Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:15, 27 June 2010

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post questions for administrators. For questions, go to Misplaced Pages:Questions.

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Stvilia, B. et al. Information Quality Discussions in Misplaced Pages. University of Illinois U-C.

Misplaced Pages Help Project‑class

This page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (Sept 2002–July 2003) Archive 2 (July 2003–Dec 2005) Archive 3 (Jan 2005–Oct 2006) Archive 4 (Oct 2006–July 2007) Archive 5 (Aug 2007–June 2008) Archive 6 (June–December 2008) Archive 7 (Dec 2008–Oct 2009)

Archives

Misplaced Pages talk:Wheel war/Archive 1 Misplaced Pages talk:Wheel war/Archive 2 Misplaced Pages talk:Wheel war/Proposal 1 Misplaced Pages talk:Wheel war/Archive 3 Misplaced Pages talk:Wheel war/Archive 4 Misplaced Pages talk:Wheel war/Archive 5

User essay on administrator neutrality

There are several administrators who work in areas where they have passionate feelings.

While this won't change the outcome for things like blocking trolls or correctly closing snow-keep or snow-close AFDs or obvious CSDs, it can give the appearance of bias when closing questionable CSDs, admin-discretion-range AFDs, or blocking people when an editor technically violates a rule but common practice is to give a little leeway. It can also have a counter-effect if an admin is trying to hard to be non-biased.

I've written a user essay to address this: User:Davidwr/Administrator neutrality. Your thoughts are welcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Restricted site

Dear sir, For the last 48 hours i have been unable to enter "wikiislam" because whenever i try,it says "this site is restricted".Please tell me the reason for this and also how can i resolve this issue. thank you.--Maqsoodshah01 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL

"Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers; they are not employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved."

Is that really in the official rules? It's what they do all day long. Find an article they are passionate about, then prevent anyone from changing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.136.29 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting de-administratored

I know that sysops can get de-administratored without getting blocked, and that crats are responsible for making them into sysops. I also know that crats cannot de-administrator people, so who does? Oversight? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 06:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Stewards on Meta actually carry out most desysoppings. Those with the power to order them on the English Misplaced Pages are the Arbitration Committee, and somewhat controversially, Jimbo Wales. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh  06:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, rollbackers and autoreviewers both have little top-icons ({{Rollback}} and {{Autoreviewer}}, respectively). Can there be a little icon like that for sysops? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Search and ye shall find: {{administrator topicon}}. Cheers,  Skomorokh  22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There's been extensive discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC which began in November, as noted in Who watches the admins in the Signpost. – Athaenara ✉ 20:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Imagechange on Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/June 5, 2007

Can an admin please change the used image on Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/June 5, 2007 by File:Frank Klepacki on an insert photo of his Morphscape album.jpg so that the old image can be deleted.
regards --D-Kuru (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Time to change the wheel-warring policy?

Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion.

— Policy as of 2009-12-22

I think it's time we had a discussion on looking at changing the wheel warring policy from the third action: Do, Undo, REDO to being harsher on the second mover, ie, the Undo part. There's plenty of times where undoing the actions of another administrator led to horrible drama and distraction. I don't have a problem with undoing another administrator's action after getting consensus and/or discussing it with the first administrator. It's "No, I don't agree with that. UNDOES Action" (in more then a few cases, there is at least a perception that the person undoing the action has personal feelings toward the action being undone (friendship, cliques, whatever you want to call it). I think it needs to be curbed.

This is what I would suggest. Administrators are to assume good faith in the competence and judgment of their fellow administrators, and as such are not to undo the administrative actions of another user without getting consensus for their actions from the greater community or discussing the action with the original administrator. Doing such actions unilaterally will be considered wheel-warring, and can be met with sanctions, up to and including the removal of their administrator status.

I understand that some people are concerned that this gives the "first mover" too much of an advantage in a dispute, but think of it this way... if you're unilaterally undoing another administrator's action without discussion or getting consensus, you're pitting your judgment directly against the other administrator's.. nothing good can come of it. If it's so obvious that it is a blatant error in judgment, then spending a few minutes/hours to discuss it with others shouldn't be an impedement.

Anyway, I invite comment, discussion, etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Precipitous reversal of a arguably correct admin action should be prohibited. I'm not sure we want to be so strong as to say this is wheel warring, because there are a number of acceptions where swift reversal may be appropriate, such as error or clear, indisputable violations of policy. Jehochman 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nod. We don't want either first mover advantage OR second mover advantage. For a long time we had first mover advantage but the pendulum has swung too far the other way I think. Some way to find the right balance is key. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How about this then? Administrators are to assume good faith in the competence and judgment of their fellow administrators, and as such are not to undo the administrative actions of another user without getting consensus for their actions from the greater community or discussing the action with the original administrator. Doing such actions unilaterally (except in cases of clear and obvious error) can be considered wheel-warring, and can be met with sanctions, up to and including the removal of their administrator status. SirFozzie (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, because there have been several recent cases of clearly improper administrative reversals without even the pretense of consensus or contacting the blocking admin, and the language in WP:WHEEL implicitly authorizes such improper actions.

I'm not crazy about the language, because it suffers from AGF-creep. You can assume good faith, and you can assume competence and good judgment - those are 2 different things. In fact, you usually need to invoke AGF when people have acted with an apparent absence of competence or good judgment. :) So I'd just say "... extend the benefit of the doubt to the judgment and competence of their fellow administrators..." MastCell  03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please do NOT take my action as that of an arb, etcetera etcetera. I'm DEFINITELY only wearing my standard editor's hat for this one. SirFozzie (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this change going to publicized somewhere? And are the opinions of 5 users sufficient to make this fairly significant change to a long-standing policy? –xeno 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely not trying to hide it. A lot of policies get changed with less community discussion. I'll bring a section up at AN (this is certainly something of interest to AN). SirFozzie (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think that more than 1 user should agree to your proposed wording before it goes live. It's fairly strict. As Lar said above, we don't want the pendulum to swing too far to the 'first mover' advantage. –xeno 14:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There's several people who agree in this thread (and quite frankly, even with the holidays, I certainly can't be accused of jamming it through without giving others a chance to comment!) . Here's my thoughts. If you can't take the time to get consensus or even discuss another administrator's action with them before undoing it, you're basically saying "I have no confidence in your judgment and ability to use the tools". I have no problem when the action is unarguably incorrect. (deleting the main page, Block Jimbo, etcetera). But when the actions in a grey area, unilaterally undoing another administrator's action is not going to solve the issue, or reduce drama. It's going to raise it, exponentially. Requiring discussion and/or consensus is a check on that. SirFozzie (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against some movement of the pendulum back towards centre, but I still think the new wording is far too strict. What if I'm reviewing WP:INDEFSEMI? Do I really need to contact the protecting admin every time I want to undo a protection from 2007 or 2008 if I've reviewed the situation and come to a conclusion in good faith that it's time to try unprotection? Soften it up a bit, and also seek additional opinions via WP:AN and WP:VPP. –xeno 14:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition to being too strict, I think it is too vague as to what admins should actually must do. Is "I disagree with this block for X reason." "Nope, the block should stick because Y" a "discussion" as the term is used in your proposal?

When the course of events happens as follows: (1) admin A blocks a user indefinitely, (2) admin B, familiar with the situation, disagrees and wishes to unblock, what should admin B do? I think it's reasonable to expect him to contact admin B and wait a brief time for a response. If admin A appears not to be active onwiki, it might be better for admin B to take it to a community noticeboard for wider review. But I don't think he usually needs to wait until the discussion (admin-to-admin or community) is complete to undo the action. I definitely don't think he needs to find a community consensus in favor of reverting the action. Except in certain cases where extra caution is required (e.g. deleting or protecting for a BLP sensitive issue - which should be made clear when the initial admin action is taken), the preference should be for users to remain unblocked and for pages to remain undeleted and unprotected. Consensus is required to block, delete, or protect, not the other way around.

Admins shouldn't take a reversal of their actions as an insult and it's unreasonable for them to do so. It's simply a reflection of the fact that unblocked, unprotected, undeleted is the default in most situations. Where there's disagreement the default is favored.

