Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Citing Wikipedia as an Official Source - Generally Prohibited by All Reputable Academic and Legal Institutions (Can We Correct the Problem)?

Dear Administrator and Attn: @Edwardx,

I would like to cite @Edwardx page on Altice (company) in a brief I am filing with the Supreme Court of the United States. As a user, I have a few concerns about Wikipedia more generally, which I will discuss at a later date, but as a reliable source for academic and legal purposes, it is difficult to use because it is not considered "officially-accepted" by any industry as credible. Its lack of credibility is due to the fact that it is unclear who wrote it and the rules of citations require the author's last name and (at least) his/her first and middle initial in order for the source to be reputable. Also there is no screening process to determine and validate a user's credentials as an expert, an enthusiast, or bias party as to the subject matter.

Of primary concern, I am only focused on obtainingEdwardx's full name so that he does not miss out on the opportunity to be credited for his work in such a high-level legal filing. Because of Wikipedia's present rules, I am not (would not and cannot) demand or require Edwardx to provide his name. It is only a gentle request which I believe to be in his best interest. If he is interested in being cited or if an administrator is interested in connecting me with the proper persons to disucuss how I can help make Wikipedia a more credible online source with industry experts, please contact me at electattorneys@gmail.com.

For your information, as to the specific user Edwardx, his name will appear in the brief which will initially be filed under seal, but could become public information at a later date. ~~ ChristaJwl (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Why didn't you simply ask at User talk:Edwardx? Schazjmd (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@ChristaJwl, Edwardx should have been only summarizing what is in the citations. Anyone using Wikipedia for research should regard an article as simply a collection of curated links to reliable sources which have discussed the subject, with prose that summarizes what those sources are saying. Which is why no one should cite to Wikipedia but instead go read the actual sources and cite to them. valereee (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee I am not sure that is effective because sometimes the sources are incorrectly summarized and it then actually makes more work for the researcher. Is it a liability issue? Because I do not understand the point of wikipedia if all these authors are doing all of this compilation research and none of them are going to be credited for their efforts. Essentially, you just want me to follow in their footsteps and take all the credit for myself?~~ ChristaJwl (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@ChristaJwl, if the sources are incorrectly summarized, then certainly you don't want to cite to an incorrect summarization. Instead summarize the source correctly when you cite it. And ideally, correct the summarization within Wikipedia or tag it as unverifiable. valereee (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

And, yes, anyone using Wikipedia to research a subject is going to have to do some more work. Wikipedia is edited (written) by anonymous people signing in from all over the world, some of whom have extremely shaky research/analysis skills or even ill-intentioned non-neutral points of view. Never cite directly to Wikipedia. Even Wikipedia does not cite to other Wikipedia articles. valereee (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

According to this xtools report, Edwardx is not the main contributor to that article. An IP editor contributed more than Edwardx, and several other editors made significant contributions. Perhaps you can cite that report, ChristaJwl. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

ChristaJwl, please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source. Cullen328 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, ChristaJwl. Cannot see any reason why I should wish to avail myself of an "opportunity" to have my name included in any US legal case. I am British, based in London, and it is many years since I lived in the US. Incidentally, I did start the Altice article, but have only contributed 11% of its content, so the whole idea seems moot. Edwardx (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Wise choice. @Edwardx I agree with your decision This seems may be a clear attempt to de-anonymise, I can find no mention of electattorneys@gmail.com, or electattorneys.com on the web. Obviously pay back for 1776 Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is absolutely not a reliable source for academic and legal publications, and I would strongly discourage you from using it in any legal filing. This is not a problem to be corrected—to treat it as such would misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. You should use Wikipedia as a starting point for informal research into a topic, but if you are looking to do any serious academic or legal research, you must use sources that have a stronger reputation for peer review and fact-checking. In addition to the links my fellow editors have provided above, I would also point you to Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Mz7 (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators § Criteria

At Wikipedia:Inactive administrators § Criteria, the second criterion is inconsistent with the second criterion at Wikipedia:Administrators § Procedural removal for inactive administrators. I'm guessing this is a remnant from copying and pasting, but thought I would confirm that I didn't miss something from the corresponding request for comments? isaacl (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but how are they inconsistent?

• Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators - less than 100 edits (deleted or otherwise) or log actions for 5 years
• Wikipedia:Administrators - Has made fewer than 100 edits over a 60 month period

Sure, the wording is slightly different, but 5 years = 60 months. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Logged actions was not in the RfC. The only threshold included was 100 edits over a 60 month period. The earlier comment from Xaosflux on this talk page aligns with the RfC, where only edits are considered part of the threshold. isaacl (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I did miss something (and a fairly obvious something at that). Fixed. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright in internet

Off topic

Hi. I would like to know how to register my writings on internet and have my copyright like wikipedia but only me and free. 170.84.135.65 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC) CONTACT AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYER. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC) I think they simply meant "license my writings under a free license". If that's the case, write somewhere in the text something like "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 (CC-BY-SA 3.0). See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/". ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC) "...but only me and free." The closest equivalent CC prong I know of is No Derivatives (ND), and in any event we shouldn't be providing information of this nature as it's essentially a legal question that's out of scope for this board and Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC) Thank you for your answer. I am not interested in creative commons. It is not the type of license. I would like Copyright © for my writings on internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.84.135.65 (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khimo_Gumatay

Hello admins, I have concerns about the article that I have created today (October 27, 2022). Prior to the creation, there was an article of the same name (created by another author) that has been deleted last September 18, 2022, I am aware of that and since no article have been created after that I have decided to make new. Now, my concerns is that when I save the article, the note of the previous article remains and it says like this

"This article was nominated for deletion on September 18, 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy delete."

My question is, is the note have been added in the article would affect the newly created article? Thank you. Troy26Castillo (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Only if the newly-created article is identical to the old one, or does not deal with the issues presented in the AFD. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Additional, the note or the template was added by AnomieBOT, is it automated in relation to the old article that has been deleted since it has the same name? Troy26Castillo (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Or just a reminder that previously there was an article of the same name that has been deleted? Troy26Castillo (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Troy26Castillo (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The "involved" standard should be rewritten

Just want to be on record stating that I think the INVOLVED standard is bad as written.

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

In particular, "objective decisions" and "strong feelings" and "disputes on topics" are, to my mind, coded language that privileges a false ideal of personal objectivity that doesn't exist and is generally used as a cudgel against people outside the dominant culture. (Basically, I think it's okay for people to have feelings.) I fully support the intent of the standard, and it is helpful for people to recuse themselves if there is a risk of violating Wheaton's law. --The Cunctator (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

For me the the sentence sentence, which has two of the three phrases that concern you, isn't the standard it's an explanation of why we have the standard. The standard are the first and third sentences. Given that you support the idea at play, how would you rewrite in a way that addresses your concerns? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that "[...] coded language that privileges a false ideal of personal objectivity that doesn't exist and is generally used as a cudgel against people outside the dominant culture." is incredibly well put — thank you. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps replace the second sentence with a trailing clause on the first sentence, ", to avoid the appearance of unfairness." isaacl (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The thing we're trying to avoid is actual unfairness - that is because someone is INVOLVED they would make a decision that they wouldn't make otherwise. Having someone question whether or not something is unfair is something that we're also trying to avoid by taking it a step further - the appearance of unfairness - but it is not, for me, at the heart of the policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I would add that the community has broadly supported this clause in policy for quite some time. If anyone is serious about changing it, a broadly advertised full request for comment is certainly in order, probably at WP:VPP. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree but we're nowhere near that stage yet. Someone has identified what I think is a reasonable concern and so figuring out if there is alternative language that is possible and addresses those concerns is the first step. I agree there is some potential for challenge given how established the language here is but it would strike me as very unwikipedia to say "it's been here a long time so we can't update it." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, if we reach a point where there is a clear proposal to discuss. isaacl (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This is why I added "If anyone is serious about changing it". Not trying to be an obstructionist, I just think it is important to acknowledge from the getgo that this is bedrock policy that enjoys strong support, and therefore even minor changes to the language would need to be very carefully considered and will certainly be subject to prolonged discussion. As always, I'm willing to shamelessly endorse my own essay on how to approach something like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Rest assured, I've read it, and am familiar with the engrained support behind the administrators policy. I'm not under any misapprehension about the amount of discussion required. This is not a passion interest of mine, so I'm unlikely to take a lead in driving discussion. I am a strong proponent of clarity and conciseness in language, which is why I offered a suggestion. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

