVOLVED currently contains:

Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.

I propose adding the following right after the above sentence:

Editing the article, including editing the article to enforce core content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:NOR does. In such cases the administrator should ask an uninvolved administrator to take action. Situations such as WP:BLP or WP:CV where immediate action is required are an exception. In such cases the administrator is allowed to take immediate action but should follow it with a posting to the appropriate noticeboard asking an uninvolved administrator to review the action.

Revision #1:

Edits enforcing core content policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:NOR are considered involved but are allowed if they are time critical, such as WP:BLP or WP:CV violations. Such actions are controversial; the administrator should follow the action with a posting to the appropriate noticeboard asking an uninvolved administrator to review the action.

Needless to say, my wording may not be ideal, and suggested alternate wording is welcome.

Rationale: We have had several recent cases (and at least one recent desysop) where an administrator interpreted Wikipedia policy as allowing use of admin tools to enforce his preferred version in a content dispute, reasoning that his preferred version was required by a content policy and thus us of admin tools was allowed. The problem is that there is almost always one or more sides in a content dispute that think that their preferred version is required by a content policy -- and often they are correct. I believe that this additional wording will make it clear to future admins about to make the same mistake that such reasoning is invalid. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I worry about the waffling text. Adding new clauses to a policy turn it into a confusing "unless-except" sequence, and it already has two caveats. Adding a sub-caveat is bad. I would personally add it to the first paragraph instead: "Edits enforcing core content policies are also considered involvement unless they are time critical, like BLP or copyright violations . (My personal preference would be more akin to "Such actions are questionable; they must be submitted for community review immediately after the fact" as it is more flexible but that's a bigger policy change). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I also would be reluctant to make this kind of change. It seems to me that the existing wording, when read using the common sense that we expect of administrators, already covers the situations that arose in the recent cases (albeit without going into it in too much detail). The problem in the recent cases was that the administrators failed to use proper judgment in understanding the meaning of involved, and the subsequent DR made that clear, I think (hope?). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I like it, and have revised my suggested addition. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been involved with two of the recent cases, on the side of the complainants, but don't support this wording. A BLP violation is a BLP violation and admins are trusted to deal with those. There's no need to report to AN if you've removed, "X is a bigoted homophobe" and protected the article or blocked an editor. --NeilN talk to me 20:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish, the common sense that we expect of administrators and subsequent DR making te the meaning of involved clear did not work at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man and so far it isn't working at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible abuse of admin tools by User:Nyttend. (Ping: User:Nyttend, User:Kww, User:The Rambling Man, talk page notices posted) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I do appreciate what you are trying here, and I see your point about things that are not working, but I also think that there are diminishing returns to trying to spell out common sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Kww is desysopped and you're free to open a case against Nyttend. Lapses in judgement by individual admins does not mean WP:INVOLVED isn't working nor will tweaking the wording prevent future lapses. --NeilN talk to me 20:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I have simply given up participating in the witch-hunt against me. When people think that they can say such-and-such and source it to something that doesn't say such-and-such, and when they don't listen when you explain that they're thereby presenting falsehoods to readers (a situation that would result in a failing grade from any teacher/academic who found such a thing in academic writing) and instead seek retribution for enforcing content standards, there's no point in wasting your time. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You could not have given a better example of why this added wording is needed. Nyttend, the overwhelming consensus is that there is no "presenting a truthful article" exception to WP:INVOLVED. I would remind you that, as with all cases where an administrator is involved in a content dispute, a request posted at WP:AN asking for an uninvolved administrator to look into the situation and take whatever action is required almost usually results in action within minutes. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The text already has, "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved" as the first sentence. You are trying expand the scope unnecessarily. No good-faith editor is going to dispute an unsourced, "Z had an affair with an underaged girl" or "Y kicks her dog" being removed. It would be more useful to add wording saying if the case is legitimately disputed, the admin should undo the action and bring it to a noticeboard. --NeilN talk to me 00:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
