Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 10

RFC for admin conduct
Is the present wording really a good description?


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

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


 * I may have written that sentence, but I'm not very fond of the passive construction. Perhaps. "is unable to provide a satisfactory response to the community, then the administrator may resign."  As a practical matter that is often, but not always, what happens. Jehochman Talk 01:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, an admin "may" resign at any time. So this isn't saying much. May need a rewrite? FT2 (Talk 01:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Rewritten entire section - should be okay now. FT2 (Talk 02:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Are you sure that's a good idea?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? I think you're talking about these edits of mine. I made these edits because this page is supposed to describe policies and requirements of administrators, starting to say "oh and other editors should do this too" everywhere seems unnecessary and will just mean the page becomes excessively wordy. – xeno talk 18:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that "everyone else" is seldom called upon to answer questions about their administrator actions. :) I think what you're talking about is already amply covered in WP:CIVIL. While admins may be just users with a flag, there's no doubt that these days they are expected to hold to a pretty high standard of behavior, though. Perhaps that's changed since 2005? I wouldn't know, since I wasn't even registered then. It seems to me as if the text in this policy is meant to reinforce that, not to tell other users that they're off the hook. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * I'm talking literally: "Just like everyone else, administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions"...admins are not expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrator actions just like everyone else, because everyone else has no admin actions to respond to. But, Prodego, I have more than once seen people chastised for harassment when they've continued communicating with people who've asked them to stay off of their talk pages. I'm not entirely sure an admin could (or should) get away with that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good Catch. Hmm, we might add parens: "Just like everyone else, administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and (administrator) actions". Though there might be a more elegant way to put it. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You cannot tell people to not raise valid concerns on your talk page. But if you ask someone to not comment there, and then they do without such a reason, then that is just harassment. With an admin or with a user, the best option if they refuse to respond to your concerns (and/or tell you to stop asking) is to file a user conduct RfC. Prodego  talk  19:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that the responders at ANI are with you there, at least not completely. I've more than once seen somebody told that if there are valid concerns, somebody else can raise them. (And probably with good reason; there are certainly some users who develop an unhealthy interest in others.) But I don't tend to wade into much controversy (including routinely reading ANI), so perhaps there are people who are asked to stay away from certain admins as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * This can even happen if you simply remove the request.


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


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


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

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

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


 * I thought admins were appointed for being able to Not Blow Up The Wiki. (though with the current diminishing standards, possibly not even that :-P ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard stories about the "olden days." :) But the diminishing standards statement seems to run counter to the scuttlebutt I hear. I'm not sure if there are more current charts, but if nothing else time-in-saddle requirements seem to have risen substantially between 2005 and 2006 (File:AverageEditCountatRfA.png; File:AverageEditCountatRfA-2006.png). This seems to have coincided with an overall decline in success rates in 2006 (User:White Cat/Adminship survey summary) According to this chart, success rates in general declined dramatically between 2004 and 2009. Now, that doesn't say anything to the relative explosive tendencies of candidates ca. 2004 vs. 2009, but it suggests that the way Wikipedia perceives adminship may have shifted somewhat since the days of an 80% pass rate. It doesn't look like 2010 is reversing the trend. Through May, our success rate is hovering about 29%. Surely some of the 71% who failed might, but would all of them have failed a Not Blow Up the Wiki test? Perhaps we've just become more more skeptical about the ability of candidates to pass that test. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

The reasons for editing to (2) were:
 * Brevity - the original explains each process in some detail but on this page it isn't much benefit. A quick summary of the key processes available and their key features if there is a concern over adminship is fine as users will then look those up if they want to know the details of the process involved. Important extra points are also covered.
 * It also fixes awkward and questionable wordings such as "Administrators who fail to satisfactorily respond to community feedback are likely to become the subject of an Arbitration Committee review" - which may or may not be the case and need more words to explain them. Better to just list the processes and their key features.
 * It also contextualizes the processes more - the original is literally just a list of processes.
 * More seriously the original organized desysopping with "one section per route or process" (voluntary/disputes/recall/rfc/rfar). This left problems in how "good standing" and "questionable standing" were addressed, because multiple processes may take place together or intervene in each other. For example voluntarily desysop can be requested both in good standing, and before or during a concern, and can even derail or negate other processes.  If it's organized not by "route of desysopping" (applicable processes list) but by circumstance (whether it's in good standing or questionable standing) it becomes a lot simpler to read, not least because the one thing that's always completely clear is the nature of the circumstances.