", to avoid unfairness." is another possibility. I suggested "appearance" to sidestep discussions into whether or not an administrator's actions were actually unfair, and to assume in good faith that admins are able to make impersonal decisions. (I don't think a rationale for the first sentence is really needed, but made a suggestion to provide a brief aside on the visible consequences of someone making administrative decisions in disputes where they were a participant.) isaacl (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the three phrases called out – "objective decisions", "strong feelings", and "disputes on topics" – are equal here. The first two already have to be interpreted loosely if we want to find any admins who are cleared to act in some areas. So I can sympathize with the desire to change or remove those phrases. But I would be much more cautious about changing the part about "disputes on topics". --RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"Objective decisions" and "strong feelings" aren't part of the criteria to determine if an administrator is involved in a dispute, so they aren't factors that need to be interpreted. I agree "disputes on topics" is a key criterion, though. I don't think I agree with the initial premise: personally, I don't feel the phrase is stigmatizing having a disagreement. isaacl (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

User continues with same edits without explanation

Moved to WP:ANI#User_continues_with_same_edits_without_explanation (diff)

Primefac (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying 5 year rule

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

---

In Wikipedia:Administrators § Restoration of adminship, should the policy regarding Over five years since administrative tools were last used... for restoration of adminship be interpreted as:

1. Five years prior to the desysop
2. Five years since the last tool use, regardless of whether the five-year mark falls before or after the desysop
3. Five years since the desysop, regardless of when the tool use occurred before the desysop

20:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Background

A 2018 RFC proposed by Beeblebrox set out to determine if any admin who has not used their tools in five years and is subsequently desysopped for total inactivity would no longer be able to simply ask for them back, to which there was general support. WP:ADMIN was subsequently updated to add this language. However, it was later inadvertently changed, with the "and is subsequently desysopped" clause removed from the statement (making it essentially "Option 2" above). Meanwhile, WP:RESYSOP (point 6) currently states what can be interpreted as "Option 1" above (a period of five years or longer at the time of their last administrative rights removal), leading to a discrepancy in our policies and guidelines. This RFC is being asked to bring both ADMIN and RESYSOP into sync with each other and also to determine (slash reconfirm) the community consensus on the matter. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey (5 year rule)

• 2. When Beeblebrox proposed the RfC that led to this wording, I think the intent was for #1. But the way it has ended up in ADMIN is #2 and that is also my preferred interpretation. This came up in regards to a conversation on IRC about whether someone Tamzin knows would be eligible for reysosp (and thus eligible to use the -admins channel on IRC) and it was noticed that the ADMIN policy contradicts WP:RESYSOP and that the original RfC and closing don't provide exact clarity on this issue either. Hence this RfC. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • This RFC could do with a little TLC before people start commenting, to make it clearer. For example, for no. 2 - how can there be tool use after a desysop? Or maybe excerpt a little more of the text you're trying to change, at least the whole sentence; right now it doesn't make sense to me. I could probably puzzle it out with a little research, but it's less efficient to make everyone do their own research when you could do it once for them. (There's threaded discussion allowed here, right?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    • @Floquenbeam: I think the intended meanings here—and, @Barkeep49, feel free to put these in the description if you agree, although I understand if you'd rather keep things succinct—is 1) An ex-admin who was desysopped for inactivity, and has made no admin actions in the preceding 5 years, cannot be resysopped without a new RfA. 2) An ex-admin who has gone more than 5 years since their last admin action cannot be resysopped without a new RfA. (I think "before or after" means "regardless of whether the 5-year point was passed before or after desysop".) 3) An ex-admin who was desysopped more than 5 years ago cannot be desysopped without a new RfA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
      • I have made a slight tweak to try to clarify it's about the entire sentence but yes I was trying to keep the statements concise. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
        • Background added, wording tweaked. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) So, in terms of what was actually intended in the previous RfC, I think the answer is clearly Option 1: an admin who is desysopped for inactivity, and has made no admin actions in the preceding 5 years, cannot be resysopped without a new RfA. As Barkeep says, that appears to be what Beeblebrox intended, and the RfC was closed in favor of his proposal. That was only changed in policy by UninvitedCompany in this edit which, per the edit summary, was not intended to be a substantive change. So, if there is no consensus in this RfC, the default should be to revert that part of UC's edit. (And to be very clear, UC, I understand that that was an entirely good-faith edit.)
  With that said, in addition to affirming the existing consensus for Option 1, I would support Option 3 with one-year grace period, as some users may have resigned adminship under the understanding that they had indefinite right-of-resysop, and should have the chance to do something about that. Oppose Option 2 as it creates a perverse incentive to game the system by making some token admin action on one's way out the door. Somene who U1s a userpage right before resigning at BN is not more entitled to a resysop 4.9 years later than someone who doesn't. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  This presumes that people are mostly stepping down voluntarily. I think most are losing sysop under the inactivity policy so they're not likely to be gaming this standard in the first place (else they'd be gaming to keep the bit). And if someone is stepping down voluntarily why should I care if they make a token admin action before doing so in order to give themselves a longer time period to decide to resysop? As Thryduulf notes below, doing an admin action demonstrates the competence for continued admin tool use. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I haven't done the research to form an opinion about what was intended, but I believe it should be option 2. That is, an admin who has made no logged admin actions within the last 5 years should not be eligible for resysopping without a new RFA. I don't think it matters at what point the desysop happened, because only by making admin actions that are accepted as correct are you demonstrating familiarity with polices, etc. This means that my last demonstrated competence as an admin was yesterday when I deleted Dr. Hernando Perez. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 is what was intended, and I believe this is how this rule has been consistently applied for nearly five years now. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  I should clarify that I very deliberately set the bar as low as I could imagine when proposing this, as tightening the activity requirements had been near-impossible before this. Part of the intent was to demonstrate that, like all of our policies, the activity requirements were meant to evolve over time and were not a finished, perfect set of rules when first enacted in 2011. In other words, it was always personally my intent that this would be the first, not the last, modification of those rules. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest it would be helpful to clarify that options 2 and 3 are only relevant for cases where an editor relinquished administrative privileges before a five-year period of non-use had occurred. Reading through the original RfC, I feel most people supporting the change did so because they felt five years without administrative actions meant that the editor should be re-obtain the community's approval. I believe this still holds even if the admin in question voluntarily gave up their privileges part way through, and so think option 2 is most consistent with the expressed views (and consistent with the evaluation of consensus in the closing statement). I disagree with option 3; it will soon be five years since the change and I do not feel any grandfathering needs to be introduced. isaacl (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  I also don't think option 1 is what was intended in the original RfC in the case of someone voluntarily giving up their administrative privileges. I don't think the intent was to allow an editor to stop the clock by ceasing to have administrative privileges before five years of non-use occurred. isaacl (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  @isaacl Maybe not the intent of participants, but we have the person who formulated the wording saying above that was exactly the intent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  My apologies; for conciseness I elided "consensus intent". isaacl (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• 2 is what I think is best, it closes some timing collisions/etc that were not explored well initially. Keep in mind that none of this prevents precludes anyone from requesting access via the standard method. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. Dysysop for inactivity plus five years of not using the admin tools should automatically result in an RfA to see if the community still has trust and faith in the user before restoring tools. If Option 2 passes, then emails to be sent out to all admins, and a grace period of one month allowed before implementing the rule, in order not to catch people out unawares, and to perhaps encourage some experienced admins to come back and engage once more with the project. SilkTork (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  Some stats were run in 2018, and I think it would be reasonable to do a similar check, to even see how many former admins would be affected by this; no point in sending out hundreds of messages if only a dozen folks will be affected. Primefac (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• I do not believe it is to the benefit of the project to allow people to automatically regain adminship after such a lengthy period of non-engagement as would result from five years of disuse of the admin tools combined with sufficient ongoing inactivity as to result as loss of adminship per policy. In reality, there are few cases where these nuances come up, and fewer still where a formerly active admin returns to regular and sustained activity. When I made the change to the policy years ago there were no objections. Realize that there may have been many who reviewed the edit contemporaneously and did not object before concluding that it lacked support for the minor mechanical changes it introduced. UninvitedCompany 02:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  You explicitly framed the edit as not a significant change. If your intent was to put a time limit on right-of-resysop for former admins, rather than that having been the result of an accidenal omission, then that was a misleading edit summary; but in either case, that's not really the sort of thing that can be decided without an RfC, as there had been multiple previous RfCs making indefinite right-of-resysop the default. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• 2 (Summoned by bot) As long as we are discussing this issue, I think that the period of inactivity should be reduced substantiallly from five years to much shorter, perhaps one. If we are to be serious about administrators being functionaries with a "mop" and not some kind of upper class, super-user or knighthood, we should be strict about admins who have better things to do than actually act as administrators. If they can't rouse themselves to use their tools for a year they should go back to being proles like the rest of us. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Policy should be descriptive, rather than prescriptive - and Option 2 is how it's applied at present. Absent agreement from the community that it should change, that's how the policy should remain. I would also not object to the number of years reducing. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 is what is currently used, and seems to be working ok. —Kusma (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2: though option 1 was what the community agreed and what should have been used as the standard, I think the stricter option 2 is still appropriate. Somebody who has not taken an admin action in five years should be re-elected by the community if they are to legitimately act on behalf of them. Though the usual comment is that an old admin should familiarise themselves with what has changed on Wikipedia in the last five years, I would actually say it is more important that we (the community) familiarise ourselves with what has changed with the admin. Many admin areas are functionally the same as in 2017, but somebody who has not used the mop in 5 years needs to prove that they still have a clear head. — Bilorv (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC's outcome