I do think the language could be tightened up a bit. For instance, admins reversing an action should be confident they are fully familiar with the situation. obviously it is helpful for blocking, deleting, or protecting admins to make clear on a related page (e.g. the talk page for the user or article) if there is non-obvious context. If its obvious that a reversing admin didn't make themselves familiar with the facts, I agree that sanctions for such negligence could be appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(de-indenting): Brought it up on WP:AN at . I am willing to change the policy to exclude routine, "housekeeping" type administrative actions, like possibly long term protections, etcetera (have a good wording for this?). What I would like to see the policy cover is those administrative activities which explicitly affect other users (for example, sanctions like blocks, etcetera, or locking a current dispute down). SirFozzie (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made a slight softening thusly. I'm not sure that explicitly delineating which actions require discussion vs. those that don't is the best way to go about it - better to massage the wording so that it reflects the "character" of reversals the community feels are improper. Hopefully more eyes on this will help us find that equilibrium. –xeno 14:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer bright-line, Thou Shalt Not, type wording over wording that possibly may leave loophole in "I know how I SHOULD do this, but I hate this decision so much, I'm going to IAR..." type manner, but I'm willing to go along with it :) SirFozzie (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is 'Thou Shalt Not'-type wording incorrectly presupposes that policies are prescriptive. –xeno 14:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I support what this change is aiming for, but I don't support filling the room admins have to overturn fairly obvious mistakes without creating all the noise and work this change would necessitate. If an edit-war has diffused and the parties are all bffs, the page shouldn't remain locked because the protecting admin's away and no-one's commenting on the pointless thread—one of dozens current— you've opened. And even for blocking, an editor in good repute who is mistakenly blocked (say, for 3rr, and you can discover for yourself immediately he's only reverted once) shouldn't be kept blocked. Normal editors have the right to be treated respectfully too, not just admins. And to top that off, I can't see it achieving its intent. The term "consensus" is so loose and meaningless on[REDACTED] that promoting its importance will quite likely just cancel out the effects of banning admin reverting. And even if you defined "consensus", and pinned it down as meaning what it does in the rest of the English speaking world, it will be impossible to overturn any block made by anyone with a few friends, and you'll leave the victim group more slighted than it would have been otherwise, and with no choice but to retaliate with their own blocking. Blocking will be an attractive feuding weapon. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The 1 Revert being blocked for 3RR is already covered under (except in cases of clear and obvious error). Blocks, and unblocks are already being used as weapons in feuds. How many times have you seen someone who quite frankly, if you've followed the discussions you KNOW what side they're on (but present themselves as neutral), undoing the administrative action of another user, because they didn't agree with it? That is EXACTLY what I'm trying to stamp out here. SirFozzie (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are already being used as weapons, but at the moment it is easy to overturn bad decisions. This proposal would make this harder, by making it harder to overturn all decisions. Yes, I get that it would make it harder to overturn good decisions too, but I doubt that's worth the cost or will achieve your aim (as stated above). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You could just say "It's easy to overturn any decision". And THAT is what I'm trying to avoid. Undoing any other administrator's actions is INHERENTLY controversial. If you're right, get consensus and discussion to show that you're right. If you have a history of having your judgement reversed in an area, well, wouldn't that be a sign that the community doesn't trust your judgment in that area? It's too easy to reverse things to the status quo (and add drama), which means that nothing is solved in contentious areas. It just means that it builds up, festers, and inevitably, explodes messily. SirFozzie (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is when there's a lot of face at stake, i.e. blocking a significant user, closing a major afd or protecting a prominent article. I don't think it is that controversial otherwise. And I'm not sure these "discussions" really work as well as we'd need them too. They are often, as you know, forums for feuding, and consensus—indefinable as we've made it— is often little more than a tool, just like blocking. Three friends post in quick succession, with another member of the pack citing "consensus" soon after. Same process, more stages, but now only the feuding power groups can do it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not going to first discuss any incorrect or debatable speedy deletions or prod deletions that I want to undo. While these deletions are administrative actions, they are reversable in principle by any editor (except the creator in case of a speedy), without the consent or even the knowledge of the admin who performed the deletion. E.g. speedies should be easy come, easy go, and a swift undeletion may be very helpful in retaining editors and not biteing people by removing good faith additions. A different rule may be needed for blocks, XfD closures, ..., but to make this a blanket prohibition on undiscussed reversal of any admin-only action is going way too far. Fram (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly have no problem with that. That I think would file under housekeeping incidents (I'd add a caveat that restoring an article with BLP issues is problematic, but I think you covered it well up there. Got any proposed wordings? SirFozzie (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The original language allows for uncontentious alterations of admin actions where there is no error. The proposed language does not. For instance, if an article is G12ed and OTRS clearance arrives, there's really no reason to discuss first with the deleting admin or get consensus on ANI. It wasn't a mistake, but it's not a copyvio, either, once clearance arrives. Likewise, current policy on PRODs is that their deletion is overturned on request by any user. Not an error, but an evolution of circumstance: the uncontentious deletion is no longer uncontentious. I don't know if you could call these housekeeping, strictly. I wonder if it can be addressed by once more restoring reference to the former "(if likely to be objected)" clause. Maybe: "Doing such actions unilaterally (except in cases of clear and obvious error or where the action is unlikely to be objected to) can be considered wheel-warring (see below), and can be met with sanctions, up to and including the removal of their administrator status." Of course, that language is way open to individual interpretation (and I don't doubt somebody could come up with better), but it seems like some ambiguity is unavoidable in a world that relies on human judgment. --Moonriddengirl 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pardon a non-admin butting in here, but don't admins routinely change each other's decisions following unblock requests. User:BritneysPanties is blocked by User:AdminNastyCop for one week, for replacing the word 'apple' with the word 'penis' in 25 articles. User appeals the block, stating that he is a reformed character and will lay off the prune juice in future. User:AdminNiceCop reduces the block to time served. Normally, this doesn't encourage any drama, even though there isn't always a discussion about it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

At least some of the time, the unblocking administrator will ping the original blocking admin on their talk page saying "Hey, I'm thinking of unblocking this user, would you mind chiming in with your thoughts?". I'd like to see more of that. SirFozzie (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So to be clear, you would prefer it to be compulsory in all cases to wait for a response from the blocking admin, or to take it to a noticeboard. Isn't this using a sledgehammer, when you only have a nut of a small number of contentious reversal? Would Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause and careful thought. The admin taking the initial action should be contacted unless they have indicated that they are happy for their decision to be reviewed without further input. If the action was controversial, or reversal is likely to be controversial, consensus must be sought by the second admin via AN, ANI or other suitable venue. not be better? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm open to persuasion, but my inclination after thinking about this is that I'm against this whole proposal, and in favor leaving things more or less as they were, no matter how imperfect. For all the drama that can unfold when Admin B reverses Admin A without discussion, I think it's the lesser of two evils. I know this isn't the intention, this inherently allows Admin A to "lock in" their judgement when they suspect that there will end up being no clear consensus for, or against, a decision. "No clear consensus" is often what ends up happening when Admin B is willing to overrule Admin A. I believe that if no consensus is going to develop, then the default should be the status quo, not whatever first-to-draw Admin A wants.

  In cases where a consensus for, or against, a decision is eventually going to emerge, either way is going to end up correct, possibly with drama, but nonetheless eventually correct. In cases where clear consensus is not going to emerge, this proposal will make things much worse, and I predict a significant increase in rash admin actions. If we are to trust the goodwill and judgement of Admin A, then we should trust the goodwill and judgement of Admin B too. While Admin B reversing Admin A without discussion or consensus should be frowned upon and discouraged (as it is now), I don't think it should be defined as wheel warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I generally would tend to oppose this proposal; the presumption in favor of blocking or deletion is too strong (especially blocking, where I believe that leaving an inappropriate block in place tends to cause much more damage than waiting an extra day to apply an appropriate block). The current structure is analogous to the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle which I think is an effective consensus building structure. This supports the general notion that "unblocked", "undeleted", and "unprotected" are the default states for users and articles, and that where disputed consensus should be required to execute such admin actions. Admins undoing other admins should raise the matter for discussion in conjunction with their reversion (as with editing disputes). I've reverted pending more discussion as this was a significant change and was not widely publicized. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account the feedback, hows about being specific. The below ties the process into other processes - as Fram says, speedied images can just be put back when proper attribution turns up - PRODs can be restored and articles can be userfied by any admin but articles deleted via AfD should only be restored via DR (unless the admin deleted the wrong article by mistake, or closed keep and deleted by accident), we now have processes for reviewing bans etc etc

Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without following due process. Blocks should not be reversed or amended without good cause and careful thought. The admin making the initial block should be contacted unless they have indicated that they are happy for their decision to be reviewed without further input. If the block was controversial, or an unblock is likely to be controversial, consensus must be sought by the reviewing admin via AN, ANI or other suitable venue.

Opinions? Better than what's there now, or better to leave it alone. I would not put in any reference to wheel warring - or perhaps to say repeatedly reversing controversial administrative actions without consensus is likely to result in an early bath.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to say that the reviewing admin should seek consensus - the person who disagrees with an action, and thus initiates a dispute, is best served to initiate discussion to resolve it as soon as possible. The problem is that this could easily be read as implying that consensus is required to unblock; unblocking should be a given in the absence of consensus to maintain the block. I agree that deletion should probably be singled out for special treatment as in your example text, as there is a much more developed process apparatus surrounding the use of this tool. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm - I see your point. Sir Fozzie I believe is aiming at instances where there appears to have been a consensus to block at the time of the block, but the unblocking admin claims that there was not enough consensus and so overturns. In such instances the discussion has often gone on after the block, and there are often a number of persons saying that the original block was bad. It's what to do in those circumstances that is difficult - the original block support is still visible, but a new group have appeared to weigh in, and while there may not be an actual consensus that the block should be overturned, it is clear that there is no longer a consensus to block. How about making it clear that the issue is the consensus to maintain the block, not a consensus to unblock.

If the block was controversial, or an unblock is likely to be controversial, further input as to whether there is/is still a consensus to maintain the block, must be sought by the reviewing admin via AN, ANI or other suitable venue.