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

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


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


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


 * I think this point must be a bit confused. Factually WP:RECALL exists. Presumably "implying it was policy" would mean saying it was mandatory or something. Describing it or saying it may be "available" isn't the same as saying something is a "policy", although listing it as a "process" could imply it's always available. How about rewording to:
 * Recall (sometimes) - a voluntary commitment made by some administrators to resign if a complaint is made and certain conditions (which they have specified) are reached.
 * Recall (if offered) - some administrators state they will resign if a complaint is made and a given level of support for resignation (which they have specified) is reached. Recall is non-binding and may be changed or withdrawn at any time
 * Either of these better? FT2 (Talk 07:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Policy, for as long as I can think of, has said: "There have been several procedures suggested for a community based desysopping process, but none of them have achieved consensus." Note: WP:RECALL is not the same as a binding community desysop process, although some users have erroneously considered them to be identical. I haven't referred to an binding vote in my version, and I know that the WP:RECALL doesn't say anything about a process where the community vote becomes binding, and FT2's version seems no different. Recall is part of policy in so far as granting admins a legitimate option - Herostratus or any admins can (in good faith) use any reasonable process to help them determine whether they want to keep their tools. This is something that is granted by dispute resolution policy too - a voluntary agreement can be made during an RfC/U as to how a dispute will move forward, and this may include an RFA-type method to solicit input from RFA regulars (RFA as a process happens to receive more input than voluntary dispute resolution anyway). Similarly, Herostratus or any other admin may request for the removal of their tools at any time without any voluntary recall criteria/process, because policy grants them this legitimate option - it is not mandatory for every admin to resign only after going through a specified/unspecified determinative process. To summarise, these options are voluntary and available, and have been a core fundamental of this project since as early as the RfC/U process came into force. Nihonjoe has tried to make strawman arguments about unmolested policy in an attempt to prohibit admins from receiving input from RFA regulars in a RFA-type format and force them into RfC/U - such a prohibition was rejected by the community as a whole. If Herostratus' RFA happens to persuade other admins to voluntarily submit themselves to this process in the future, that's not something that Nihonjoe can prohibit. However, if Herostratus' RFA persuades admins that they should not use this process in the future, it's not a process that Nihonjoe can force on those admins (against their wishes) either. I think that addresses the real issue at play. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't see any of that affecting the proposed edit above, though - it seems to mostly be tangential. As my focus here is on clarity of review/removal and not on recent RFA/RFCU events, can you summarize any ways that the edited suggestion is inaccurate, misses key points, or is less accurate than the existing (mostly reverted) wording? (Note we edit-conflicted as I was adding the wording Recall is non-binding and may be changed or withdrawn at any time to the proposed edit, if that helps, and have added "or to agree a way forward" which I think you're right about) FT2 (Talk 10:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See my 10:22 comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, missed that, thanks. There's a lot there. Quick summary to see if I have it right: Back to you! FT2 (Talk 11:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "Important details may be left out" - I've checked the details for each process - voluntary removal, recall, disputes/complaints, RFC/U and RFAR. Differences I can see are:
 * 2) * RFC/U - original states "Misuse of administrator access or behavior that is incompatible with adminship", edit states "a serious concern related to an administrator". Comment: Effectively the same, edit is shorter. Perhaps reword as "a serious concern related to misuse of administrator access or an administrator's behavior" to resolve this?
 * 3) * RFC/U - original states "Administrators who fail to satisfactorily respond to community feedback are likely to become the subject of an Arbitration Committee review". Edited states "to agree a way forward, or a step prior to formal request for desysopping". Comment: I don't think the rest is needed. Lack of response will clearly result in escalation as with all DR processes. It could go in, if needed, I suppose.
 * 4) * AC - original states "Generally, the Arbitration Committee requires that other steps of dispute resolution should be tried before it intervenes in a dispute. However, if the matter is serious enough, the Arbitration Committee may intervene without a request for comment on administrator conduct." Edited states "Used when a serious issue exists such that a direct request for ArbCom review and consideration is appropriate, or if the matter may be serious enough to lead to summary removal or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship". Comment: Edited is more accurate. For matters possibly needing desysopping and of sufficient seriousness, prior resolution efforts are not needed. It's one of the times a direct RFAR may be appropriate.
 * 5) * AC - original states "if the matter is serious enough, the Arbitration Committee may intervene without a request for comment on administrator conduct." Edited doesn't state AC can "take over" the matter at will. Comment: It probably should.
 * 6) * AC - original states that remedies can "include warnings, admonishments, restrictions, or a summary removal of administrator privilleges". Edited version states "The Committee may make any decision it sees fit, including conditions, temporary, or permanent desysopping". Comment: Edited seems accurate enough. Perhaps add "warnings and restrictions" if needed.
 * 7) Sensitive issues - perhaps. Take a look at WP:SPI and WP:DR for similar clauses. How about this: For sensitive issues (such as privacy/harassment issues, socking, or more serious abuse by an administrator) contact ArbCom by email in the first instance for guidance. Although they don't have to, admin sock investigations do tend to go direct to AC and not to other checkusers.
 * 8) Good/questionable standing - I think this helps. The one thing a user knows when they want to see how adminship is reviewed or revoked, is whether the admin is under suspicion of misconduct. If the user feels the admin's conduct is fine, then the only route is voluntary removal. If it's questionable then (and only then) do we need to give more guidance on the processes and what happens if the admin resigns during them. (See also #4)
 * 9) Users questioned at RFAR/RFC/Recall, or desysopped by AC, by definition ended up at those venues because someone felt their adminship was questionable. This underlines the same point as before - that dividing into "good standing v. questionable would help clarify it.


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


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


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

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

This might make comparison easier. It's mainly a style thing. The version on the left is more formal, wordier, and that on the right is easier to digest if there's actual need. That's my perception anyhow. What do you reckon on the two versions we've got there? FT2 (Talk 00:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the left version is better (assuming the voluntary removal moves back to the top); I think it is more effective as policy, both stylistically and in its wording. At the same time, there is no superfluous detail; it only provides the details that are necessary & sufficient to cater for newbies, experienced users, administrators, and the like; the need to go to multiple process pages is limited to when the user is sure as to which stage they are at. If I was using the right version, frankly, I'd end up having to go to each and every process page if I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia; it would take some time before I could select the best process (at a particular stage in a dispute) with respect to an admin conduct issue. (Obviously, its of no consequence to me personally at the moment as I am very familiar or experienced with all of these processes and their nuances). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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



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

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

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


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

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

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

This would solve a lot of problems.