I feel we're pretty firmly in the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. which per WP:RFCEND suggests no formal closing needed. As such updating the relevent bullet point with this RfC in a footnote feels like the next step. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's my proposed implementation which changes the footnote while leaving the body text unchanged:

• Over five years since administrative tools were last used. In the case of removal due to inactivity, for any administrator who does not have a logged administrator action in five years, bureaucrats should not restore administrator access upon request.

References

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@User:Barkeep49 - Looking under the removal section it says:

(1) Has made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12 months period

The proposed bolded text should also follow "administrative actions" per long-standing consensus, not "tool use". I believe this was done because certain admin actions are not logged. - jc37 23:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jc37 sorry I'm not following. The bolded text is existing language. The only new thing proposed here is what's in the references box which is all that the RfC asked for consensus about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I was just remembering past discussions where it was determined that "tool use" was considered too vague compared to "administrative actions". And I think that the removal section and this section should use the same phrasing. But it's probably not that big a deal to worry about. The text after the bolded text clarifies, I suppose that could be enough. - jc37 01:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I have implemented this new footnote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

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

looking for an option to recive my deleted page so i can use it for other purposes, how can i get it?

thanks in advance RL Asaf (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Go to WP:REFUND and request it to be emailed to you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I see that Special:EmailUser/RL Asaf indicates that you have already enabled email. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Special Circumstances Blocks

ArbCom gave an announcement today which updates/clarifies some previous announcements linked to in the special situations section of this policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Special circumstances blocks needs updating

Given the recent close of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Updating_BLOCKEVIDENCE combined with the announcement above, I would suggest that the special situations should be updated. Normally I'd draft something as a starting point but would guess that some editors would be uncomfortable with that owing to my being a sitting Arb who helped pass the announcement in question. But I think the consensus has changed and this policy needs updating. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm just replying to this because I plan to do some work on this in the new year and this way it's not archived to keep it all in one place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Drafting RfC to remove

As I sat down to actually figure out how to update the "Appealable only to Arbcom" bullet point given the RfC above, it became clear that while the ArbCom statement and the RfC are clearly related to the wording here (which is all about pedophelia blocks before OS blocks and the Foundation taking over that realm of enforcement happened and without saying that) the RfC outcome doesn't actually support changing the wording here. So I think to make a change it'll require an RfC. Here is my draft of an RfC to do so:

Should the Administrator and Blocking policies be harmonized by removing the bulletpoint that begins "Blocks made with the summary "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee" " from the Administrator policy?

Background

There is longstanding wording in the Administrator's policy that allows Admins to make blocks "appealable only to the Arbitration Committee". There is no such authorization in the Blocking policy. The language in the Admin policy originated in a 2012 Arbitration Committee statement and references the need at the time to block editors engaging in pedophilic and other oversightable activities. This statement came before the existance of Oversight Blocks and before the Wikimedia Foundation assumed responsibility for pedophilia enforcement. A 2022 review by ArbCom of the use of blocks labeled "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee" over the preceding 6 years revealed 11 blocks labeled like that not levied by the Arbitration Committee or by a Checkuser. Of those 11, 5 blocks were reported and 6 were not reported to the Arbitration Committee. Nearly all the blocks were for paid editing reasons. Following this audit the Arbitration Committee updated its guidance and the community subsequently affirmed that admins should not be blocking based on off-wiki evidence in an RfC.

Thoughts? Comments? Improvements? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 in general, blocks created related to remedies may still only be lifted via Appeal to the Arbitration Committee, correct? As such there is still a use for that. The second point there (Separate from the first situation, a member of the Arbitration Committee may block an account.) is something that probably doesn't belong - there is no requirement that arbcom members are admins, thus no expectation that arbcom members can technically make a block -- so an admin can certainly make a block to enforce a remedy. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

So perhaps both of those should be merged together to describe situations where admins (that can make blocks) are making the block under a remedy or on request of arbcom. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you're misreading what's happening in this section @Xaosflux? This whole section "Special situations" is about telling Admin when they 'cannot act. So the second bulletpoint is codifying into policy "Reverse an ArbCom block at your own peril" which is quite a different situation than "Don't reverse a block made by a single admin who has labeled this as appeal only to ArbCom", the first bullet point. That said the idea of framing this as a merging of those two bulletpoints is interesting. Do you think there are advantages to framing the RfC that way? If so because it ends in the same place I'm certainly open to it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 the entire "Misuse of administrative tools" section is a bit of a mess here. It starts with the good expectation ...administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause..., but then has a section of when that doesn't apply (but it does apply - there would still need to be 'good cause', it is really just further restricting what the good cause may be). So then we get in to blocks that are only appealable to arbcom, ok that means you need more than the normal "good cause" -- OK. So that's probably all that needs to be here, in the admin policy, about arbcom related blocks. So it seems like a bunch of this can just be trimmed and replaced with a single line that blocks designated as appealable only to arbcom can only be removed with approval of arbcom. Perhaps a note that admins that are misusing this label in placing blocks may have such labeling considerd a misuse of tools itself. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I mean we could get really radical and and basically trim the whole section "Special circumstances" section to something akin to Administrators should not reverse blocks placed by the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should also not reverse blocks placed by Checkusers or Oversighters without prior consent of the Arbitration Committee if they do not hold the appropriate permission. That would dramatically reduce the section and say the same thing. I expect I'd support something like that. But it does feel like a larger change and my priority is to get rid of situations where individual admins feel authorized to make a block appealable only to ArbCom. My strong opinion - and this is backed up by the blocking policy - is that only ArbCom as a committee (in other words not even individual arbs) can do such a block. Getting rid of that is my priority here so I'm open to whether my original idea, ask to remove it or the revised idea (merge bullet points 1 and 2) is better tactically and that RfC could serve as a good discussion place to seeing whether there might be community consensus behind an even larger streamlining of the policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 as far as policies go, I think that when blocks are authorized or not, and how they may or not be labeled belongs in the blocking policy - so lets move any parts that are missing there and just reference it? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That makes even more sense than the wording I sketched out. Again it feels like a large change (which I support) when what I am really passionate about, personally, is a much smaller change. Large changes have more difficult time getting acceptance in our consensus based system than smaller changes and so I worry that if the larger change is what goes forth that it could lead to a situation where no consensus is found and the bullet point I object to remains without much interest in revisiting a question that the community would have just decided. Instead I think there could be real value to discuss, and gauging/building consensus, for that larger change at an RfC that would focus on the smaller topic I'm invested in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 cut paste from one policy to the other shouldn't be contentious.