• Note: There have been problems in the past because the definition of "reversal" is not clear. If an article is deleted, a redirect placed, and then the underlying history undeleted while leaving the redirect, has the deletion been reversed? If a block length is shortened, has the block been reversed? If new information emerges in the midst of a long conversation, is it necessary to let all participants process that information before taking action? Etc. "Clear and obvious mistakes" is way too narrow to cover the areas of uncontroversial reversal. Incidentally, I would urge everyone to think hard about unintended consequences here. The overwhelming majority of undeletions, unblocks, and unprotections are completely uncontroversial. Do we really want to change the way we do all of them to address the very few that cause controversy? Also, one general category needs exemption here: full protection is always a last resort. When the circumstances that necessitated it are addressed, it should be removed immediately, not after tracking down the protecting admin or having a lengthy discussion somewhere. Chick Bowen 05:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Actually, the prior/current consensus wheel-warring policy wording is spot on: The third action is the one that leads to the de-sysop, and thus should it remain. An admin reversing another admin in a controversial matter is a speedy ticket to ANI (where the second admin often gets beat up, speaking from personal experience) or a trip to de-sysoping if the first admin has poor impulse control. I fail to see any valid reason for the proposed change. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • BEANS be damned, although if someone really wants to oversight this they can. If the first mover gets an advantage per this proposal, then the admin who would normally have reverted (second admin) the administrative action can simply block the first administrator. Since we're assuming good faith and so forth, that ostensibly independent action would have to be brought to ANI or somewhere else for consensus for reversal. I would expect that that would be fairly quick in unreasonable cases, but this is just one example of why the proposed wording change would not serve to short cut any intra-administrator disputes any more than the currently accepted wording would. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't shortcut the dramah, but this proposal isn't about that - it's to balance the "advantage" between the blocking and the unblocking admin. At the moment, the way the policy is being used, the second admin has the advantage, and even if they have acted unreasonably it is very difficult to get their action overturned as no-one is willing to risk being accused of wheel warring even if the second action was out of order. I have watched this happen, not often but I have, so I can see where Sir Fozzie is coming from. If there was a requirement that the second admin must show that there is not a clear consensus for retaining the block, then it might help to show which of the admins was wrong. However, it most contentious cases, as I said above, the second action usually comes when the discussion has continued and (I would say) it is fairly clear that although there was a clear consensus to block at the time of the block, more voices have arrived and the consensus is no longer clear. In which case, both admins are right (or were right at the time that they acted) and neither should be open to censure, and a third admin reblocking really is chancing their arm.

A simple line somewhere may well suffice admins should not overturn or modify controversial blocks unless it is clear that the consensus to block is not now strong enough to warrant continued blocking as this really is the heart of the matter. It only applies in a handful of situations - it's not even all blocks where the community arrived at a consensus, as in most of these cases the community loses interest at the block, and if the editor subsequently recants, apologises, explains, promises to reform or whatever, nobody takes much notice if a later admin accepts an appeal on some terms or other. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I find that proposal a lot less onerous. The two incidents where I've reversed another admin (been the second admin, in other words) in the course of a year's worth of admin work have been restoring a speedy deletion and un-closing an XfD closure by an admin I believed to be involved enough to have a COI. I'm going to echo the next section's title--if this is all or primarily about blocking, then let's modify the blocking policy, NOT the whole wheel warring policy with its mess of unintended and unforeseen consequences. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin actions should be, and are, reversible, just like an edit. Changing WP:WHEEL so that discussion is always required is fixing the wrong problem. WP:WHEEL has allowed an administrator to restore the "status quo" if they feel like the original action wasn't appropriate, or isn't an ideal solution. There are times when discussion should occur before reversal is appropriate, and times when it isn't appropriate. The policies about each admin action should explore this. The baseline WP:WHEEL policy should not change; admins are not going to suddenly start discussing every reversal that occurs around here. If you want to change how administrators work, you need to propose change at the village pump, not here. John Vandenberg 21:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• No. Per Jclemens and John Vandenburg, the revert of an admin action is exactly the same as WP:BRD in all other cases - the revert restores the status quo, and discussion then begins to justify the original bold/bad/bewildering action if so desired. The disruption that a poor revert does - the status quo was not the best option - is nothing to the disruption that a poor original action might cause, if only because the imposed action needs consensus to get it changed (whereas the status quo had consensus prior to the first admin action). Lastly, making any initial admin action non reversible places such actions in the same league as ArbCom decisions; at least with ArbCom there is a recognition of a discussion (process) taking place before the action - this may not be the situation with an admin action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what I will say will never be supported but I think we should separate between the blocking and the un-blocking rights. Sole Soul (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is about blocks, why is it here?

All of the discussion above is about blocks. If this is just about blocks, it belongs at Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy. If not, then people need to think much harder about how the definition of admin "actions" here will affect deletion, protection, changes to userrights, and other admin actions, which get reversed all the time in non-controversial ways. Chick Bowen 17:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

true--there are so many admin actions that are routine, but subject to error, & any other admin who can fix it would be justified in going ahead. Personally, I prefer not to do so except in the most obvious case, but with about 800 active admins, there are going to be lots of mistakes, and we should be biased towards getting them fixed. Most will be non-controversial; it's the few controversial ones that get to AN/I. Though there are undoubtedly some foolish admins, I have not seen any admin here so extraordinarily foolish as to wantonly reverse other admins' actions without some at least partially reasonable basis. The effect of this change will be the opposite of what it intends: it will make the chances of an admin acting arbitrarily very much higher. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a perennial, but...

Hi. Please do forgive me if this is the wrong forum, or a perennial suggestion, or etc. But I have a concern, and it is a hypothetical one: Let's say an admin bears a POV position, and blocks accordingly. Let's say he/she does so very, very carefully, however, tiptoeing inside the sidelines on every rule. The end result is still the same: people from one side of an issue get blocked; people from the other do not. And there's a biased block on someone's block log. The problem is that any admin at any given moment can block any one he or she darn well pleases, if he or she does so very carefully. So:

1. Can we have two block processes: a "blatant" and "discussed", with the latter similar to the discussion format of WP:AFD? It would be for handling non-blatant behavior, but would in fact serve also as a check and balance against the powers of the lone admin... Admins have far, far too much individual discretion.
2. If some admin blocks me unfairly, is the record deletable? I seem to recall that it is.

• • Ling.Nut 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Most controversial areas (where a POV problem could occur) are going to have a lot of editors involved there, and, since administrators are editors, a lot of admins involved there. It is highly likely that discussion will occur either before, or after an action being taken. If there are objections to an admin's actions that can't be resolved by discussion with the admin, WP:ANI exists to bring the issue to wider attention. For the person who is blocked in your scenario, they can request their block be reviewed on their talk page by using {{unblock}}, send an email to the unblock mailing list, or join the IRC channel for requesting unblocks. Blocks that aren't justified are unlikely to stand given the many avenues for appeal.
2. The block log is not supposed to be changed, entries can't be removed without going to rather extraordinary lengths. Prodego 02:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, repeating a lot of what Prodego said) Without agreeing entirely with your premise, here are my views on your proposals: #1. We already have these processes somewhat on an ad hoc basis; admins do the "blatant" version of course already, and voluntarily do the "discussed" version in the form of WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:RFCC discussions (though much less often than ideal). Blocking discussions take place in any number of places... it just is not as rigidly structured as you propose. #2. I believe RevisionDelete can do this but it looks to be highly discouraged. -kotra (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is gonna read like an off-topic rant, but it isn't... I dislike the option of going to ANI. It's ineffective, unstructured and unhelpful. I've been at ANI once or twice, albeit very briefly in every instance. It is both a free-for-all and a fever swamp, and the level of admin helpfulness would not make the needle jiggle off the "Zero" setting. If you admins wanna truly help Misplaced Pages, then start acting like customer service representative instead of hall monitors. There is no helpfulness at all; just a couple accusing voices in the larger sounds of silence, punctuated by a lone RTFM... There does need to be a far more professional approach, including especially safeguards against admins sticking up for each other. Executive summary: ANI sucks, but you can help. • Ling.Nut 03:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As can you, of course... anyone can help at ANI, not just admins. I agree, it is good to remind admins that they are servants of the community, mere button-pushers subject to community consensus. But I don't see a formal blocking discussion process as beneficial; it would merely prolong and increase drama. -kotra (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Analagously to the way in which a legal trial "prolongs and increases drama" do you mean? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. We already have "trials" (by analogy) in the form of RFCC, ANI, AN, ARBCOM, etc. My concern is that yet another formalized process where it is not needed would create more convoluted bureaucracy and wikilawyering. More process is not the answer in this case; fewer arrogant admins is. -kotra (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No argument from me there. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes to WP:UNINVOLVED

As a consequence of the discussions at the Village Pump here on a suggested policy change, I suggest that WP:UNINVOLVED be changed to incorporate a small, but extremely critical change. The opening line of WP:UNINVOLVED currently reads:

• "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice or opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute."

This may be changed to:

• "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice or opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role."