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

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


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

So you're telling me that quick short blocks do the trick all the time? No problems at all. You're happy? I guess an exception for copyright work could be made then. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:UNINVOLVED is clear: "This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have a conflict of interest in conflicts they have been a party to or have strong feelings about". So an admin who simply researches the issue before acting is do a good job. An uninvolved admin can block the same user indefinite times. An involved admin is one that has shown strong feelings about the user, possibly before the admin got the bit, or strong feelings about the issue, e.g. an article. --Philcha (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocking many times is a silly thing to do. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had to block repeat copyright infringers many times. I usually start with a short warning block and proceed towards indefinite if they won't stop. It doesn't seem like a silly thing to do. :) Repeat infringers don't make me mad or anything; I don't become emotionally involved. But blocking them is important (federally mandated, even), and having to find a different administrator to do it each time seems like unnecessary busywork. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Warning blocks are silly. Get the person who was blocked to promise not to do it again. If they won't, they should be indeffed. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Temporary copyright blocks sometimes do work. People make a lot of promises they don't intend to keep, and a block brings home that policy will be enforced. Most of the indef blocks I've seen for copyvios, while often unavoidable, lead to socking. If people are vested in their identity, the threat of losing it can work to protect the project from disruption. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that if ONE temporary copyright block works, it works. If you unblock and they start up again, get a second admin to indef. Simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or a waste of my time and another administrator's time that offers no possible benefit. (Note, though: you don't have to unblock a temporary block; it just expires.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's laziness, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that's a profound lack of familiarity with the workload in copyright cleanup. Creating hurdles that interfere with efficient work with no demonstrated need is not useful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No; I'm telling you that limiting the tools in the arsenal against copyright violators (the area I know) for no demonstrable good reason serves no benefit to the project. I don't see that you've yet demonstrated how it helps in combatting BLP issues or 3RR issues or any of the other standard blocks we encounter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just have seen a lot of evidence pile up that WP:INVOLVED is a headache. I'm surprised that you think blocking the same account many, many times for various lengths is a reasonable thing to have single administrators do. I guess I'll put it another way: there are two kinds of blocks in Wikipedia: blocks that the vast majority of the community thinks are reasonable and blocks that are ridiculously contentious. Most of the argument over the contentious blocks happens because of WP:UNINVOLVED. I don't see how that particular piece of the administration policy helps you since you're essentially ALWAYS uninvolved when it comes to blocking fly-by-nighters. The issue is that WP:INVOLVED cannot be objectively decided. Maybe my proposal isn't good for the reasons you're trying to explain, but the issue is that this part of the administrator policy has only two functions: 1) Irrelevance and 2) to allow people to argue. What good is such a policy? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be good cause to consider better approaches to WP:INVOLVED, but your suggested handling here, as I've indicated below, seems only to add unnecessary red tape in the blocks which are not contentious. There's not enough hours in the day to get the work done as it is. I'm not sure what a good solution to the problem you're trying to address here would be; my mop and I tend to be hyperfocused. Perhaps some community process to simplify where INVOLVED applies, ala the rather toothless WP:WQA? Admins are by and large able to grasp consensus (or should be), and if consensus is that they are involved, they ought to then have the sense to stay away. Yes, I'm suggesting that more process may be the solution, but I think it would be better than imposing additional process (find another admin) across the board. The admins who watch WP:CP, WP:SCV, WP:3RR, and WP:AIV generally are not "involved" to any degree, and if a name passes through multiple times shouldn't have to find somebody else to handle it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Oppose. WP:UNINVOLVED, as a logical extension of Conflict of interest, is not just a defense for contributors who might otherwise be inappropriately affected by administrator actions but a protection for administrators in situations where passion might overrule reason and a shield for the community's reputation as a whole.  Removing this barrier opens the community to too many potential problems to justify the limited situations where thhis change would help. --Allen3 talk 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not if they can only block once. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The rules on administrative involvement apply to much more than just blocking. – xeno talk 14:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Page protection can also be appealed. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rules on administrative involvement apply to pretty much any administrative action an administrator takes. Just because certain decisions can be appealed doesn't mean we should throw out the rules and allow admins to act in situations with which they've been involved and refer to the check/balance that it can be "appealed". They just shouldn't act when involved in the first instance (absent compelling justification). – xeno talk 15:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But rules on administrator involvement are easily gamed by all sides. That's the issue here. I'm okay with retaining it as an ideal: but it's unworkable as policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Given a talented enough wikilawyer, all policies and guidelines are easily-gamed. That doesn't mean we should throw them all out. – xeno talk 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But a gamed policy is effectively one that isn't functioning any more. If I can argue that literally every admin is involved with me, then I'm invincible. Rather than waste the community's time trying to prove that an administrator is not involved, maybe it's better to just let them block the gamers? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Invincible? Not really. More likely community banned for wikilawyering disruption. – xeno talk 11:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Try to imagine what would happen to AE if the few admins patrolling those pages could only block users once. Find a solution to that and I might change my mind. <b style="color:#874">u</b><b style="color:#773">n</b><b style="color:#673">☯</b><b style="color:#573">m</b><b style="color:#473">i</b></i> 15:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Longer blocks and less tolerance for recidivism is the solution. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved from WP:VPP – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support The "involved rule" is an intrinsically ABF rule. We ask everyone to assume good faith of all people at all times, yet presume that administrators are incapable of good faith.  I've been attacked for not having a conflict of interest, but having something someone else can construe as a conflict of interest.  Exacerbating the situation, saying "no, actually, I don't have any personal feelings in the matter" is seen as deceitful denial rather than exculpatory honesty. With all the talk on WP:RfA about increasing the number of administrators, getting rid of the rule would have serious, positive implications for administrator recruitment and retention. Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to clarify: you support the proposal to place the following in this policy: "An administrator should block a user only once. Reblocks should be done by another administrator."? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal is rather to replace the uninvolved administrators section with that text. While that text is not perfect, it does remedy several issues as I outlined. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal poses problems though too; the current rule doesn't only apply to blocks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be noted that I generally favor indef blocks for anything other than 3RR, to be lifted when the blocked editor acknowledges the cause of the block and agrees to change the subject behavior. Thus, I never have cause to "re-block" a user and find that the technique works well. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can't get behind that for copyright. :/ We may have no choice but to indef-block, but sockpuppeting copyright violators are a pain in the neck. We have several open WP:CCIs of contributors who have jumped from account to account, and digging through articles to figure out which account's edits need evaluation is a nightmare. I'd much rather rehabilitate when possible, and sometimes temporary blocks do work for that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Indefinite != infinite. Rehabilitation with indef blocks is only limited by the intransigence of the blocked editor (assuming, of course, that the block was proper in the first place).  If they're socking because they're indefinitely blocked but would actually abide a short, defined-length block, that's a situation I've not personally run across before. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know that, having lifted quite a few indefs myself, but quite often in practice it does = infinite. If the contributor feels that the account is not salvageable, they frequently seem to just jump to another account, where we have to identify them and mop up after them all over again. I don't want to name names, but I keep in mind one contributor who was indefinitely blocked for copyright violations, was caught socking and blocked there, came back to work through his indef block and has become a good contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that in this situation the single indef-block worked properly, right? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No; did you miss the part where the sock was blocked? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocking socks is perfectly allowed under my hypothetical system. It's per account not per individual. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Users" are people not accounts. The language you propose says: "An administrator should block a user only once". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. So changed. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I was blocked by an admin with whom I'd previously had an acrimonious content dispute in the same topic area. I reported this but nothing came of it. Seemed admins didn't want to discipline other admin. My point is, WP:UNINVOLVED is useless if it isn't applied. <font color="#006600" face="Felix Titling">RomaC <font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">TALK 16:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:UNINVOLVED has much more to it than just blocking, and therefore replacing it with "An administrator should block a user only once. Reblocks should be done by another administrator" makes no sense. The bottom line is that, outside of emergency situations, an administrator using administrative tools involving an editorial dispute with another editor should be avoided. Kingturtle (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What happens with the disputants disagree as to whether they are in a dispute or not? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What happens with the huh? Kingturtle (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I claim we are in a dispute and you block me, are you involved? Who makes that determination and how? Not easy in some cases. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for several reasons: this would allow administrators to block users they are in disputes with, which is a bad idea; it would allow administrators to use deletion/protection tools on articles they are heavily involved in, which is also a bad idea; and I can't see any reason why the fact that an administrator has blocked someone in the past should by itself be a bar to blocking them again. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already happening, we just waste ridiculous amounts of text trying to "prove" that the administrator is "involved". That system doesn't work. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While the current text is not perfect, the proposed replacement is (imo) worse. Drawing from my own experiences (being familiar with them and all), in doing copyright cleanup, I see repeat infringers frequently and have blocked the same user more than once. I'm not emotionally involved because of this; we just usually give them a chance before giving them the boot. I could track down other admins in these cases, but the requirement that I must seems like process wonkery. If somebody feels I've imposed an unfair copyright block, they can easily request unblocking and explain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think indefinite blocks that can be appealed makes sense in such situations. If you can get the user to promise not to do it again, then it worked. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Have you never run into a repeat infringer who promised to stop but then persisted? It happens routinely, particulary with those who seem to have troubling mastering English (though, strangely, not exclusively). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is how I envision such a situation happening: 1) Block offender indefinitely with an explanation of how they can get unblocked. 2) Offender appeals block and promises not to offend again. 3) Offender offends again. 4) Admin finds another admin who hasn't yet blocked offender to block them indefinitely with an explanation that they will need to find a mentor or a proxy editor in order to demonstrate their good faith. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. In other words, repeat infringers should be blocked until we can come up with a system whereby they don't game and do not re-infringe. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And digging up another admin to block here is useful how? And necessary why? I think there's valid concerns to admins blocking contributors with whom they have conlfict, but this proposal seems like unnecessary bureaucracy that will slow things down and double the workload with no value added. It's needless red tape. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - seems to replace a specific rule with a very wide-reaching general one that is counter-intuitive. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Counter-intuitive until you try to decide how you know whether you are in an editorial dispute or not. It isn't possible to have an objective definition of "involved" while it is possible to count blocks. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just err on the side of caution. There's nearly 800 active admins, no one needs to go it alone. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With 800 active admins, why should any block more than once per account? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Prior knowledge of the situation and contributor, not needing to have to re-invent the wheel or make a new post to ANI every time a problem user steps out of line. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 11:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose In addition to what Moonriddengirl says (all of which IMO is good sense), I'm thinking about the long-term consequences:  All those people who are claiming that every admin is "involved" will then be saying, "Hey!  You can't block me!  You blocked me six years ago!"  Also, in the category of "follow the money", it looks to me like there are twenty different admins represented in ScienceApologist's block log for problems that range from edit warring to arb enforcement to socking.  This amounts to a proposal that none of these 20 admins or ArbCom members ever be permitted to block SA again.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of these admins are no longer active/blocked themselves! We already have people saying, "Hey! You can't block me! You blocked me six years ago!". Follow the money seems to me also to be a type of WP:AGF abrogation, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yeah... no. If I block a sock of Grawp, should I never block one of his socks again?  — fetch ·  comms   03:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal is not to block individuals but accounts. Different accounts = different chance to block. Block as many socks as you want. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The idea is to give the person who may be acted upon by Admin tools a fair hearing from someone who isn't directly involved in the conflict. Your proposal would require a significant amount of new admins to deal with the more troublesome users of the community. DISCLAIMER: Not an admin, just someone interested in policy. Hasteur (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Has asking for an uninvolved administrator ever worked in more complicated situations? What's the longest blocklog? Can we quantify this claim of yours? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Typically administrators who are involved in a dispute seek a uninvolved admin to act upon the behavior, thereby removing themselves before questions of their motives get called on the administrative action. The rule as it stands currently, is so that admins who are familiar with the modus operandi of a violator can act on it quickly and the acting on it does not make them involved as it's following the community's rules, not being involved in a dispute. Hasteur (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that this reinforces my suggestion. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggest closure: Other than Jclemens who seems to be making a philosophical point rather than supporting the amendment as proposed, there doesn't appear to be any support for this. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is still valuable discussion happening. Do you think this is disruptive in some way to continue it? Even though everyone is knee-jerk responding in this way, it's useful to see what all the different ways people look at this situation. Also, others have commented in favor of it above. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note I won't be responding further to you on this proposal. This should be interpreted as a realization that this proposal as written is going nowhere, rather than an accession to your rebuttal. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 11:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see why this should apply to IP accounts, since they may not be the same user each time. Like socks, IMO there should be no limit there.
 * However, being blocked is a black mark on one's history. When I've blocked people wrongly, I've tried to make it very clear in the edit summary of the unblock, as well as on their talk page, that it was my mistake, so that it's not dredged up in future conflicts as evidence that they're a problematic editor. I suspect that allowing emotionally involved admins to block would end up damaging innocent users' reputations and cause them credibility problems later on. With the uninvolved rule, if other admins criticize the blocking admin for being involved, a previously blocked user can use that to defend their reputation.
 * That said, at what point would repeatedly blocking a user be considered getting involved? — kwami (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language and Serbian language is two different languages
____________________________________________________________________________________________ If the gases in the exhaust air and Jerusalem, would be necessary measures to ensure safety! ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Glede ispušnih plinova i zagađivanja zraka u Jeruzalemu, bilo bi potrebito poduzeti mjere sigurnosti! ____________________________________________________________________________________________ У погледу издувних гасова и загађења ваздуха у Јерусалиму, било би потребно да се предузму мере безбедности! (latin script); (U pogledu izduvnih gasova i zagađenja vazduha u Jerusalimu, bilo bi potrebno da se preduzmu mere bezbednosti!) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________
 * Example;
 * English
 * Croatian
 * Serbian (official script);
 * Documents:
 * http://www.ihjj.hr/index_en.html Institute of Croatian language
 * http://www.cla-croatian.com/?gclid=CNvpsNiSoqMCFQI03wod4T_i5A Croatian language Academy
 * http://www.nsk.hr/UserFiles/File/Slu%C5%BEeno%20prihva%C4%87anje%20izmjena%20ISO%20639-2%20Registration%20Authority.pdf Different languages
 * http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php Language code list
 * http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=292-16 Ethnologue report
 * http://www.muturzikin.com/carteseurope/5.htm Dialects map
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Slavic_languages.png Slavic languages map
 * http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/pp114/borna28/LANGUAGE/LangualeofEurope.png Language map of Europe
 * http://learn-croatian.com/imenice.php Croatian grammar
 * http://languagesofeurope.co.uk/Languagesmap.thumb.jpg Language map Eurpe-English
 * http://languagesofeurope.co.uk/frame.page.html Croatian
 * http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5632950-croatian-grammar New Croatian grammar
 * http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/European_language Language and script in Europe modern and history
 * PROBLEM:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_grammar&oldid=359782270
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_grammar&redirect=no
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_grammar
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Slavic_languages&action=historysubmit&diff=381420306&oldid=372728193
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Slavic_languages
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavic_languages&action=historysubmit&diff=381852792&oldid=381594596
 * 7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages

Ivan Štambuk is Serbian chauvinist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivan_%C5%A0tambuk


 * He's a Croat. I find it revealing that you think that anyone who disagrees with you must not be. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Specific interpretation of uninvolved re involvement in policy
The uninvolved administrator section contains the following language: Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. In particular the phrase disputes on topics, is unclear on this point: Does topics mean articles or does topics mean articles, policies, guidelines, and other non-article space stuff. In other words if an admin participates in policy discussions on NPOV, Notability, Verifiability, OR et.al. are they now involved in these topics and therefore cannot perform admin tasks (specifically deletion activities—closing Afd, Prods and CSD) that involve these policies?--Mike Cline (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As the primary author of that clause, I added it after my personal excoriation on the basis of intervening in the AfD participation of a user with whom I had disagreed in a separate and unrelated AfD. I essentially added it in an attempt to strengthen the wording to prevent other administrators from construing involvement narrowly, as I had, and finding themselves on the wrong side of an ANI lynch mob.  Thus, it was never meant to apply to policy discussions, and it's really up to the community to decide how it should be applied in such cases.  In my own mind, the former (articles only) seems the more accurate of the two interpretations. Jclemens (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Mike, I think you are missing the point somewhere. While editors have WP:COI guidelines as a benchmark, administrators additionally have the 'involved' guidelines. The concept of having WP:INVOLVED is to provide administrators a reference point to ask themselves, is there a "conflict of interest" in their administrative action? As the author of this small addition, I can tell you that the link of CoI does not extend to all the metaphoric six degrees of separation. In other words, if you've discussed AfD policy and even disputed on that, it doesn't disallow you from closing AfDs. However, if you've commented within an AfD, you obviously already know that you cannot therefore close the AfD. And as far as your question on what constitutes topics, basically everything! But like JClemens says, the community should reach a consensus on that. However, I believe the scope of WP:INVOLVED extends to all areas where you can undertake any administrative action. Thanks and warm regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wifione - Thanks in my mind Uninvolved is pretty clear when it comes to participation in articles, related AfD or content/behavoir issues with editors. However, it is not so clear in the policy space.  On more than one occasion, editors have suggested that because I have participated in List related policy discussions, that I am Involved and should not close a List related AfD (obviously lists in which I have never contributed or otherwise participated in).  If that logic extended to administrators participating in any of our major policy areas discussions, we would all be very Involved. Thoughts?--Mike Cline (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, One could perhaps request for comment on the general issue; not your specific issue. It'll create a precedent for changing/updating WP:INVOLVED. My thoughts remain the same. If any administrator is involved in list related policy discussions, it in no way makes him/her involved in list related AfDs. Regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  18:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Need help publishing my page
I have been trying to publish my page for sometime now but unfortunatly I keep getting deleted can someone help me? My page is Purdy's Method. This is my website and my concept so how do I valadate my own information if it is comming from me? Please help me with this matter. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purdysmethod (talk • contribs) 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A big issue here is that you are starting a page for which you may have a conflict of interest WP:COI. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a resource for advertisement.  There are policies dealing with articles and you have to be very careful that your article is notable WP:NOTE and does not fall under WP:ADS.  R mosler  | ●   18:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding Tweet/Share button on Wiki Pages
Dear Admin(s),

Could you please let us know if there is a plan to add share/tweet button on to the pages? It would be more convenient to share articles on to Social sites. Waiting for a reply. Thank you.. Briondale (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits to improve senetence flow, grammar, tense
Have made a few changes to improve sentence flow, change past tense to present tense ( proper grammar with things which exist now ) etc. Nucleophilic (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC - INVOLVED and Policy Development
Although I believe there is clarity around the meaning and application of WP:INVOLVED in the context of participation in articles and interactions with editors, I am not sure such clarity exists in the context of participation in policy/guideline discussions. That clarity is missing because there is no implicit or explicit reference to INVOLVED as it relates to policy/guideline discussions.