These are perhaps examples where INVOLVED did not "work" but we must recognize all the other times where the current policy is working. They're are significantly more times where administrators must come into a situation to revert under a core policy and doing so should not label them "involved". Moreover doing so then required to seek a second administrator to review the situation. This change will solve three debatable problems and create dozens of other problems and backlogs. We're only going to see a few cases a year like the ones cited for the rationale of this change meanwhile the cases that will be affected will be dozens if not hundreds of reverts (under core policies) performed per day by administrators. Mkdwtalk 02:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I genuinely appreciate the thought and effort here, but I'd have to Oppose this change as such. In general, our policies tend to "describe" our current practices, and as such I prefer the original/current form. EVERY case is going to be different, and I think the community does well enough at handling the things that do come up (even if it occasionally requires Arbcom to rule on things). On a side note: I think there is always going to be a "POV", and as much as we want it to be neutral - it is usually some sort of view. If you tie the hands too tightly, then people are less likely to even try to enforce anything. — Ched :  ?  20:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • All this change does is reinforce misapplications of WP:INVOLVED: the description "obvious edits that do not speak to bias" is a core portion of WP:INVOLVED and the only thing that shields other admins from similar mistreatment to that which I suffered. Edits to the content of the article which remove unambiguous policy violations (such as restoring challenged content without citations or edits that falsely claim that the citations contain information that they do not) do not make the administrator involved, despite bad precedent to the contrary. If anything, the policy needs amplification and clarification in the opposite direction. BTW, please stop misrepresenting my efforts to correct TRM's misbehaviour as a "content dispute". —Kww(talk) 21:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The fact that you were desysopped for using administrative tools in a content dispute has already been established per the final decision in your arbcom case. Your arguments that it wasn't a content dispute were specifically rejected by arbcom. I am not going to re-argue that case here, but I do have a question and I hope that you can give me a frank and honest answer. Assuming that the change I suggested above had gotten overwhelming support (yes, I know that's a big assumption) and made policy prior to the actions that led to you being desysopped, would that have stopped you? If not, that's a good argument against the change. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't misinterpret that decision as establishing much more than my unpopularity: it doesn't even hold up under its own logic (note that they decided that restoring unsourced material to articles without citations violates BLP but ignored that while determining that I was involved). As for whether your definition of WP:INVOLVED would have stopped me, it basically would have stopped my participation in Wikipedia years ago. It's unworkable, as no admin will tend to notice disruptive behaviour unless it shows up on his watchlist. If the most obvious of violations can't be handled without convening an ANI discussion, you've basically handed the project over to disruptive editors: they will always be able to outrun administrators wearing leg-irons. You are trying to argue the exemption that makes WP:INVOLVED workable out of existence, and paralyze the administrative corps. —Kww(talk) 22:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I will take that as a "yes". We understand that you strongly disagree with the arbcom ruling. Please don't attack me for simply reporting what the ruling contains. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the idea here is good, but I disagree with the proposal. Dealing with a clear WP:BLP violation is, by definition, not controversial (hence the key word 'clear'), and a rule saying that it is doesn't make sense. The key part which this suggestion leaves out is clear. Clear WP:BLP violations or the like can be reverted without becoming involved; we trust admins to have the judgment to understand when this is the case. (And we could perhaps clarify 'clear' a bit more somewhere, although I would start with an essay -- eg. if multiple experienced users in good standing disagree, then it probably isn't clear!) But what this suggestion seems to be saying is "even if it's completely clear, it's still controversial", and I don't think that that's workable. --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I understand the intention behind this proposal but it is far too restrictive. If there is a clear WP:BLP or copyright violation, administrators need the ability to not only block (if required) but also revert the damage. If an administrator comes across a situation where they have never interacted with the article or editor before but spot a series of blatant copyright violations being committed and several warnings have been issued, they should proceed to block the editor and revert the violations. Yet this new change, because even though they've only interacted in an administrative role, they've also made an edit that "enforced a core policy" (the revert) supposedly makes them "involved". There are too many situations like this where this proposal creates contradictory instructions and needlessly makes more work. The very role of administrators is often to enforce core policies and doesn't necessarily make them involved. Again, I see the intention behind the proposal but the current wording would cause more confusion and extra work than protection. Mkdwtalk 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me chime in with the chorus: overspecifying here is counterproductive, and I'm not even convinced that any tweak is a good idea. But this certainly isn't one. Also, per Ent, Mkdw, Tryptofish, Aquillion, Kww, Ched, NeilN, and everyone else who chimed in. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per as process creep and because the definition of "time critical" assumes an active cadre of editors on an article; some articles, if left uncorrected, will simply not be fixed. It's fair to demand the exercise of caution and a conservative view of what constitutes a necessary edit to enforce policy, and it's fair to encourage independent review, but this arbitrary cutoff goes too far. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

When used in a clear-cut, non-controversial manner or in a manner that will result in the decision being endorsed by the community if someone complains, this new "exception" seems like a special case of "ignore all rules".