This will clarify an important part of an administrator's non-CoI involvement in improving the editorial contents of an article, post his/her having taken an administrative action on a user/article/related dispute. Thanks. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 04:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed I fundamentally disagree with this proposed change. Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and some people without conflicts of interest can administer. As it stands the policy reflects this. I would be opposed to a blanket limit on editorial involvement as counter to the principle of open editing. Further, it appears this proposal is the result of several disputes you have had with administrators and it is rather bad form to propose changing a policy to conform to your behavior as opposed to adhering to the community's expected norms. MBisanz 04:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I think a better way to avoid CoI would be to allow admins to edit whatever they like, but restrict their administrative activities on articles where they are significant editors. At the moment, an admin can exercise admin powers on an article they significantly edit, as long as it is not "to advantage" (see Misuse of administrative tools). It would be preferable for admins to not exercise any admin power over articles they are heavily involved, and instead, request the assistance of an uninvolved admin, like everyone else would have to. Then they are not restricted in where they can edit content.--Lester 05:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment MBisanz, I think you got the lines completely wrong . Actually the line that already exists in WP:UNINVOLVED is "is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute". I am suggesting an improvement to "is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute in either an administrative role or editorial role" As I suggested on your talk page, an alternative line could be " is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute in any role whatsoever". But I suspected that was way too broad. I'm sure you'll appreciate how the addition of the extra words clarifies the roles in which an administrator can take action. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 05:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, it still muddies the water with the term "usually" qualifying editing and also blurs the CoI line of when an admin should not take admin actions on an article (when they are an editor of it). As it reads now, there is a clear line down the middle that this proposal smudges. MBisanz 05:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion MBisanz, the term "usually" already exists in WP:UNINVOLVED. I didn't suggest it. Therefore, your objection to how WP:UNINVOLVED currently is, is exactly where I come from. The grey area. Another suggestion ergo, that the line be changed to "is not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role". How's that? And to support your viewpoint completely, the line could be "is not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute." We could simply do away with the word "usually". Does that work? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 05:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any specific examples of where the current wording has failed us? I am also not sure what practical change the alteration in wording is meant to accomplish(I did just wake up). Chillum 15:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a serious concern. WP:UNINVOLVED starts with a negative definition, by stating what being involved is not. But no where that I can find on WP:ADMIN is there a definition of what being involved is. This can be seen in how the section starts, it begins "One important caveat is ..." without anything previous clearly stating what it is a caveat to. I suggest a short paragraph defining what it means to be involved in a dispute (either on a page, about a topic, or with a another editor). LK (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

LK, I would suggest you starting a separate discussion on that. Unless you can give at least an alternative that can be discussed, I suspect an open/vague discussion that you start would not find consensus for discussion.

Chillum (btw, I loved the "can you see the diff" on your user page). If you look at the Village Pump discussions here , you'll realise that till now the focus in past policies has been on restricting admin action by admins on articles where they might have a CoI due to previous involved editing. My village pump discussion was wrt focusing places where the current policies fail us, that is, on analysing editing action by admins on articles where they might have a CoI due to previous involved admin action. Looking at the village pump discussions, it's clear that admins would not want any restriction on editing, on articles where they've taken admin action. WP:UNINVOLVED right now focuses only on "not" restricting "admin action" if the admin has been involved in a "minor" role with the article/user/dispute previously (" whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute."). As admins are of consensus that they do not want editing restriction on an article where they've taken admin action, I proposed expanding the previous line ("whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute is not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role"). This will clear the ground for the future, as administrators would be able to use WP:UNINVOLVED to justify editing action on articles where they've undertaken admin action, in case another user raises objections. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 07:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! Given the number of reverts and blocks admins seem to be placing on each other with the BLP issue, this discussion seems to be accepted beyond one oppose and all other comments given. I'm making the historic (lol) change to Admin editing powers on articles. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 06:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for an Icon

I have been reading pages for a while, but I am having difficulty knowing who is an administrator and who is not. My suggestion is that some kind of icon be automatically added to the signature tags of all administrators. This would need to be saved with the edits in some manner so that if a person is no longer an administrator the fact that they were an administrator at the time of the edit would be preserved. Template:User admin is a step in the right direction, but I think this information should be included in the signature. Q Science (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Doing this would seem to imply that comments by administrators should be given some sort of special status in discussions, which they shouldn't. Hut 8.5 21:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a script out there that highlights all admin signatures with a special color, but I forget its name at the moment. MBisanz 21:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why? The opinions of admins prima facie carry no more weight than any other user. There is a script that will highlight admin signatures, however: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts#Discussions –xeno 21:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you have Popups installed, you can hover over the signature and see everyone's flags. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have seen many heated discussions where people are "threatened" with being banned. In these discussions, as well as numerous edit wars, it seems that administrators do have special powers. In particular, a "threat" from a regular user may be actually a "warning" from an administrator.

I have just tried Popups, wow. I have been an active editor for 3 years and had no idea. This is good for me (now that I know) but I still think that the general community would benefit (fewer edit wars) if something was added to the signature. Also, for many signature tags, the display is useless because the useful information is actually off the bottom on the screen. This feature also lags a lot (on my system). I may have to disable it for that. Q Science (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

NO BIG DEAL - pure fantasy

In light of the motion now at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BLP_deletions, I question the legitimacy of the WP:NOBIGDEAL section included in this policy. I tried to remove it , but apparently that was being 'pointy' . I submit to anyone reading that the wording of NO BIG DEAL, if it was ever really accepted, is now just a pure fantasy, an in-joke of Misplaced Pages, and that treating adminship as a license to effect policy change by activism, is now a real and arbcom endorsed feature of possessing the bit. MickMacNee (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: there is nothing wrong with admins having activist views. However, this motion regards the use of the actual admin tools, namely the power of deletion and blocking/unblocking, to further those wiki-political aims and objectives. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was actually going to undo that removal when theDJ beat me to it. This is one of the best-known and most often quoted notions about being a sysop. Actually reading the section, it's pretty clear that not only is most of it simply a quote and explanation of that quote, but it is wholly unrelated and unaffected by the ongoing request and discussion(s). This section talks about how to view adminship, and no matter what people delete or undelete, being a sysop should still be considered "no big deal" and should not be viewed as a goal or a means to an end. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same request? The one that details an admin's attempt to use his delete button as a means to an end to the 'BLP problem' by ignoring the community? The one with the motion that says that this unilateral action to further a goal falls within his powers? It might be the most quoted part of the policy, but now it is obviously wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because you now view adminship as a big deal doesn't mean that everyone now does, or should. Admins can clearly do things that are a big deal, but that doesn't mean that being one actually matters. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not just my view that it has changed. It is that of arbcom and a significant minority of the admins themselves. You can deny this all you want, but it's happened. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"No Big Deal" was a nice day-dream someone had a long time ago, like "Imagine no possessions", "The workers control the means of production" or levitating the Pentagon. It's never been reality in all the time I've been editing Misplaced Pages, and I doubt it ever will. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been an admin for years now and I can tell you all first hand that it is no big deal. Chillum 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I support removing "No big deal"; it is very far from reality when a select group of admins can change policy by fiat, and have ArbCom line up to support them. Being an admin is obviously a big deal when you can decide the fate of 50,000 articles by going on a deletion spree. Fences&Windows 19:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Making major policy changes to long standing ideals in response to a single event is always a bad idea. Also, "no big deal" does not mean "no discretion". Arbcom is not saying that admins can create policy by fiat, I don't think anyone is saying that, they are saying that the actions were within the realm of admin discretion. You can agree with that or disagree with that but it does not make being an admin "a big deal". Besides, arbcom decisions do not dictate the content of our policies. Chillum 19:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

. You are quite right, (about policy changes and single events) but it would be an interesting subject for an RfC. I have no doubt that the existing wording represents both an historical reality and an ideal, but I am not convinced it is an entirely truthful description of current reality. Ben MacDui 20:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom results often take their own imaginative twists from community based policy, that does not invalidate the community based policy. An RFC would be interesting, but I am pretty sure people don't want adminship to be a big deal. I suppose if the community came to the consensus that it was a big deal and there there was extra special authority involved then I would respect that consensus while opposing it the whole way. In fact if the community decided that admins could impose policy by fiat then I would use that new ability to change it so that we cannot impose policy by fiat. I did not sign up to be in management, I signed up as a janitor. Chillum 20:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is admiship suppose to be no big deal? Yes. Is it now no big deal? Hell no. Sole Soul (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I went back to Nostalgia Misplaced Pages to look up for some context and modified it. It should look more accurate now. - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

iran

if you ask an expert in iran history you will find that at least one of your administrators is trying to change history !!!! for example iran =persian and look at persian empire its directed to achemenid empire they are funny mistakes and reduce your reliability. please take care of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.23.110 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNINVOLVED revised

I came here looking for guidance on what constitutes involvement as an administrator and found the section very poorly written. Aside from the ambiguous examples and repetition, the section never explained what constituted involvement or why it was discouraged. I've had a stab at rewriting it (previous version, my version, current version); editors more familiar with the issue might want to refine it. Cheers,  Skomorokh  19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a problem with NowCommons