The premise of the question is based on the accepted concept that an INVOLVED sysop should not close an AfD in which they are INVOLVED in some way.

Many editors with sysop status participate in policy/guideline discussions. In varying degrees, they propose changes to policy, support or oppose proposed changes with varying degrees of veracity, provide their interpretations of those policies to various contexts and otherwise participate in the ongoing development, interpretation and application of our policies and guidelines. In the simplest of terms, they are involved in the policy/guideline aspects of our encyclopedia. So here is the question.

If a sysop involves themselves in specific policy/guideline development does that now make them INVOLVED when those policies/guidelines are invoked/interpreted in an AfD. A few Examples: POLL Statement: A sysop should be considered INVOLVED if they have participated in policy/guideline discussions and thus not close AfDs in which those policies/guidelines are being invoked, interpreted or otherwise applied. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If a sysop participates in WP:N, WP:V, or WP:RS policy discussions, are they INVOLVED and thus should not close AfDs where these policies are being invoked or interpreted?
 * If a sysop participates in WP:BLP policy discussions, are they INVOLVED and thus should not close AfDs involving BLPs.
 * If a sysop participates in WP:NOTFILM guideline discussions, are they INVOLVED and thus should not close AfDs involving Films
 * If a sysop participates in WP:List or WP:SAL guideline discussions, are they INVOLVED and thus should not close AfDs involving Lists

Disagree (I disagree with the above statement as a matter of general application of the INVOLVED concept)

 * Disagree as RFC initiator --Mike Cline (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree strongly. Such a stance would narrow the pool of admins who can act at AfDs, thereby making AfD all the more complicated. An active admin will eventually interact in some way with all the core policies, be that taking part in a discussion such as this one (a policy discussion) or actively editing the policies themselves. From a personal perspective, I am myself heavily involved in all areas of copyright cleanup on Wikipedia: WP:C and WP:NFC both show my hand. Would this mean that I should no longer work at WP:CP or WP:CCI? If I am still to be trusted on those boards, why would I not be trusted to close an AfD where copyright violations exist? Understanding policy, even to the point of helping encode it, does not make one incapable of neutral interactions involving it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree strongly. This might knock out most of our best and most active administrators, leaving AfD closures to those with less knowledge of policy and guidelines as they haven't been involved in discussing them. And the idea that someone like Moonriddengirl shouldn't close AfDs which involve copyright problems boggles the mind. She should be involved in closing such AfDs, not excluded from them. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree the mere fact that someone has been involved in developing a policy does not mean they should be barred from helping enforce it. On the contrary, they will be the people best equipped to do so. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 13:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree It's quite clear that the community has to reach a consensus on whether an administrator, who has gotten involved in policy discussions, should be allowed to close AfDs, for example. My viewpoint is similar to Mike's. Administrators who get involved in policy updation discussions cannot be restricted from involving themselves at the AfD level as that is considering the scope of 'involvement' too far and wide to be reasonable.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  17:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. This is such an idiotic idea that I'm convinced that it's a strawman argument.  (I'm not going to look.  If there's an editor who supports this, I really don't want to know.)  Who knows the policies and guidelines better than the editors who wrote them?  Why should our most informed editors be prohibited from using their knowledge for our benefit?  If you care so little about the relevant guideline that you've never asked a question, answered a question, or even fixed a spelling error, why should you be considered "better" than the person who has done these things?  Ignorance is not one of the WP:Principles that this community supports.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree - Unlike some content, policies and guidelines tend to have very considerable input and are not highly emotive areas. A user (any user) who edits a policy will either see that edit reversed or gaining consensus very quickly. Reference to that policy in a debate is much more likely to be communally endorsed if it has stayed in the policy. The only real exceptions are 1/ people who forum shop or edit war fanatically on specific policy issues and they will probably be quite few in number and quite well known, and 2/ cases of "edit policy then cite the change in the present case", which is a bit transparent if the change is not consensus. Also consider that many admins edit, discuss, and update policies and guidelines insightfully over time - since policies should reflect communal norms, maintaining them and fine tuning them over time is something admins can and should do. An admin who has improved a policy or thoughtfully participated in a policy discussion has often shown a good understanding of community views on the policy rather than any kind of adverse behavior. FT2 (Talk 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree How could any active sysop close anything? Possibly the intended meaning is that a sysop who is particularly active supporting one particular strong view of a policy should not close a discussion where his specific position is the key question. I'd support that.I think, for example, it applies to me in some cases, and I do not close such AfDs except in opposition to my own opinion if the consensus is clear in that direction. But I certainly participate in discussions of the applicability of BLP policy, and I will close BLPs. I might even say that someone not sufficiently interested in BLP policy to participate in its discussion might want to stay clear of closing them.     DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * I think there is some merit to the idea of clarifying when involvement in policy development clouds an administrator's perceived neutrality, but the poll as worded seems overly harsh. Policies such as Verifiability are so crucial to AfD discussions for example, that an editor who has developed it would be effectively barred from closing most AfDs, which I don't think we want. Similar reasoning might apply to (excuse the jargon) WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA with Wikiquette alerts, WP:BLOCK with WP:ANI and WP:USERNAME with WP:UAA for example. Another issue is that those responsible for crafting a policy are often the ones with the most insight into it, and so we would be depriving these fora of our most ablest administrators. <font face="New York">Skomorokh  13:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It might perhaps be more productive if an editor who agreed with the thrust of the proposal would frame it, so as to avoid the impression of a strawman/pre-emptive poll. <font face="New York">Skomorokh  13:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As an user who has regularly needed to juggle with the concepts of involved, uninvolved, semi-involved, and so on, I must say this was a poorly conceived, and poorly framed request for comment, and even poorer in the form of a poll. Sweeping statements on this cause more problems for administrators (and editors) than anything currently does. Policy is framed in such a way that users should look at things on a case-by-case basis, based on the specific circumstances and factors in that case, and use good judgement; the principle behind it can apply to most situations with a few exceptions (including those that are specified and those that involve the all-important common sense). This sort of thing is what is governing the issue that Mike Cline seems to be trying to raise. It's not mere evidence that an user has participated in a discussion which determines whether they are involved or not - by that count, if someone only interrupted a discussion to ask someone to clarify something, that someone would be deemed as involved - that is absurd. In other words, mere participation/discussion alone is not what determines whether an editor, let alone an administrator, is involved in/with something/someone. The poll really needs to be closed so that something more useful (and sensible) can be considered in relation to the topic. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are potential circumstances where I can see this as being problematic so I would be against any black or white application of the principle. Common sense needs to be applied case-by-case.  Lambanog (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am closing this RFC as originator because it has recieved sufficient input to answer the question I posed (it was a question, not a proposal). Thanks for the insights.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