Is the main change you are proposing that an adjustment (in wherever it is documented) is needed because there is missing authorization that there are certain blocks that are only appealable to the arbitration committee, and that such blocks are only authorized when approved by the committee (conversely that admins may not discretionarily make such blocks)? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question completely. The change I want to see is the first bullet point go away because I don't think a single admin should have policy backed authority to make a block that can only be appealed to ArbCom. Even AE blocks have appeal options other than arbcom and at least those were blessed by ArbCom in advance, where as these blocks could be for anything. So if I did understand your question I think my answer is yes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Let's step back a level, I don't think there is anything to controversial about this that will require a "major" RFC for the policy documentation to reflect community standards.

There are a class of blocks that rely on info not available to all admins such as:

• Checkuser data

  May only be made per a checkuser; may only be removed per a checkuser or arbcom

• Oversighted information

  May only be made per an oversighter; may only be removed per an oversighter or arbcom

There are also blocks made per ArbCom

• May only be made per arbcom; may only be removed per arbcom

  (This notably is not allowing any admin to make these)

• Seems like the blocking policy still has the Private evidence involving undisclosed paid editing may be sent to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. part in it.
• @Barkeep49: did I miss any points above? And What about this private/paid stuff; has that been outright rejected that an admin can block for secret paid evidence not reviewable, or is submitting to the VTRS queue enough? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  Those three all look correct @Xaosflux. Block on off-wiki evidence has been outright rejected for non-checkusers/oversighters in the RfC I was originally going to use as justification to remove the bullet point I take issue with in this policy. So sending to paid-en-wp is not sufficient. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 so any "paid" blocks, based on private evidence, are we expecting that these are just treated as "CU" blocks - with the standard requirements for CU's to have accessible evidence somewhere? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  ArbCom has said how it wants CUs to handle paid evidence blocks Any resulting blocks will be labeled as paid editing or spam blocks and give the VRTS ticket number. and I take the RfC linked above as community saying they're uninterested in an alternative method. That said I feel like we're getting farther afield from this policy? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  I was hoping to just fix the admin policy and the blocking policy all at once, so was looking for edge cases; so in addition to blocks labled "checkuser block, oversight block, arbcom block" "paid editing or spam blocks with a VRTS ticket number" are another special block that should be considered a block that standard admins may not have info on. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  Your idea to use portions of the blocking policy here, ideally by transcluding, seems like a reasonable idea. However, I am unaware of edge cases the blocking policy isn't handling well so I don't think it needs fixing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Minor comment – I would say "child protection" since I think thats the phrase that's used to get around sticky wording. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I have launched the RfC using the child protection wording suggested by Tony. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Admin Accountability

Given the vast powers of Admins, including blocking users and IP addresses and ranges from editing, and restricting others from editing or article visibility, I am concerned that holding them "accountable" is limited to situations where "Administrators...seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community..." Even in that situation, the threat of accountability is that such administrators "may be sanctioned..."

As a prosecutor in a professional licensing organization, this high standard for imposing sanctions on abusive sysops seems almost useless in light of, and in contrast,to the ease with which sysops deal out sanctions imposed editors.

Maybe the WikipediA Foundation ought revamp what is meant by "accountability," or institute actual accountability - i.e. have a systematic way of enforcing standards so that Jimmy Wales' vision is better realized:

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

Otherwise, the self-insulating and mutual protection clicks that tend to materialize in organizations and operate to push bias will continue to evolve.

IAmBecomeDeath (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "Grievances by users" paragraph is a complete disaster. Who would allow this type of procedure in say, sexual harassment complaints? How did this survive this long?

IAmBecomeDeath (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between editors and admins and whomever you prosecute in a professional licensing organization. There are no credentials required to become an editor or admin. We aren't licensed, we are all unpaid volunteers who spend time doing what we feel called to do, and 99.99% (including you) are anonymous. Being an editor or admin is not a profession, it is a hobby. And so far, I think the Arbitration Committee has been effective at removing admin privileges when an admin has crossed a line, including that of avoiding being accountable for their activities. I think if you are interested in this subject, you might benefit from looking over past ARBCOM cases that have involved admins to see how community complaints are handled. In fact, there have actually been some comments that ARBCOM has been too strict about desysopping admins so I think your implication that admins are running amok is not based in current reality.

It would also strengthen your case if you offered examples of where you found this policy not followed. Right now, you have vague accusations that frequently come up from editors who are dissatisfied and they are not grounded in specific instances that illustrate your argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Also I think you are rather exaggerating the importance of administrators. Being able to stop people from editing a page on a website is not a "vast power". It's certainly not comparable to the types of positions which have professional licensing organisations, where misconduct could lead to injury, serious legal consequences or similar outcomes. Hut 8.5 11:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Additionally even if someone is blocked, it doesn't change the vision as outlined above. Being blocked only means you cannot alter, it does not mean you cannot access and read. Free and open reading of Wikipedia is free an open to all, always. Editing is a privilege that's trusted against users until there is a reason to distrust. As for the admin accountability, admins get taken to task for their actions frequently, and having their accesses removed also happens if the community feels it's warranted. I don't see that there's an issue here and this seems like a complaint looking for a problem. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Like most Wiki-policies, this too seems to have passed by, rather than through the legal desk: we have no metrics for evaluating admins, and barely a process for critiquing them; we assume that, like twinkies, they stay fresh forever, and hardly ever need replacement; and for an average Wikipedian to succeed in an WP:ADMINACCT claim, the admin must be either extremely willing - in which case one wouldn't need to invoke ADMINACCT to begin with; or absolutely disastrous - in which case it would be ArbCom that invokes it, not the average Wikipedian. So yes, some glaring oversights in our day-to-day bureaucratic clutter. François Robere (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED - only admins?

There is a rare belief that WP:INVOLVED only applies to admins using the tools, and not all editors acting as administrators, such as by closing formal discussions. Should we clarify that INVOLVED applies to all editors, perhaps by adding a note stating this? Or is this interpretation rare enough that clarification is not necessary?

Alternatively, if my interpretation and assessment of the rarity of this belief is incorrect, then should we clarify that it only applies to administrators by changing "editors" to "administrators" and "act as administrators" to "use the tools"? BilledMammal (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that INVOLVED points to WP:NACINV I do not see a need to change anything, since the latter page describes the best practices for non-admins closing formal discussions. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I went and added a sentence; it is already covered elsewhere, but people still use the WP:INVOLVED shortcut enough that including the information in two places seemed appropriate. --Jayron32 14:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that; I've copy edited it a bit, but please revert to your version if you dislike the changes I made. BilledMammal (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Looked mostly good. I've made one change to your change; Non-administrators are not "acting as administrators" when closing discussions. That's never been an administrator job. Closing discussions is, and always has been, something that any competent editor in good standing can do. The job of an administrator is to use the administrator toolset, no more than that. --Jayron32 14:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything Jayron writes immediately above this. This is why for tools that have been spun out from the administrator toolset, like page mover or rollback, non-admins have some level of responsibility to be accountable for their actions as per ADMINACCT. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Sepala Ekanayaka

Moved to Talk:Sepala Ekanayake

Primefac (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello wikipedia team

hello, i'm new content writer in wikipedia, Please help guide me to write in this site. Can u help me to check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jodysetiawan23 ?

is any suggestion or this content contain violation ? Jodysetiawan23 (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The content on your talk page was eligible for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising or promotion so I have deleted it. Please read What Wikipedia is not, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC on a procedural community desysop

Please see Village pump (policy) regarding removal the admin user-right from blocked administrators. Worm^TT(talk) 14:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Protecting the site from vandalism

Hi. I'd like to ask you for help with Iron Maiden band WIKI page to be protected from frequent acts of vandalism. Some unregistered persons (so called IPers) use to delete data or write the nonsenses just for fun. There's a necessity to apply some semi - protection proper tool (Semi - Protected Silverlock) to avoid the highly uncomfortable situations like that. Thx a lot! ~~ RALFFPL (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