Hi,

Why is there is 10,952 files in Category:Misplaced Pages files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. Most of them seems obvious case without problem or ambiguity. If this is just a problem of manpower, I could maybe ask for temporary adminship. Cdlt, VIGNERON * 13:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone ran a script that filled it up and we're slowly getting thru it. (And by we, I mean, other admins than me =) See Misplaced Pages:ANI#NowCommons - epic backlog. –xeno 13:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move God's Property from Kirk Franklin's Nu Nation

It was my mistake for moving it in the first place, on billboard.com the artist name comes up as God's Property from Kirk Franklin's Nu Nation which I thought was the correct title, but it's actually by Kirk Franklin and the choir, God's Property. The title of the album is just called God's Property. I also need some help on following the instructions of how to request a move, because I've done it twice before, but the bot keeps removing my request for no reason. Tell me what I'm doing wrong. Hometown Kid (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2010 (GMT)

Survey regarding WP:NOBIGDEAL

I've created a survey regarding WP:NOBIGDEAL, and I invite anyone and everyone to participate. It is found at User:B Fizz/Admin for X years/Survey 1. Thanks. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 17:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding 'calmly and reasonably warn' to Uninvolved

I've added the modifiers 'calmly and reasonably' to the description of how warnings do not make an administrator involved. Unreasonable, biased, or rude warnings are prima facie evidence of being emotionally involved. LK (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion Lawrence. When a vandal is being extremely in the face, the reply of an administrator has to be in the face. Therefore, I would suggest you revert your changes and go for consensus here. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ 09:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting that admins are infallible or have special dispensation to be rude. If an admin goes postal on someone, or if he/she obviously sides with one party in a dispute, or if he/she gives warnings to an editor without reason, that is evidence that he/she should not be using admin tools in that situation. LK (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, before that edit I was under the impression that I should act unreasonably and in a fury. Fences&Windows 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not all admins are as calm and reasonable as you, Fences and Windows. DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly constitutes "calm"? I have been told to calm down after given a level 1 warning template for page blanking. It is very hard to tell tone from text. I suppose if an admin said "OMFG!?!! Will you just stop right now, you are making me so mad!!!! I will block the hell out of you if you continue", then I would ask them to step aside not because they are involved but because they are acting like a fool. Whereas "If you continue edit warring as you have been at foobar then you will be blocked. This type of behavior is completely inappropriate", then it is more subjective. You can imagine someone red faced yelling that, or you can imagine them explaining it calmly. Someone mid-edit war may be in the mood to assume the former. I think we should be careful with such subjective language. I don't really see what calmness and involvement have to do with each other. Involvement is about content disputes, not emotional involvement(where did that come from?). Calmness is about civility. This seems to muddy the waters. Chillum 22:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember that all policies and guidelines have to be interpreted by the community, so let's just take a page from common law and ask, "what would a reasonable person think of this?". A reasonable person would be able to judge when warnings are calm and reasonable. When has there been an ANI case where an admin has been admonished for giving reasonable warnings just because the person being warned claimed that they were unreasonable? Rejecting such wording is essentially telling the community that an admin is to be considered 'uninvolved' even after giving warnings for no reason, displaying clear bias, being rude, blowing up, and going postal on someone; as long as such interactions are framed as 'administrative warnings'. LK (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to the question of what civility has to do with involvement, IMO, being uncivil to someone is evidence that one is emotionally involved about the content of the page in question. However, I am not adverse to removing the word 'calmly' and only including the word 'reasonably'. Are there are any objections to including 'reasonably warn', since unreasonable warnings are evidence of bias and involvement? LK (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Not that I want you to feel I'm generally opposed to being calm and reasonable (lol), I believe there is no need for an additional word like 'reasonably' as the current usage satisfies the 'involvement' factor of administrators. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ 06:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Per 'not vote' can you elucidate your reason for opposing this one word, something more than 'unnecessary'? LK (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sure. The current set of lines in question go like this: "Administrators are not considered to be 'involved' with a given editor if the only interaction has been to warn that editor against further actions which are against policy or community norms. Calm discussion and explanation of the warning likewise do not cause an administrator to become 'involved' or have a conflict of interest with regards to future blocks of the warned editor." I believe that takes care of the 'reasonable' factor quite comprehensively. I would recommend that if you wish to add the word 'unreasonable', a better choice would be to add it in the second line (and change it to "Calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of the warning likewise do not cause an administrator to become 'involved' or have a conflict of interest with regards to future blocks of the warned editor.") There's a reason behind my viewpoint. While warning a vandal/editor (I'm referring to the initial warning), strong words become necessary (as the editor in dispute might not stop his tendentious editing otherwise). Now, such words might seem reasonable to some and unreasonable to others. It's a matter of personal opinion. Therefore... ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Before I make my main point, can we put to rest this argument that 'we must not state X, otherwise some unreasonable person will unreasonably interpret it to mean some unreasonable thing'. Unreasonable people can misinterpret anything we write. The question should always be, 'what is a reasonable interpretation of a proposed policy or guideline?' That said, a reasonable interpretation of the current policy as it stands is that any admin warning given, no matter how rude, biased or unreasonable, cannot demonstrate that an admin is involved.

Your suggestion of incorporating 'reasonable' into the following sentence is fine with me, as long as that sentence refers to both warnings and discussions of the warnings. So I suggest, "Calm and reasonable warnings and discussion of the warnings, do not cause an administrator to become 'involved' or have a conflict of interest ...." Otherwise, we are implicitly saying that only discussions of warnings need to be calm and reasonable. LK (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence, I see out here that you're trying to act in good faith. I reiterate my point that when a warning is being given, many times, administrators use strong words which in my opinion are pretty calmly put and quite reasonable too given the situation - but that's my opinion. Therefore, keep the calm and reasonable to the discussions part, rather than to the warning. Give leeway to administrators to use appropriate words while warning. The moment the warning is given, they reach the discussions stage, where your change would be appropriate. Thanks ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ 16:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired of arguing what for me is an obvious point, so I will incorporate 'reasonable' as you suggested and leave it at that. However, I reiterate my position that clearly unreasonable warnings demonstrate involvement. This is not just my opinion, as Arbcom rulings have demonstrated as such. Message me on my talk page if you are interested in which, as I don't want to identify specific people here. LK (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

FT2 has edited the section, I have edited it a bit more in the spirit of what was discussed here. LK (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Your changes are perfectly calm and reasonable :) Tc and best, ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ 04:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Implementation of bureaucrat removal of flags, from RfC

I moved this to Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Removal_by_bureaucrat as a less-ambiguous title. Tisane (talk) 7:28 pm, Today (UTC−6)

The proposal to give bureaucrats the technical ability to remove admin and crat flags has been proposed several times in the past year or so, with two major discussions in February 2009 and then January 2010. That latter discussion was closed with 70% support for implementing the change, which the closing admin judged to be consensus. The close mandated a discussion on the implementation of the change, which has taken place; the principal conclusion of which is that pretty much everyone would rather that this were an aspect of bureaucrat activity which was closely governed by policy. The policy wording has been worked on in the discussion, but worked on by only a small group from each side, so it's appropriate to bring this to a wider discussion here. The proposed addition is now in place at Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Bureaucrat removal; it permits bureaucrats to remove rights only in the two uncontroversial instances: by the user's own request, and on the authority of the Arbitration Committee. In particular, any mention of CDA was removed; implementation of that process will require a policy change here in addition to the establishment of a CDA policy in general.

So in short, a discussion is warranted here about whether the policy amendment proposed on the project page represents an appropriate implementation of the consensus found at the January 2010 RfC. Happy‑melon 12:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bureaucrat removal" sounds like the bureaucrat is being removed! What about "Removal by bureaucrat"? I still don't really like the term "remove" or "removal" though. Aiken ♫ 12:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposed addition, although I don't see why users can only request removal of their bits via a post at BN. It seems just as reasonable to personally ask an individual bureaucrat. –Juliancolton |  12:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Julian that it shouldn't specify the method of requesting desysop, it should just say "An administrator or bureaucrat makes a request to have their own right(s) removed." Other than that, it looks fine to me. Gigs (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• The gist of it makes sense to me. Maurreen (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there an actual need for this? How does this improve Misplaced Pages? Why can't the Stewards continue in their traditional role? KnightLago (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in the background reading material. The main impetus (I believe) is to bring the removal of sysop rights into the en.wiki logs. –xeno 14:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to read all of the background material. So when I read this, the above were the questions that immediately came to mind. Can you clue me in? Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the primary motivation. Can you tell me who desysopped Harej (and why) between these two resysops? The fragmentation of rights logs between enwiki and meta makes a complete mess of transparency. Happy‑melon 15:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's in the log where nearly every de-adminning is, right here. Are you suggesting you're incapable of using a separate form (where, by the way, all nearly all de-adminnings are located, globally)? How's that for consistency? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And you found harej's previous username how? What would you have done if User:MessedRocker hadn't still been a redirect? You shouldn't have to be digging through the user rename log to find the right page to go to on meta. If the logs had been here, they would have stayed with the user when he was renamed. As it is, the log you'd actually have checked is not at all helpful. Happy‑melon 15:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The logs are messy. You're suggesting making them even messier by splitting de-adminnings between a global log and a local log. I don't see the improvement. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the improvement is that instead of always having to check meta, we only sometimes have to check it. –xeno 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So to clarify, you don't think that only being able to find log history when a userpage still redirects to another userpage is at all problematic?