Ched's comment above that "our policies tend to "describe" our current practices" and the fact that polices and guidelines change over time inspired me to suggest that instead of changing WP:INVOLVED right now, we remind administrators about WP:Ignore all rules and see if actual practice changes over time. If it does, then change WP:INVOLVED.

Here is my recommendation:

Add something in one of the documents in Category:Wikipedia New admin or one of the documents linked to in WP:Ignore all rules reminding administrators and other editors that:

  • WP:Ignore all rules is policy and administrators are not only allowed but expected to invoke it when required, with the expectation that it will be invoked sparingly and only with great forethought.
  • Before invoking it, be darned sure that you really are making Wikipedia better, that there is no better way to accomplish the same tasks that doesn't require "ignoring all rules," and that "doing nothing" isn't better than having to "ignore all rules" just to "do something."
  • Since it's nearly impossible to be 100% sure you are right ahead of time, announce what you did at an appropriate admin- or other forum and invite other admins or other editors to review and possibly undo what you did.
  • Know that every time you hold the mop while "ignoring all rules," you are, in effect, shouting to everyone "I am willing to sacrifice the right to use the mop for the betterment of Wikipedia, and I am willing to stand in judgment of my fellow administrators and fellow editors for doing what I did."

A similar statement could be written for editors.

Thoughts? Comments? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty good. Alas, it would have had no effect on Kww or Nyttend, both of whom are convinced that they were not ignoring all rules, but instead were enforcing existing rules through legitimate exceptions to WP:INVOLVED. I won't comment on Nyttend's claim as the case is still open and the community might agree with him, but it is notable that just about everyone disagreed with Kww's interpretation of what the exceptions to WP:INVOLVED are. That's why I suggested making it more explicit -- because it looks to me like two admins so far got it wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
There are always going to be editors, no matter how clearly something is spelled out, will interpret in a way that seems to come out of left field. There is no such thing as a policy, rule, or law that is in immune from being misapplied or misunderstood. We don't need policies that cater to the rare exceptions because we "should" have mechanisms in place to deal with those issues like noticeboards and ArbCom. Whether that's an effective mechanism is a different debate altogether. Mkdwtalk 02:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I have to say, that is a compelling argument against my proposed change. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Mkdw. NE Ent 11:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC) [4] NE Ent 18:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC) See also WP:CREEP and WP:Policy fallacy. NE Ent 18:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent:, please clarify which of Mkdw's remarks you endorse and who that remark pertains to this alternative proposal. I ask because it's unclear from his remarks above if he is objecting to the existence of WP:IAR, the need to make sure administrators (and for that matter, all editors) aware of it, the need explicitly train administrators of its use (and by extension, when not to use it) and the risks and responsibilities that come with invoking it, something else entirely, or maybe I (and you?) misread his comment and he doesn't have any objections to this alternative proposal at all. Until now, it wasn't critical to know since he was addressing another editor's comments and not addressing the alternative proposal itself. But since you used his comment as grounds to oppose the alternative proposal and didn't explain what you meant, it's important to get your thoughts on the matter so I and others can clearly understand your objections. If any of Mkdw's remarks were directed at the alternative proposal rather than to Guy Macon, I would welcome any clarification he has to offer. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The definition of what's time critical seems both arbitrary and unclear (due to the "such as", which excludes nothing). That's not good. Is there something that makes WP:CV more time critical than, say WP:PAID? No. Oppose for now, due to lack of needed clarity.--Elvey(t•c) 02:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Identifying the issues with RfA

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which aims to identify the issue(s) with our current system for selecting administrators. Please do not comment in this section, but rather post any comments about proposals in the relevant section, or on the RfC's talk page for general matters. Thank you. --Biblioworm 00:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators/Archive_14&oldid=1142666985"