RALFFPL, you should make this request at WP:RFPP. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanx for your advice! ~~ RALFFPL (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

"User:Admin" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect User:Admin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 12 § User:Admin until a consensus is reached. Vitaium (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

"User talk:Admin" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect User talk:Admin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 12 § User talk:Admin until a consensus is reached. Vitaium (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

About the page Gelo Rivera

Hello, I'd like to ask for assistance about the page I have created 2 years ago named Gelo Rivera, last year it has been redirected to the group's main page BGYO, and then as of today August 9, 2023 I have decided to removed the page to REDIRECT and then I added parts for 2023. My question is "Did I violate any rules for that?" and "Is it allowed to remove the redirect after the additional information?" because someone brought back the REDIRECT with an explanation that it is almost the same as the original. The format = YES but the content it has additional details in it. Please guide me through this but if this concern is not allowed or not supposed to be here please move my inquiries to the assigned authorities. Thank you admins. Troy26Castillo (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2023

ls ${{ github.workspace }}
      - run: echo "🍏 This job's status is ${{ job.status }}."
$ bfg --strip-blobs-bigger-than 1M --replace-text banned.txt repo.git

2A02:8109:85C0:1620:E1E5:5C5B:7625:4E0A (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Involvement

A recent RfA included significant discussion about admin involvement. I thought it might be a good idea to update our description of it to reflect the discussion that happened there, if that's what we've basically agreed is the current interpretation.

I had added The concept of involvement has evolved over time to include topic areas in which the admin is a frequent content editor; caution should be used especially in contentious topic areas where the admin is a frequent content editor. at edit warring, was waiting for any response, and Firefangledfeathers asked to have a discussion here. Valereee (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee. I have some thoughts but I'd love to listen first. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This idea that administrators should be considered involved for an entire contentious topic area may reflect the consensus of a few oppose voters at one RfA, but I don't believe it reflects the consensus of the community. For one thing, we need experienced editors working in contentious topic areas, and many experienced editors are also admins. It's not fair to them, nor to the community, to require them to decide in advance whether to function as an editor or as an admin for an entire topic area (some of which are very broad). Codifying this change will only exacerbate our admin shortage. Secondly, we already expect administrators to interpret these policies conservatively when working in contentious topic areas. By putting this expectation in writing we would be moving the goal posts further, limiting administrator discretion and discouraging them from carrying out the duties they were empowered to do. – bradv 15:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Frankly I'm relieved to get pushback on this. I was watching that happen at the RfA and thinking...does that mean I can't admin around food articles? Becuz some of them do get contentious due to gastronationalism, and it's a topic area with few admins. Valereee (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe you were an arbitrator when the Arbcom literally has written this in one of their decisions (I keep the reference on my user page). I tried to object, nobody reacted on my objection. Ymblanter (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think simply being a frequent editor in a given topic area doesn't mean the editor shouldn't be trusted to put aside any personal views they have in order to perform administrative tasks related to that area. Part of the evaluation of trust that occurred during the request for administrative privileges is judging that the candidate is capable of determining when they are able to act impartially. I appreciate, though, that there is a spectrum of editing in a topic area, from spelling and grammar corrections to contributions that are at the centre of contentious discussion. Somewhere along the line, edits become significantly close to the dispute in question such that it would be better for someone else to exercise administrative privileges. But I think managing this on a case-by-case basis is preferable to blocking out entire topic areas with a binary involved/not involved descriptor. isaacl (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

There were multiple opposers, including highly experienced ones, who flat out said the candidate's understanding of involved was completely incorrect. I think if the candidate's understanding was not incorrect, we need to figure out where that line, blurry as it may be, is even approximately drawn. Valereee (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure; I don't have a clear sense of community consensus on this point and thus only gave my personal view. isaacl (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Good question, I myself prefer the term conflict of interest and it is generally obvious when that is the case, even the appearance of a conflict can cause a problem. There was a quite a discussion of this around a contested RM and then an attempted but stalled upgrade of a relevant guideline at the pump. At the end though, it is quite difficult to describe and probably has to be handled, as in that example, case by case. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not a conflict of interest as described in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which covers a personal conflict based on one's relationship with others, so I avoided using that term to sidestep going down that route. It's more being personally vested in the outcome of an administrative decision or action. isaacl (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, is it possible for an admin to reach the point where they're involved with regard to an entire topic area? I think so: if, for example, we had an admin who described herself as pro-Armenian on her userpage, contributed almost exclusively to contentious Armenia-Azerbaijan–related content, and almost always !voted the Armenian "party line" in talk page discussions, RfCs, RMs, AfDs, etc., I probably wouldn't trust that administrator to use the tools impartially on anything related to WP:AA2, regardless of whether she was directly involved. But that happens very infrequently, and in the mine run of cases (e.g. Valereee's food example) there's no problem unless the admin has a history with the article, the editor, the particular question being disputed, etc. Anything else leads to absurd results: as someone asked at FFF's RfA, Does editing Trump- and Biden-related articles and talkpages make one involved re. Preston Daniels? I don't think there's much need for a policy change here: the usual advice we give admins when it comes to INVOLVED (use common sense, step back if there could be reasonable doubts about your impartiality, and bring any grey-area questions to WP:AN) should cover it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Editors may find this close review of interest to the discussion. In it, some editors seeking to overturn the close advanced the argument that FormalDude was involved with the entire AMPOL topic area. The close review was closed as "no consensus", but my reading of the discussion is that the community rejected that specific argument. BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that I'm not an admin, since this discussion appears to be primarily about admin involvement. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that simply editing in a topic area doesn't necessarily make you involved. At the same time, it seems worth warning admins that, in practice, doing so leaves you open to the accusation of involvement and, if you're not careful about how you respond to that accusation, you could end up in deep trouble. I think this raises a more general point, which is that over time WP:INVOLVED has become the single most common source of disputes over administrative conduct, but the written guideline has not kept pace with its growing importance. It's so vaguely worded that someone motivated to do so can spin any source of potential opinion-having as "involvement", and with the atmosphere at places like AN being so focused on seeing people (and especially admins) humbled, trying to argue against that is rarely worth it. It would be helpful to try find out what, specifically, the community does and does not considered involved, and update the guideline accordingly. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• I wouldn't codify it, but it has been practice at least since I've been around the project (so 7ish years) for admins to consider them involved i.r.t. entire topic areas. It isn't really a new development. And in all honesty, this is one of the cases where we don't really enforce policy consistently. If a popular admin who edits plant articles were to make an edit warring block of an unknown user who hadn't violated 3RR but was edit warring in an article about a shrub species, we wouldn't call them involved.
  On the other hand, if a legacy admin who came back and started editing American politics were to make an edit warring block on a Trump-related article, even if they weren't involved and hadn't edited the article before, they'd likely end up desysoped either by ArbCom or because the community made such a fuss and filed a case that they resigned under the cloud.
  The best practice is for admins not to take administrative action in areas where they may be perceived as having personal leanings and to avoid the mere appearance of involvement. That typically means they should ordinarily not act as administrators in content areas where they regularly participate unless it is an obvious situation that would be an exception to the involved rule.
  Finally, I would agree with Joe's overall commentary here, but like so much of Wikipedia, a lot of the consensus on this matter is in our practice and is situational. While I would be fine with tweaking the wording to show that what is and isn't involved can be controversial, I also don't really think an RfC would agree on any one phrasing because how we interpret the policy is very situational and any major update enough of the community would disagree with that it wouldn't get the 65-70% support typically needed for a policy update. I could probably get behind an update of some sort, but I think a large RfC would end in no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
• If you are around long enough you can find yourself involved in a lot of areas. Some, like AP, if an Admin clearly takes sides in say Trump debates, they shouldn't use their tools. But how about areas where Wikipedia is clear what the mainstream view is? If an Admin is pro-evolutionary theory and anti-Creationism, does that make them too involved to use their tools? Doug Weller talk 12:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Complaints

Can anyone see a reason for having two sections, #Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") but also #Disputes or complaints? They seem to cover the same ground to me. Can we merge them? – Joe (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd support that. At the very least the latter section needs to include processes between talk page and arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia using bias and questionable reporting to slander political candidates?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not an issue for Administrators. Referred elsewhere.