Going forward, virtually all deadmins, and probably all decrattings without exception, will be in the local rights log. So for all those cases, the problem is no longer a problem. When a desysop does occur at meta, it is still a problem. So in 95% of cases, the situation gets better, and in the remainder, it remains exactly the same. If you see two +sysops in a row, you know you need to get your tarot cards out to find the intervening log; but in most cases you don't need to do that. Where, exactly, is the lack of improvement? Happy‑melon 16:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I an interested where this wonderful figure of 95% comes from? Ruslik_Zero 19:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There are 900 entries for enwiki in the metawiki rights log, of which the vast majority are for removal of rights involving admin and bureaucrat. Looking at Misplaced Pages:Former administrators, I counted every removal since 2005 which could conceivably not be covered by this policy: the ten involuntary desysops not under ArbCom authority, and the four deflagged admin bots. The actual figure is probably between 98 and 99%; I chose a lower value for maximum conservativeness, and also to avoid the appearance of hyperbole. Happy‑melon 20:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think at the very least we should add an easily clickable link from the userrights log here to the rights on meta. Is that possible? If so why don't we have it already? =) –xeno 15:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Removal of administrator rights, and changes to CheckUser, Oversight, Stewardship, and other WMF rights – see global rights log (Enter usernames like this: User:Doe@enwiki)." From Special:Log/rights. It has links and everything. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but then you have to manually enter the name. Isn't it possible to provide a direct link to the meta rights log - with the target user provided already? –xeno 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Even better would be some ability to show the global userright changes right on the same page. –xeno 16:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That would still only work for log entries that are still attached to the same username as the affected user. Happy‑melon 17:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but better than nothing. Is it possible? –xeno 17:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Course it's possible. Wouldn't be beyond the ken of man to find a way to handle username changes either. Someone could file a bug - especially if this proposal doesn't pass, but even if it does. Rd232 21:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Has the amount of drama this would cause been examined? I can see us posting to BN for a desysop and calls for the Crats to ignore it. Or for a long drama generating discussion there. This is avoided at Meta. I can also see requests to Crats for emergency desysops that are unapproved by Arbcom. Are Crats going go to be able to resist that call, or is IAR going to be invoked? Further, what about the logistics? How quickly are Crats going to respond to desysop requests? Posts to Meta are dealt with literally in a few minutes or less. KnightLago (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The ability to remove sysop and bureaucrat flags is merely an inverted version of the ability to add them. Is IAR going to be invoked? As often as it is with granting the right I'd imagine. –Juliancolton |  16:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good way of putting it, Julian, I think it's unfair to assume the crats would exercise this new role any differently to how they exercise the inverse function. There's no reason why meta should be devoid of such drama (indeed it does occasionally happen, vide ). There is only opportunity for drama if the bureaucrats allow themselves to be drawn into it, and given a clear policy for them to stick to, I don't see why they should be any less objective than the stewards would have been. Happy‑melon 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually read somewhere it was an historical accident that bcrats cannot desysop. I really cannot see any drama that would be caused by this. It's merely moving the ability from stewards to bureaucrats. Aiken ♫ 17:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility is having a page created specifically for requesting removal of the bit (like we have for renaming), and having notes at the top indicating that no drama would be tolerated (wording could be worked on, of course). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Add third case, "undeniable clearcut emergency". We have had cases where admins have had their passwords guessed by vandals, and gone on to delete very important pages. We don't want to wait for arbcom or a steward at the cost of another few minutes of the Main Page being gone... --GRuban (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • But the Main Page can only be deleted by developers now, I believe (due to having so many edits). I seem to remember a big hullabaloo about that a while back when some admin decided to show rather than tell and got in a bit of hot water over it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I vaguely remember that an admin tried to check how many revisions the main page had by deleting it, and it worked!. Ruslik_Zero 19:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Firmly oppose. There remains no clear super/consensus for this to be implemented and there seems to be no pressing need for it either. Spartaz 15:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Fully agree with Spartaz directly above me - the last "policy proposal" was a categorical no consensus at best, if not consensus not to go ahead with it. Firmly oppose, and I still don't get where Happy-melon is getting his idea that it is consensus from. Please, please, please don't use Trusilver's apparent close as consensus for this - don't forget, he's now desysopped for showing poor judgment. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• The fact he is now desysoped is not relevant. That was an unrelated incident. Aiken ♫ 17:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• It certainly puts things into context and questions his judgment on some of the recent decisions he's made. That said, my major argument is that there was no consensus and continues to be no consensus on the community discussions, not trusilver's sysop status. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Surely you of all people, Ryan, aren't claiming that a discussion involving fifteen editors represents any form of consensus? :P

  I am indeed working on the basis that consensus exists, that basis being a poll of a hundred editors of whom 70% were in favour of its implementation. You seem to believe that the bar for making a change such as this should be 90%. You're perfectly entitled to hold that view, but I don't think it's one that many people share; in particular both the sysadmins and enwiki community have demonstrated a willingness to implement genuinely consequential changes, such as Rollback and FlaggedRevs, on a mid-sixties percentage. The discussion was closed by an uninvolved administrator in good standing, and who is still in good standing; I don't know how you read the discussion, but it was closed by SilkTork, who hasn't been anywhere near ArbCom. Trusilver didn't even participate in either discussion. I think you may have a few facts in a twist. Happy‑melon 18:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Rollback was in reality a genuinely inconsequential change. As to FLR, it is still not implemented and therefore a bad example. Ruslik_Zero 19:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe you're right. Are you saying that bringing in a tool which is used by three thousand users 2,500 times a day, is more inconsequential than this proposed change? FlaggedRevs has been successfully deployed on 25 wikis by the sysadmins, using the 66% benchmark. So I don't think it's at all a bad example of what represents a 'good' threshold for making configuration changes. Happy‑melon 21:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Rollback is arguably just as consequential as desysopping, as it is given to a lot more users under a lot less scrutiny. If a crat were to abuse desysopping, I'm certain they'd be decratted pretty quickly. For FLR, the only reason it's not implemented is because it's not technically stable enough for enwiki. It was approved for enwiki, and will be installed on enwiki as soon as it's ready. Thus, it is not a bad example. (X! · talk)  · @955  ·  21:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Spartaz. This discussion is slowly roaming from one page to another. It is time to close it once and for all. Ruslik_Zero 19:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support addition. Consensus is clear enough for this inconsequential change. Icewedge (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I am surprised that this is even being discussed. My reading of the prior pages is that there is a clear and sustained consensus for this change. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - How many more places are we going to have this poll? Consensus was never found in any of the previous discussions, and to constantly move the discussion to new places to try and manufacture a different consensus is ridiculous. Stewards are able to handle this just fine, we don't need to fix the problem if it's not broken. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 09:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't know where else this discussion is happening, but I don't like the idea of splitting the logs even more than they are currently. Desysoppings (with the exception of a few isolated cases) have always been on Meta. That is where the derighting (for admin and beyond) log has always been centralised (XX@enwiki). Whether or not buraucrat desysopping was intended to be implemented at the beginning is quite irrelevant now; hundreds of users have been desysopped since then, and I fear this will create added confusion as to where their log entry actually is. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

  It's always clear when there should be a 'derighting' (great word!) log entry; the sysadmins are the only ones who have occasional unlogged rights changes. So if you look in someone's rights log and they have two +sysops in a row, or aren't an admin but have no desysop logged, you know you have to go hunting for the intervening removal. But you only find that out by looking at the enwiki rights log; so if you were able to look there and find in the vast majority of cases the complete log, you would normally need to look no further; and in the few remaining cases, the situation would be the same as it is now. You can't search the rights log by action anyway, so having all our log entries for one action in one place is not particularly helpful; much more useful is having all log entries for any given user in one place. And as I said above, this would probably bring 99% of desysops and decrats back to enwiki. Happy‑melon 10:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fully support this trivial change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• I wholeheartedly support anything that makes it even slightly easier to desysop people. Hopefully this is the first step in a much longer journey.—S Marshall /_Cont 12:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• I do find it interesting that it's admins only who are showing up to oppose this :) Just sayin'. Aiken ♫ 13:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this particular proposal has nothing to do with community de-adminship; that's an entirely different proposal. If this passes, the rules surrounding sysop removal won't be changed. The way it's done will just be slightly different. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: we shouldn't forget that this is not a rerun of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Bureaucrat_Unchecking/Poll#RfC:_Should_bureaucrats_be_allowed_to_uncheck_the_sysop_and_bureaucrat_bit_when_instructed.3F, which closed with 70% support for the principle. The issue is implementation of the agreed principle. Rd232 21:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