need small favor
My students are working on WP articles as part of their the English class I teach in Mexico City. On Friday, they handed me proposals and bibliographies which I approved. Some are doing rewrites or expansions but some are doing completely new articles. One of these new articles is Bernardo Quintana. They wanted to know how to start an article from zero and I showed them. I realized what we started was only a sentence or two, but this article got speedily deleted. User:Yousou informed my student but she tells me only one of you guys can revert the speedy delete. Quintana does deserve an article. He was one of the primary designers of the Mexico City Metro, my students found 10 published sources about him and he has an article in Spanish WP. Can you undo the delete and give us a week to get the article up? Thank you.Thelmadatter (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to undo the delete. You can just recreate the article at the link you provided and make sure that this time it is sufficiently well sourced and developed not to qualify for speedy deletion. If your student wants time for working on it he or she can build it in their sandbox space. A sandbox can be created by simply making a link to User:Username/Sandbox - there the article can be build without stressing over whether ti might be deleted before its well sourced and written. When working on an article for a couple of hours the article can also be protected from speedy deletion by adding an template, so that patrolling users will see that the page is still being worked on. Best regards. ·Maunus· ƛ · 16:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have recreated the articles single edit in your student's sandbox at : User:FabGalvez/Sandbox. Here (s)he can work and experiment all (s)he likes without fearing deletion. When done it can be transfered to the actual article space. It would be helpful if you taught your student to do initial work in their sandbox spaces and transfer it to the article space when it is of sufficiently high qulity not to be instantly deleted. ·Maunus· ƛ · 16:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You might find it easier to link the students to either WP:USERSPACEDRAFT or WP:WIZARD to start drafting articles. The latter has quite a few instructions along the way, and lets you submit an article to be checked before being made live.  Chzz  ► 23:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Defining "involved" more explicitly
Experience has shown that the involved/uninvolved thing gets gamed horribly by both sides during complicated disputes. This tends to snarl up the process and make entrenchment worse. May I suggest we add a preamble to Involved adminssection? I had in mind something along the following lines:

Any thoughts? Roger Davies talk 06:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A recipe for wikilawyering by wikilawyers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And how is the current section not a recipe for wiki-lawyering? :)  Roger Davies  talk 17:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the curetn situation is open to mis-understanding. The above might hlep but why not jusy say...
 * ''An administrator will generally be considered involved if they have recently or significantly expressed opinions about persons or situations involved in the dispute.
 * Much like the siuation with local councelors, if they express an view before something is revied they are considerd to have already made up thier mind and thus cannot be considerd neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't work very well here. We don't have enough admins to give every dispute a fresh pair of eyes, nor do we have the ability to conduct our reviews in private.  Admins are encouraged to participate in public discussions at places like ANI.  In many cases, discussion of problems also occurs at user and article talk pages.  This is entirely normal since we want admins to guide and help people, and not merely enforce rules.  While judges in the real world often get criticized for making public comments before rendering a verdict, our open process encourages admins to engage in public discussion before taking precipitous action.  Because of that, a standard of involvement based primarily on prior comment is likely to be very open to gaming.  Or presented another way:  If you don't participate in prior discussion of the issues and people, then you are a "bad" admin that doesn't understand the issue and work through consensus.  But if you do participate in prior discussions, then you are a "bad" admin that is prejudiced and had already made up his mind before the whole issue was presented.  It's a no-win situation.  Regardless of behavior, people unhappy with the outcome will have further grounds to complain.  This becomes even more true when admins take a prolonged interest working in a particular area.  We simply don't have enough admins to give a fresh pair of eyes to every dispute in many of the controversial areas (and it's not obvious that doing so is actually an improvement over someone who knows the area well).  But the longer someone works in the same area, the more they will have a history of "prior views".  One can add clauses about administrative actions versus editorial actions, but that also gets to be a very fuzzy distinction once when one starts commenting on people rather than issues.  Dragons flight (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