Why is Wikipedia involved in gaslighting and reporting unfavorable and misleading information about Political Candidates in effort to mislead the public. This is more than just business as usually this is evil collision. I’m scared to trust anything on Wikipedia even again. 2603:6081:F840:A3:A184:50DA:FCC4:3D6C (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Examples would help. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

And this is not a content noticeboard either, it is a talk page for discussing the administrator user right, if you are trying to contact an admin WP:AN is the place, but it seems more like you want WP:RSN for a discussion of a subject like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Are admins required to have notifications enabled?

At Help talk:Notifications#Admin notifications Schwede66 asked essentially this question, which is not addressed by this policy. The spirit of not requiring admins to have email enabled and places like ANI requiring a talk page notification rather than a ping suggests that there is currently no expectation that admins are required to have them enabled, indeed I believe that at least one administrator (Liz) does not and I am not aware of the community having an issue with this.

If this is correct we should consider adding something similar to the language regarding emails to this policy, maybe saying having them enabled is "suggested" or "recommended" but explicitly not required, and that even if they do have them enabled they are not required to respond to them (for the same reasons admins are not required to reply to emails). Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf seems like an easy no. They are not required to do lots of things that are not in the policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Pings can fail, so should not be relied upon for any mandatory communications. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Only place I know that address this is WP:ADMINACCT. While best practices are for administrators to have email enabled, they are not required to enable or reply to email.[1] It does not mention notifications but does require communication and response to questions about their actions.[2] So with that I think it would be best practice to have notifications on, I know Liz can be pretty hard to get a hold of because of that, but it does not seem to be required. PackMecEng (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that admins do not need to have notifications enabled, but would suggest that those who have them turned off state that clearly on their user page. —Kusma (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think that is a perfectly reasonable requirement. It is possible to tell when someone does not have email enabled (if you do) - there is no "email this user" link when viewing their user page, but as far as I am aware there is no way to tell when someone has pings switched off. I have the setting enabled to give me a notification when a ping fails, but I didn't get one when pinging Liz in my opening message. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  It takes an extra step to leave a talk page message, but I wouldn't say that makes it pretty hard to get a hold of a particular editor, as long as they are either watching their own talk page or have kept notifications for talk page messages enabled. isaacl (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• It's not required, and I don't know that it should be required (long-term abusers would have a field day), but admins really should turn pings on unless they have an extremely good reason not to. I remember back when I was a very new editor (not even extended-confirmed), an admin made a mistake with Huggle and accidentally gave me a templated warning. I instantly pinged him about it, but because he didn't have notifications enabled, he never saw my message. Now, if this happened to me today it would obviously be no big deal, but as a new editor who wasn't an expert in the way pings and talk pages and warnings and blocks work, I remember just being afraid I was going to end up blocked. While everything ended well in that story, I wouldn't be surprised if we've lost would-be productive editors over the years because an admin made a mistake and never saw the ping about it. The spirit of ADMINACCT is making sure reasonable queries can be answered, and admins should try to follow that even when something isn't required by the "letter of the law". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• Per this discussion, I've reworded the bullet about emails to include mention of notifications. New wording While best practices are for administrators to have email and notifications enabled, they are not required to do so, nor are they required to read and/or respond if they are enabled. Administrators who do not have notifications enabled are strongly encouraged to note this on their user page.. I'll leave a note regarding the last clause for inclusion in the next WP:ADMINNEWS. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Accidental wheel war

@Ritchie333: Like this. Personally, I think it was a good change. BilledMammal (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Where's the first part of this conversation? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Here. —Cryptic 10:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I can see Ritchie's point, though; if it's accidental, it's not a wheel war (which is the intentional act of reversing an administrative decision). Primefac (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we could make that clearer; my interpretation of the page is that any reversal (of a reversal) is a wheel war, even when done accidentally. BilledMammal (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Rather, it's not a wheel war if it's not in "a combative fashion". "Intentional" or similar words don't appear in the policy-as-written. They probably should. —Cryptic 10:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, general practice for policy pages is to discuss first. I wasn't aware there was an Arbcom case, but we need to write for the general principle. And indeed, the wheel warring there has led to an immediate request for arbitration. It doesn't follow that anyone will get desysopped, which I believe the policy page already implies (can != will) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The edit history, even recent edit history, makes clear not all changes require advanced discussion to stick. WP:POLICY, our policy on changing policies, also says it's not strictly necessary and changes should reflect practice. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Except sometimes they do, and it usually happens when an undiscussed change is reverted, like here. Even in the present Arbcom case no one is suggesting the undoing of another administrators action was not a mistake. Such mistakes although unintentional are likely to get a reaction, resulting in going over WHEEL, RAAA, ADMINACT, when it happens. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• I was in the middle of an undo and came here instead. It was a good edit. It adds clarity to what is already accepted practice and clarifies the spirit of the existing policy. And no, changes to policy pages do NOT automatically require discussion first. See WP:BOLD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Speaking personally, I think it's not necessary, given the previous paragraph already clarifies that wheel warring is done in a "combative fashion" and then says "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know [emphasis mine] that another administrator opposes it". It's pretty much the same reason I'd take out the word if I was copyediting an article; in those cases I sometime cite WP:DUH, but citing an essay primarily authored by EEng probably isn't going to go down as well here.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, it also has "known" in it. As is patently obvious, it is already clear. There is not the least amount of dispute at present about it, anywhere.

  That's not to say that mistakes like that should be a cause for reflection -- if it is, for example, an easy mistake to make, we should work on ways to not make it easy. (One way to do that of course, is to strongly warn about it) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  The bolded statement can be read in two ways: "Re-reverting admin actions is wheel-warring. Don't knowingly do it." and "Knowingly re-reverting admin actions is wheel warring. Don't do it." Floq's edit supports the former, that it's wheel warring whether you realize you're doing it or not, but it's no big deal if it's unknowing or accidental. Mine is the latter: wheel warring can by definition only be done deliberately. Not only are accidental or unknowing breaches no big deal, they're not even wheel warring to begin with, and the rest of the section doesn't apply. —Cryptic 14:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Quibbling, distinction without a difference. It needs to be analyzed at the time either way, either so mistakes are minimized since reversion as RAAA makes clear sets up dynamic that can lead to problems (more so, when there are a string of multiple mistakes, as in the recent matter) or so correct redress can be decided upon. (Also, sometimes because of the nature of the mistake(s)' context, especially in talking over what went wrong, sometimes even mistakes do not slide by, easily.)-Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Involved and closing discussions

Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved in the discussion itself or related disputes.

Was the above language always here? Was there an RfC I missed? I didn't check. But it contradicts WP:RFC, which says if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an involved editor may summarize the discussion (and similar elsewhere).

I also object to the link to WP:NAC which is an essay that has repeatedly been denied promotion to a guideline.

Generally, I don't think the Admin policy should cover non-admin actions, and I don't think WP:INVOLVED applies to closing RFCs, nor do I think closing an RfC is an Admin action, and so closing RFCs should not be mention in Admin policy.

I'd support removing that paragraph. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I just looked and see this was added in March 2023 based on discussion with 3 editors at WT:Administrators/Archive 23#WP:INVOLVED - only admins?. I'd be inclined to remove it and say it needs an RfC as a major policy change, but I won't do it unilaterally. Levivich (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

One of the reasons I supported adding it was that editors argued that because they weren't administrators they could close discussions that they had participated in. I think we need some wording making it clear that editors shouldn't be closing discussions that they are genuinely involved in, but if you are concerned that the wording as currently written is too broad I wouldn't object to tightening it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I object to admin policy covering discussion closures at all, as that's not part of the toolkit. WP:RFC already covers "involved" closures, and any clarification should happen there. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Three responses:

1) Non-admins should be reminded to not be involved while closing (even if there is the times like with anything, it does not matter);

3) We don't need another vocabulary to talk about involved closing, such would be counterproductive;

2) Administration of this site involves many actions, by design some of which, one does not need extra permissions, since the site to the extent possible is suppose to be self-administered by all users. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

1) Not just "non-admins," all editors, and that reminder is in WP:RFC

2) OK (Not sure if #2 is in response to my comment at WT:AN about coming up with a new word? I was talking about for the RFC appeal template. Otherwise I agree with you about generally avoiding new vocab words.)