With that in mind, I support the current implementation of the proposed policy. I see no major qualms with this version, like the previous versions had. (e.g. referring to a future CDA) (X! · talk)  · @039  ·  23:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, anything to do with bureaucrats required much higher support than 70%... Until RFBs pass at levels lower than 85% then I think a 70% consensus is moot. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an RFB, and there is no reason why the community's normal standards for consensus should not apply.—S Marshall /_Cont 12:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Both the previous alterations to the bureaucrat in-tray (as compared to the admin janitors' cart :D) were introduced without such a prohibitive level of unanimity: renameuser was implemented with no discussion whatsoever; and granting bot status on the basis of "requests from bureaucrats and stewards". Of course, these changes are old; but the crat bundle hasn't changed much over the past few years. More recently, rollback introduced changes to the admin bundle on 67% support, which would not be sufficient to pass an RfA; the 'accountcreator' usergroup, which admins also add and remove, was implemented based purely on this discussion. The activation of RevDelete functionality for admins, which is held up on a nasty technical problem, is pending based on this discussion. The claim that making changes to the crat/admin bundles requires greater unanimity than promoting crats/admins, is simply incorrect. Happy‑melon 13:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yay, the good ol' other stuff exists argument... Until consensus is determined to be found at 70% on current RFBs, any argument that attempts to make 70% look like consensus in other crat related areas is simply skewing consensus per personal opinion. There are no real advantages to this, unless you're like S Marshall and believe that this will help the CDA proposal... which might I add is extremely controversial and will never gain consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You should actually try the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS link sometime; it no longer points (and hasn't for a year) to the now-extremely-bloated-and-qualified section at Arguments to Avoid, but at a rather better-written essay which describes the not-at-all clear-cut elements of the rule in rather better balance, and explains better than I can why arbitrarily throwing the acronym into a discussion wherever it may seem applicable, is far from the best or even a valid way to further an argument.

Essentially you are saying that we should ignore absolutely all precedent on this (and presumably other) matters, and instead adopt an approach based on... precedent... at RfB? Instead of setting our baseline on identical processes introducing equivalent changes, we should base our threshold on a tangentially-connected process? There's a lack of consistency there: if we are discarding precedent, why are we not falling back to the two-thirds threshold that is the unwritten numerical value of Consensus?? Why are we falling back to another precedent-based process? Is it just because that process has a higher threshold? Happy‑melon 11:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't realize that I didn't actually use the link... What happens at RFB and what was discussed during the polls about RFB, showed that what the community considered to be consensus on crats, was at a much higher level than what the norms are at other areas around the site. You really should try and look at the discussions that have surrounded this area sometime, before you stick your head further than you understand into this discussion. There wasn't consensus for this, and there still isn't. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the soundbite quote without the background explanation is not an improvement. Since you are now employing the exact same argument, you'll forgive me if I don't pay any further attention to your denigration of it. But perhaps you could show us some examples and evidence to support your assertion, rather than expecting us to just blindly believe that the polls you claim exist, actually do. So you're looking for discussions about changing the bureaucrat package, which gained over 70% support and yet still failed to attain consensus. I look forward to seeing your examples. Happy‑melon 10:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. It makes sense that rights should be symmetrical. E.g. if you can delete, you should be able to undelete; if you can block, you should be able to unblock; etc. Bureaucrats are what the name implies - functionaries who merely carry out the decisions of others. This proposal does not change that. Let's try this; I doubt we'll encounter problems, and if there are problems, we can always change it back. Tisane (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose stewards can already do this, and there is an advantage in requiring outsiders (stewards) to have to been involved when removing rights. Prodego 02:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• I do not believe that there is consensus for this, particularly given the contentiousness of the issue, and I shall add that the parallel proposal for CDA tainted the prior RFC. Analysing the arguments, I think that the (further) politicization of the bureaucrat role (anything touching to desysoping is heavily political, even if crats are supposed to do it only when told) and the loss of independent review by stewards, could be quite detrimental and in comparison, the purely technical/convenience gain it brings seems very minor (and relativized since cu/os rights would remain at meta anyway). Cenarium (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see what makes removal from adminship more political than promotion to adminship. Both require community consensus (either directly or through ArbCom, in the case of some de-adminships), and the crat doesn't just do as he pleases. What makes review by a steward more independent than review by a crat? I think opening up de-sysoping powers to a larger group will provide more oversight, not less. And it's the wiki way - make bad actions easier to correct rather than harder to make. Tisane (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Look at some cases of removals of adminship at Misplaced Pages:Former administrators (Trusilver recently) and you'll see. Draining bureaucrats in this will weaken their position (through politisation and view of their function) and increase drama. Deadminship is generally a sanction, so bureaucrats will take part in it, even if only through making the action, so this will create unnecessary frictions in a project already plagued by drama. While having distant stewards make the removal won't have this effect, and their non-involvement in en-wiki disputes will prevent much dramatization. It wouldn't make anything easier to 'correct', stewards do it fine when requested. Cenarium (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• How many more different venues is this going to go through in an attempt to get a different answer? Oppose as a solution for a non-existent problem. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• I remain neutral on the grounds that bureaucrats should not be seen as attempting to aggrandize power to themselves, even if it is only technical or procedural in nature. MBisanz 14:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The idea that this will somehow fix the logs is absolutely incorrect. Further, none of the bureaucrats have been vetted for this proposed role. They are not, by default, equipped with dispute resolution skills. If you want to make this happen, dump the entire bureaucrat corps and make them go through RfB again with this added responsibility that is dramatically different than their current responsibilities. Also, rename this proposal; it's highly misleading. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

  Can you explain, please, why "The idea that this will somehow fix the logs is absolutely incorrect"? Happy‑melon 11:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

  What do you suppose happens when a Steward respond to an emergency request to desysop someone? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

  Then the log remains on meta, naturally. How does that nullify the fact that for at least 98% of desysoppings the logs are no longer fragmented and so qualify as "fixed" by your definition? I think it's your assertion that "98% fixed" != "entirely fixed" therefore == "not at all fixed" that is "absolutely incorrect". Happy‑melon 16:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

  One, I dispute your 98% figure. Two, we have different definitions. This is being touted as a solution to fragmented logs. It isn't. If you want to fix fragmented logs, then talk to the developers about unified logs. We have SUL. We can have unified logs too. That is the solution, not this. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

  Disputed on what basis? We certainly do have different definitions: you take "fixed" to require unfragmented logs in all circumstances, while I am content with them being unfragmented in the vast majority of cases and no worse than they are now in the remainder. As a developer, I would say that unified logging (Template:Bug, one of our oldest) would be difficult to implement successfully, probably requiring a schema change to either the user or logging tables. Not, of course, impossible, but a significant amount of work. Happy‑melon 12:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• There's always the EmergencyDeSysop possibility... Tisane (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

  The extension needs a MASSIVE rewrite, but if we got consensus, it would be trivial to rewrite. (X! · talk)  · @937  ·  21:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Juliancolton, Tisane and others above. This seems like an easy call to me. Jusdafax 00:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support as a trivial change. It's who pushes the button, not who orders the button to be pushed. I'd prefer we have the desysop power be internal to en... Hobit (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I be an admin?DellTG5 (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Slippery slope at WP:Update

In the monthly policy updates, I've generally been ignoring "disputed" tags. We haven't had many lately, but it used to be that people who were unhappy with policy and found their edits reverted would sometimes fall back on adding a "disputed" tag, but in my experience, these tags were ignored more often than not. The new section, though, isn't just "disputed", it's "proposed" in a kind of official-looking way, and so if it were a separate page, it would be clear that it wasn't policy. So unless someone tells me otherwise, I've decided not to list the new section (until it's no longer "proposed") at Misplaced Pages:Update/1/Enforcement_policy_changes,_January_2010_to_June_2010. Obviously, everyone is free to edit WP:Update themselves, if you like, I'm just giving my position. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Dear Sir/Madam, I observed that the articles on Christianiy, Islam, Hinduism, Osteopathy, Naturopathy,

Chiropractic etc. are good and positive and there are forks to the articles on Christianiy,

Islam and Hinduism which contain all the criticism. The article on Homeopathy as well as

its fork for criticism ('http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism'), on the

other hand, are both negative and bad; so can we make the article on Homeopathy good and

positive like all the other articles and put all the criticism on its fork? If there's a

rule that both articles should be full of criticism, then we must make the matter in the criticism fork available in the main article for Christianiy, Islam and Hinduism also. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Dr.Vittal (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for this request; please use Talk:Homeopathy to discuss the matter. Fletsi (aklt) 09:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Not only has this been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page, Dr.Vittal has now forum shopped to WP:NPOVN, Misplaced Pages talk:Good article reassessment, and now here. He has been warned about forum shopping, and given a list of policies with which I suggest he familiarize himself. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Kozlov

Hey, I need help with a move. At WT:PW#Oleg Prudius --> Vladimir Kozlov, there was a consensus achieved to move the article. However, Misplaced Pages does not allow me to move over an existing page. I was told I needed to contact an admin for assistance. Thanks in advance, Raaggio 04:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You need WP:RM Spartaz 04:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I posted on WP:RM, but have not gotten a response. I need an admin to make the move. Raaggio 00:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Beachcomber hotels article

Hi, My article "Beachcomber Hotels" was deleted and I can't recreate it. What's the problem with the article ? There is nothing advertising in this article. It's just informative. Can you guys help me. I've read all the wiki article concerning a new article. What's wrong with my previous version.