3) WP:ADMIN isn't about the administration of the website generally, it's very specifically about the admin user group. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the scope of this page is policy for Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia. Since evaluating the outcome of a discussion is not usually a role dependent on having administrative privileges (*), general guidance for evaluators is more suitable for a page specifically regarding this task, such as Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Closure procedure.

(*) Processes where the evaluator is expected to implement the result and where this may require administrative privileges are an exception. I think the best way to avoid duplication of guidance is to cover this within guidance for evaluating discussion outcomes, and point to this from the administrator policy. isaacl (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

John Koetsier Page

I am trying to retrieve an article about John Koetsier, who is a BLPs. The article had citations from Adweek, Forbes, and MarTech, Inc. I'd like to know why the article was deleted. I spent a lot of time collecting and formatting what I believed to be an authentic representation of this journalist and his work. JoeK2033 (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• This is the wrong venue, but it's here, so I will try to help. It was Speedy Deleted under A7, meaning the article made no real claim of notability that would allow inclusion. Reading through the article, I would say that the deletion was valid. I would also note that you were already blocked for promotional edits to a draft, by Vanamonde93 in November, meaning there is a concern about your editing re: promotional BLPs. You might want to bone up on the actual policies here before you attempt to resurrect an article that was deleted for similar reasons your block is for, Draft:James Naleski, which has an interesting sock farm in it's history.... Additionally, you already filed to have it undeleted [3] so it appears you are forum shopping. Dennis Brown 2¢ 00:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Afarin Kids TV Page

I created this page (Afarin Kids TV) some time ago, which is dedicated to a famous television channel in Iraqi Kurdistan, and I think I had put the necessary sources to keep the article and worth staying, but unfortunately someone deleted the article and put protection from recreate it.

So I ask you to remove it from the blacklist and allow me to recreate it, because I think if you make a little follow-up will prove that it is not worth to deleting and worth to recreate it. Shahrwzi (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Shahrwzi. I'd suggest creating a draft via the article wizard, then submitting the draft by hitting the blue "submit" button. An experienced reviewer will be along to give it feedback. If it passes that feedback, then it will be unblacklisted. Please make sure to include citations to several reliable sources such as newspapers and books, to give it the best chance of passing WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Contacting Administrators

I've searched through a lot of pages to figure out where to post this, which exemplifies the basic problem. I've never found a way to contact an administrator. It's been almost as hard to find a place to raise the issue; all the other admin pages are specific. This seems to be the place to start.

There are times when the best way to handle something is to ask an administrator for advice, especially if the formal process might get someone needlessly in trouble.

There are obviously technical problems with how to set up contacting administrators because no one administrator should be burdened by the job, several admins and the question goes to all of them, and a "Contact Administrator" link is going to be abused.

The last could be simplified by narrowing those who can ask down to people with a fair amount of experience with the assumption they aren't asking something trivial. But that leads to an implementation problem: how do you tell you. I don't know how to sort who has to deal with requests for information. Even if there's a group that specializes you still have the problem of the question going to multiple people.

Obviously I've run into something specific but I've skimmed enough talk pages to know that sometimes editors feel backed into a corner and now and then could use some help. From discussing how to handle to reassurance they're doing the right thing, even a bit of wordsmithing, a handful of admins could make editors jobs much easier.Kovar (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kovar. If you'd like to contact an administrator and don't mind many people seeing your inquiry, I'd recommend Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. That is less private but will get you a faster response and spread the workload of replying. If you'd like to contact a random, recently active, single administrator, try this tool. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You can also add {{Admin help}} to your talk page, which will get the attention of an administrator who watches for those requests. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Or try contacting one via the list at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active. Lectonar (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If it's urgent there's also #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect where admins can be contacted. Primefac (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Question

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

This is literally on the table of contents for the linked page Wikipedia:Administrators#Becoming an administrator. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thank you I just didn't find it last night Mood segregate (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Help distinguish admin actions from general editor conversation

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

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

Recommendations

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

Examples & Issues

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biohistorian15&diff=prev&oldid=1216912832 — Admin seems to be threatening admin action but the comment is read as guidance. It's unclear that the user has admin status
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonymetzAlt&oldid=1211000389 — Admin took immediate block action without clear admin threat or warning (block triggered before this comment)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tonymetz&diff=prev&oldid=1217403672 — admin refers to vague comment as a "threat of admin action" . even the follow up is unclear due to lack of template

Tonymetz 💬 18:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

For cultural reasons we choose not to make who admins are super obvious. At the end of the day our culture is that admins are just like other editors, except they have a few extra "tools". However a good solution to this might be to install a user highlighter script, which would highlight admin signatures a different color for just you. My preferred admin highlighter script. Other admin highlighter scripts. If an admin is speaking with their "admin hat on", they will sometimes say so in text, or it can be inferred (e.g. "I will block you if you continue doing X", only admins can block so hopefully only an admin would say this). I have not reviewed your 3 diffs of user behavior and will leave that to someone else. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

the user script is helpful. Tonymetz 💬 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

For cultural reasons we choose not to make who admins are super obvious.

I like this overall. One idea would be to have a conditional signature that admins display to distinguish dmin duties. Tonymetz 💬 01:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I installed the user highlighter and it's a big help now that I see the admin highlighting in discussions and edit histories Tonymetz 💬 01:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I did the second one so I am responding to it. There was a warning that asked you to declare why your alternate account follows the sockpuppetry policy at User talk:Tonymetz#Multiple accounts. You ignore the first part where I said If you are using the alternate account as an account that you will use to edit on public computers, please indicate so. If it is a doppelganger, no edits should be made from that account and only added the template to your user page. As your usernames were Tonymet and Tonymetz at that time, it could cause a lot of confusion. I thought it was probably a WP:DOPPELGANGER, but you kept editing from both accounts. Now, arguably the block wasn't needed, so this is bad on my part, but it did help alleviate the confusion one may have from those usernames by unblocking after you have renamed your account to TonymetzAlt. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

thanks for adding context. if you look at the comment from a new-user's perspective (who doesn't know about blocks) , it's not clear that the next action will result in a block. It would be nice to have a clearer template that an admin is involved and a block is the next step.

I'm not disputing the block action, but I'm trying to help the admin team to distinguish admin actions and communications from general editor discussions. Tonymetz 💬 01:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

A terrible idea. I welcome new editors, tell them when they aren't using a reliable source, etc, trying to help them. I'm doing this as a regular editor, not an Admin, but if my signature glared out ADMIN TELLING YOU THIS how do you think they'll react? I do not want to scare new good faith editors. See WP:BITE. Most of the work I do is not in my Admin role. Also there not 4 steps before being blocked. Twinkle has 4 steps, Admins have discretion. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 RFCs that affect administrators

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

• Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)
• Proposal 13: Admin elections - hold one trial admin election with secret voting
• Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements - extended-confirmed required to !vote in RFCs
• Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs
  • Proposal 16c: Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed

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

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

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

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

I believe that this has been discussed in the past, one objection has always been that "logged actions" tends to not include edits that happen to be administrative actions, like pronouncements at WP:AE or block threats or AFD closes or refusals to take a certain administrative action or edits to protected pages. The second-to-last one especially, that such a rule could incentivize people taking administrative actions where they shouldn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Editing protected pages does not generate a log entry. An editor who is attempting to game inactivity with the tools can just as easily delete one page in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion every 2 years as they can at present so it doesn't solve the problem of out-of-touch admins but does, per Jo-Jo Eumerus, potentially incentivise bad admin actions.

The only thing I can think of that would solve the issue of out-of-touch admins is mandatory periodic reconfirmation RFAs, but they have their own suite of issues (not least scalability and disincentivising potentially controversial admin actions) and have been rejected by the community multiple times. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Technically, protected edits are logged at Special:AbuseFilter/942 but it's not an inherent feature of the software the way e.g Special:Log/protect is. And it's not a widely known feature, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

and it misses cascade-prot edits. It is still a useful AF log though! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This isn't even saying a "reconfirmation RfA". An admin's only edits should not be to remove themselves from Project:Missing Wikipedians or to make minor edits, etc. I could imagine all sorts of gaming to try to avoid procedural removal of the tools. For example, we desysop if a user has made less than 100 edits in the past 5 years. But what if on year 4 they go and make 99 minor or copy edits to articles? That feels like gaming to me. They still are very inactive and they still might be falling out of touch with the expectations of administrators. Awesome Aasim 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

My point was that your proposal doesn't solve the problem it sets out to solve but would create new problems, and therefore it's not one that I can support. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

they go and make 99 minor or copy edits to articles - that sounds like they're improving Wikipedia, which is what they should be doing. I find it rather unlikely that someone would get the "you're about to be desysopped" notice, panic and make 100 edits really quickly, and then disappear again for another two years; if one gets motivated by the warning, they'll stick around for a bit. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I want to close this account for good, removing all revision histories, can you please do that?

I tried my damn best to be a better person, and reported on someone who was banned unfairly in 2012. Instead of getting help I was forced to either do what I'm told or get out, and I want to help Wikipedia, but fuck it I'm not even reading revision histories if I am gonna be villainized for the smallest mistakes. So please do it I know it takes a long time without bots, but I want nothing to do with this website if I can't even ask civil qusetions without getting heat for it. And I WILL make a video talking about the unfair ban as it was unjust, it happened over a decade ago which makes it worse. As for me, don't ban me just close this account for good, I don't know how or have the power to do so. But I'm fed up with how I can't even return nicely without rudely being demanded to leave. One more thing, look for someone good at English to translate the Bogi Ágústsson I'm not doing it anymore if I can't even ask questions without getting into trouble. Also before it's too late get this site some ads, lack of ads is why it's failing financially.

Also if I'm required to end the post with a question, how can I trust a wiki where you are warned even when you try to return civilly? Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our software currently does not permit deletion of accounts. However, it does not hurt anything to leave accounts unused; you may simply stop using the account.

If you wish to remove your email address from your account, you can unset it at Special:ChangeEmail. If you wish to remove your userpage, please add {{Db-userreq}} to the page (including the brackets), and one of our administrators will delete the page. If you wish to rename your account, please see the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing_username. Additionally, you might qualify for a VANISH.

If there is personal information on another page that you wish to be removed, please provide us with the specific details so that we may remove it as policy permits.

Otherwise, all you have to do is stop logging into the account. I hope this answers your question, and I am sorry to hear that you have decided to stop contributing to Wikipedia. If you wish to return, you may simply begin using the account again.

If there is anything else we can help you with, please let us know. Best regards, and thank you for using Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I will also note that you are not "in trouble", nor do I see any indication that you were "asked to leave" or are being threatened with a ban. Primefac (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to link to the discussion where you were told these things and we can take a closer look. Your post has some unusual ideas in it such as Also if I'm required to end the post with a question. There's no policy like this so i wonder if you've been given bad advice by someone. Also it is a bit odd to see drama over such an old ban. So much can change in 10 years. A wel-formed unblock request by the blocked or banned editor may be successful. Oh and the foundation has plenty of money. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: It's wrt this conversation. While they were clearly not threatened with a block or a ban, I guess they misread Bbb23's comment that BTMF was abusing a template and being obnoxious as being a step towards a block. Their comment here about having to answer with a question: they received another template ({{Help me-nq}}) which tells them You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done. They seem to be in a passion over something, and it's currently unclear why. ——Serial Number 54129 18:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyediting

I have made series of WP:Bold changes to this policy page, aiming to clarify confusing sentences, cull repeated guidance, and increase concision, all while preserving guidance determined by community consensus. [4][5] Clearly, I have failed, and as @Andrybak have disagreed with the edits, I wanted to start a discussion. Andrybak has given helpful feedback: from the edit summary, I realized I have deleted a policy shortcut template, which was not intended. Andrybak pointed out I changed some wording that was determined via consensus. While I believe to have preserved the intended meaning in such sentences, I should have made a effort to discuss beforehand.

However, I believe most of my other copyedits were improvements, and I would like others to identify problematic aspects, so that copyedits identified to be improvements can remain intact. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"Involved" exception when dealing with threats

Based on what I see at WP:AN#More admin misconduct, I suggest adding more explicit language to the vandalism and "purely administrative" areas concerning involvement to the effect that any administrator may take appropriate measures to deal with any editor who makes threats against them or anyone else. I'm sure somebody can argue how "threats" may be parsed, but we can certainly agree on violence, stalking, or doxxing as obvious candidates. Acroterion (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

One simple addition would be to add "or threats" so it reads "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism or threats)...". However, lists of examples tend to expand with time and end up being read as definitive statements. In the recent incident linked in the OP, I doubt that anyone would have reacted differently if "or threats" were present—the people concerned have no idea and would have made the same fuss regardless of what this page said. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The things Drmies was having to deal with were 100% covered by the "straightforward cases" exception, no questions asked. I agree with Johnuniq that a wording change wouldn't have made a difference in this situation (or in any others I can envision). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with you, there was some sentiment for a leisurely consultative approach, or for a put-up-with-it-or-resign approach, citing the policy, an interpretation with which I profoundly disagree. But I'm sensitive to instruction creep too, which is equally subject to philosophical gaming. I find the parlor game of "is this admin involved because they 'disagree' " tiresome and time-wasting, and I view the language of the policy as a bit equivocal. I may be influenced by spending the past couple of days writing contracts, which causes anyone to second-guess every word they write. Acroterion (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Two-year inactivity rule phrasing

Admins removed for inactivity have to run a new RfA if they want to be resysopped after a two-year period of inactivity. For admins removed under the recent 5-year/100-edit inactivity requirement, does that mean two years after the removal of admin tools (as WP:ADMIN#Restoration of admin tools suggests), or does it mean two years from the last edit or log action (as WP:RESYSOP suggests)? It doesn't really matter which answer we choose, but it's important to resolve the ambiguity one way or another so there are no issues when it inevitably comes up at WP:BN. Probably the easiest solution would be to change the sentence here beginning In the case of an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity... to "In the case of an administrator desysopped due to inactivity, the two-year clock starts from the last edit or log action prior to the desysop" or something like that. (This came up previously here.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this RfC getting at what you wanted (which wasn't formally closed only because consensus was clear so it didn't feel like a formal close was necessary)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That involved a different inactivity rule (five-years-from-last-tool-use), but you're right that it's basically the same question. I think the best way to follow the logic of that RfC is to make the change I suggested above, which hopefully won't be too controversial. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Wearing my full formal wikilawyer hat, A) WP:ADMIN is policy and WP:CRAT, of which WP:RESYSOP is part, is a summary of policy, so where they conflict it has to be RESYSOP that's incorrect; and B) the shorter 1-year period for no-edits only applies if "an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity" - that is, the one year total inactivity rule, not the 5-year/100-edit one.

Wearing my reasonable person hat, B is bonkers, and, for that matter, so is all the text after the boldface "Over two years with no edits". The specific inactivity rule shouldn't matter; and if you accept that, then I can't for the life of me think of a situation where you can get desysopped without it being either involuntary (and thus ineligible), for inactivity, or making an edit to request it. And I doubt I'd be the only person to look far askance at a resysop request saying the two-year-zero-edits rule should start from the desysop timestamp instead of the actual last edit solely because you asked to resign on Discord or IRC or whatever instead of even bothering to log on and ask at WP:BN like a normal person. Just look for a two-year period with zero edits - simple rule, easy to check, makes sense.

Not that any of that, or the rfc about the 5-year-no-logged-actions rule, deal cleanly with the 5-year/100-edit inactivity rule - you can be inside the limit of either or both of the "Lengthy inactivity" subitems while still qualifying to be desysopped for having under a hundred edits. But that's one of the things that the "bureaucrat is not reasonably convinced" rule is for. —Cryptic 01:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If people are fine with replacing the bullet point with "a new RfA is required if the admin was totally inactive during any two-year period ending after the desysop" (or some more elegant wording), I agree that'd be even better. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)