Thanking you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbchot (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As is clearly posted at the top of this page: "This talk page is not the place to post questions for administrators. For questions, go to Misplaced Pages:Questions" -- œ 13:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Selection and opinions of administrators and candidates

I assume this has been brought up before (I haven't looked in the archives) -- Was every admin who passed through a successful RfA selected because they are the wisest users? For example, should almost every bot owner become an administrator because they are trusted for their responsibility of operating bots? I have some feeling that users who I've consulted with had high chances of become admins. Did these people somehow become popular here, showing their following of the site's policies? Schfifty3 02:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a better question to ask at WT:RFA but "wisest" could correspond to WP:CLUE in which case yes (ideally), but you seem to be trying to define it in terms of overall skillset. That's usually only considered in the positive sense ("Editor A has skills X, Y, and Z") and not in the negative ("Oppose - Can't write a bot/manage the edit filter/understand rangeblocks"). A recentish example is that of Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cobi 4. User:Cobi runs Cluebot, and yet his first three RfAs did not pass. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Past reasons for desysopping

There is a basis for desysopping that's come up in the past and isn't in that list:

Exceptionally, unilateral decisions of an egregious nature, which they surely knew would be highly disruptive, or outside community norms, in a serious matter (eg overturning a block or BLP deletion in a high-drama-potential case that was clearly against consensus and norms).

In some exceptional cases this has been a cause for arbitration and desysopping. It's not in the list. Any objection to adding it? FT2  23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Would this come under wheel warring? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Code of conduct

There is a proposal, Misplaced Pages:Administrator Code of Conduct, that was last edited in October 2009 and has been in proposal form for a long time now. Is there anything within it that is objectionable, or can it be promoted to be a guideline to supplement WP:Administrators#Administrator conduct? I think it looks broadly OK, but it may really be redundant. Fences&Windows 22:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Logo

I've created a vector version of the logo (using a SVG mop from Commons, and the revised logo), and was wondering if it could replace the low-res PNG that is currently in use. Thanks, Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Although that logo as it's most commonly used is so small I don't think it's gonna make much of a difference, visually anyway. -- œ 05:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Culture Unplugged

can someone help me to create the page {{helpme}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Jagam (talk • contribs) 07:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You used the {{helpme}} tag but you did not post a question. Please write out your question and when you are done, place back the tag. I or someone else will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the new contributors help desk, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access. Template:Z20ennasis @ 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Lede

The lede says: "They are never required to use their tools and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved."

Generally this sounds okay, but I'd suggest a change, to address situations where an uninvolved admin chooses to not use the tools with respect to edits that represent a POV with which the admin is sympathetic. So, I suggest: "They are never required to use their tools except to be evenhanded, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved.". Any thoughts?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins are never required to use their tools, full stop. If they DO choose to use them, they are expected to do so in an evenhanded manner. Implying that admins are ever required to do anything at all is neither a good idea nor a reflection of reality. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's go straight to a hypothetical. David is an uninvolved admin who blocks users about once a week for various types of misdeeds at the marijuana article. But whenever someone who is anti-legalization makes an edit at that article violating Misplaced Pages policy, David looks the other way, and leaves it for other admins to deal with if they learn about it and want to act. David figures that admins never have to use their tools. Is there some way to tweak the lede in this policy so that David will clearly understand what he's supposed to do?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

David is never obligated to do anything at all. He is absolutely permitted to do so, but there's simply no way to enforce thoughtcrime against admins for their failure to take action against transgressions they observe which might happen to go along with their personal biases. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

David is an honest person who tries to follow all applicable rules even when he knows that no one is watching and/or he cannot get caught. The only reason that he's engaging in this behavior is because he believes the lede of this policy explicitly allows it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what other folks think about the situation you've posed. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

David the pothead admin does not exist. Situations like this don't occur or at least don't occur in such clear-cut terms. It goes without saying that admins should do their best to be fair to all, but the proposed change (not to mention its wording) is a solution in search of a problem. Pichpich (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

David is anti-legalization per this hypothetical, not a pothead. And if situations like this occur in less clear-cut terms, then I don't see the harm in fixing the lede of this policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that the change is supposed to fix a basically non-existent problem but has the downside of creating all sorts of misinterpretation. It doesn't make sense to require that admins use their tools for purpose x, y or z. Sure, David might have some slight bias towards a certain POV but one of two things happens.

• a) He's consciously using his admin tools to push that POV. In that case, he's violating the current policy as well as basic ethics of editing and it won't take long before someone calls him on it.
• b) He's just doing his honest best. In that case, he would not feel that the proposed wording is of any relevance to his actions.

Requiring action in the interest of evenhandedness creates two new problems. First, it forces admins into an arbiter role which they are expressly supposed to avoid. Secondly, it opens the door to new dubious claims of admin bias and we can do without new sources of drama. Pichpich (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a decisive opinion for a wikignome, Pichpich. Anyway, if requiring admins to be evenhanded would force them into an arbiter role, then so does requiring them to use their tools "fairly" (which has not inspired an avalanche of dubious claims).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your first sentence is supposed to insinuate... Pichpich (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never had the pleasure of conversing with a self-described wikignome before. Nice to meet you.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

One more objection, saying what everyone else is. We're all volunteers here, even the admins, we don't have to do anything. All the rules can require of us is not to do certain things. Look at the page itself, it says "The English Misplaced Pages has 1,731 administrators as of June 26, 2010." Most are active. If you see a specific action that David is unwilling to do, find one of the remaining 1,730, I'm sure there will be plenty able and willing. If you think he is biased in applying his tools in this area, you can ask him to refrain from applying them; but he is in no way obligated to apply them more.--GRuban (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic but the sad fact is that only 48% of admins are fully active. (Of course, that still means ~830 people can be called to the task) Pichpich (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion

We're basically talking about an Admin (David) who is a POV-pusher --- a subtle POV-pusher but a POV-pusher all the same. And I'm concerned that the lede of this policy explicitly allows it. I should not have to go canvassing or hunting for admins with a different POV or a different attitude. I might be able to phrase this in negative terms rather than positive terms: "They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved, nor use them selectively to give an advantage even if they are uninvolved."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Admin action should never 'favor' one side in a dispute. LK (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that this solves an actual problem and I still feel that the addition is a recipe for more drama. Admins, like anyone, should not push their POV, whether it's with or without the buttons but that's already covered elsewhere. This page is about the specific handling of the admin buttons. Pichpich (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Suppose an admin happens across a dispute on a page that he/she has strong feelings about, but has never visited before (and so is seen as 'uninvolved'). Would it be proper for him/her to warn and threaten blocks for disputants only on one side of the dispute (even if both sides have edit warred), and then revert and lock-down the page on a version preferred by the side that he/she favors? This situation is not a hypothetical, there are cases where this has happened. LK (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

From my personal experience INVOLVED is already a recipe for ABF. I don't think the project would be served by adding any more pretexts to accuse administrators of bias. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My personal experience is that there's a real problem at controversial Misplaced Pages articles. I didn't come here for fun, but rather based on my 15,000 article edits. At the same time, I have no doubt whatsoever that you're accurately summarizing your experiences too Jclemens. Please consider that there may be a way to not only satisfy my concerns about uninvolved admins, but also your ABF concerns about involved admins. The solution would be to include an AGF in the same sentence:

"They are never required to use their tools, must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved, must never use them selectively to give an advantage even when they are uninvolved, and anyone seeking to establish that an administrator has misused the tools will have to overcome a presumption of good faith."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• No. Admins are not required to use their tools. If there is a concern about one specific administrator's use of tools, one addresses that specific problem, one does not rewrite a longstanding policy. What one user views as 'selective' use of tools may well be that the admin is following longstanding consensus not to block hours after an event has occurred and been remedied; or that there is no actual violation of policy, except as perceived by the other party. The hypothetical here is already covered in the policy, and is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem. Risker (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's already covered by the policy, then of course I'll retract the suggestion. But is it? What part of the policy forbids the hypothetical admin (David) at the hypothetical article (marijuana) from selectively using the tools only against editors who exhibit no anti-legalization bias? People indicated above that nothing forbids it, so editors would have to go canvassing for more neutral admins.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There are situations where you might only block one of two equally blockable parties (for whatever reason) because you are unable to deal with the backlash of blocking both. Instead leaving the other to someone else. Prodego 03:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That ought to be forbidden, unless the person you're afraid to block is God herself. In that case, I could support an exception.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well in that situation no one gets blocked who should get blocked. Which I think you'd agree is undesirable. :) Prodego 04:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, let's get down to brass tacks here. Who are you targeting here? Why do you believe this is a problem that needs to be addressed? If you have a complaint about a specific admin, say so. Otherwise, you are proposing a solution for a non-existent problem. This is Misplaced Pages, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals. Risker (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Project-Class Help pages
• NA-importance Help pages
• Misplaced Pages Help Project pages