interacted personally with the editor, or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute, or is so vague as to be meaningless. Is posting snarky comments on someones talk page "interaction"? Is posting non-snarky comments "interaction"?William M. Connolley (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless the comments are made in the course of an admin action, then both snarky and non-snarky qualify as interacting personally, and are both subject of course to the overriding "recently or significantly".  Roger Davies  talk 10:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should be made clear that ths would not apply to communications as an Admin action, but only with non admin communications. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually like Slater's suggestion above ("An administrator will generally be considered involved if they have recently or significantly expressed opinions about persons or situations involved in the dispute."). I appreciate Roger's intent, but his suggestion is indeed too imprecise. What is "the broader topic"? Science? Physics? Geophysics? Climate science? Science of the Carbon cycle? Weathering of rocks? Actions of weak acids on calcium compounds? And what are "related articles"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of points here, I think.
 * A common scenario is thus: Admin A fraternises with Users B & C. Users B & C get into a dispute with User X. Admin A blocks User X as an uninvolved admin. For this scenario, Steven's definition is much too narrow and ignores too much of what else is in the section. What happens, for instance, where an admin heavily edits an article without expressing an opinion?
 * The "broader topic" depends on the context and the size/specificality of the topic. If the topic/category is small, then any article within it would qualify. If the topic is vast, baseball players or rock musicians, for example, then a closer affinity is needed. This ambiguity is already present in the current section incidentally.
 * Overall, the objective here is to summarise what the section says, not to reinvent the wheel.  Roger Davies  talk10:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would add that it is unprofessional and counterproductive for an admin to express an opinion on content issues, especially while acting in an admin capacity. Yesterday, I came across this wonderful post on an enforcement page: "As an uninvolved administrator who agrees with username on actual content issues, I ..." It's like a judge presiding over an ongoing case speaking to the press and saying, "As a man who personally agrees with the defendant, ...", and then appointing himself judge in case after case involving the same defendant. Our system of jurisdiction is in need of an upgrade. -- JN 466  11:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just realsied I need to put in the admin action caveat.
 * ''An administrator will generally be considered involved if they have recently or significantly expressed opinions about persons or situations involved in the dispute. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement.
 * Stealing one of Rogers ideas.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm all for conciseness but how would this apply in a situation where the admin's actions make it abundantly clear that they are partisan, but they don't actually express an opinion?  Roger Davies  talk 10:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How would that work, in a world where all we have are utterances? If the admin actions as admin actions are problematic, we have the usual review mechanisms. So I still like Slaters suggestion more than yours - it's at least as operational, and shorter. I also agree with DF (above and below) - bias is indeed what we want to avoid. But I see no good way of measuring this unless it's visible in their contributions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me revisit a point I made previously in other forums. The issue is not "involvement", and never was. The issue is "bias", or in some cases "appearance of bias" (whether or not actual bias exist). Except is very blatant cases where someone expresses their biases directly, we can't really know what is going on in someone's heart and mind. Hence we craft rules about "involvement" and other things that we can hopefully observe in the hopes of getting at the hidden biases that we can't really know. However, if one wants to talk about the core principle and aspiration, then our goal is to avoid bias. This is why I don't really like Roger's proposed nutshell. It advances specific rules (that may be open to gaming) but never actually strikes at the core of the matter. It would be better, in my opinion, to say: "Administrators should be reluctant to act in situations where they may be perceived as having a preexisting bias for or against one party or outcome. Indicators of apparent bias may include (but are not necessarily limited to) prior involvements with the issues or parties such as: X, Y, Z." Dragons flight (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Problom with that is that if tehy are going to act in a bias way then alowing them the 'reluctant' get out won't stop it. It just seems a recipy for wikilawerying of the kind that the proposal is desinged to addresss. By the yes yes I do think that any kind of interaction may indicate 'involvment'. If a admin blocks a user who has been in conflict with some of his mates, then yes ther is the clear posibility of bias.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would hope that admins are generally mature enough to internalize guidelines and aspirational goals, and that they can understand the underlying principle in addition to any black-and-white rules one might also choose to include. More importantly, I would hope all admins will listen to community criticism when it is justified.  If one wants to include a list of specific cases that are always off-limits, then the section certainly could do that.  However, I believe a summary statement of the over-arching principle should be broader and more flexible than that.  Hence, I don't like expressing the nutshell summary with just a list of specific prohibitions.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have another concern. Assume we have a field where, e.g. 98% of all experts agree, and where naturally a large number of other people, looking at the evidence, will also come to a similar conclusion. Any admin who looks into the content conflict will, more likely than not, tend to come to an opinion that agrees with the expert side. That is, an informed admin will alway always be "biased". Do we want to leave enforcement issued to people who are uninformed? Or do we need to use one-shot admins ("sorry, now that you understand the issue, you are out...")? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are pro's and con's both ways and this seems to moving into broader meta discussion areas. My proposal seeks only to distill existing longstanding policy. It doesn't change or amend it.  Roger Davies  talk 12:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with admins having a view on content, but they should keep that view private if they want to act as uninvolved admins. Content shouldn't come into it, just like it doesn't in arbcom cases. Admin decisions should be based on policies, guidelines and arbcom remedies, not content. -- JN 466  12:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Support addition of the preamble. Propose adding that administrators will be considered involved if they publicly express a view on the merits of the relevant content dispute. -- JN 466  12:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As above, I don't really like Roger's nutshell. However, I am going to offer this specific counter-proposal for discussion:.  I made a temporary edit to the article to show my suggestion, which adds a more general nutshell (which I prefer for reasons outlined above) and adds a list of example problematic behavior to the text of the section rather than to the nutshell.   The list is largely based on Roger's though tweaked some.  Obviously the specific text can be subject to further discussion.  Dragons flight (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. Should probably add something about "recent" or "significant" to the wording of my list, as per the original Roger suggestion. Dragons flight (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the basic idea of clarifying this, and I like the "generally" in the lead, but I too worry about wikilawyering and worry that the points as originally written would hamper our elder and more prolific admins in particular. "recently" and "significantly" goes a long way to alleviating that in the first two points. Definitions of recent and significant will vary, but I think there's some commensense in saying that a rancorous dispute that wound up at RFC/U is probably "significant"; a three exchange disagreement on a talk page yesterday may be "involvment" whereas a three exchange disagreement four years ago is probably not. With point three, the whole Six degrees of separation worries me. I like Dragons flight's proposed text on that.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The six degrees of separation thing concerns me too (and funnily enough I used exactly that expression chatting this through with a friend last night). Roger Davies talk 13:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great minds, as they say. ;D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Dragon Flight's proposal, prefer it in fact to Roger's original one. One quibble though: in point 2, "similar topics" may be too broad (anything involving science? BLP violations?). I preferred Roger's "related articles within the broader topic". -- JN 466  14:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I've just thought of a problem with point 3 that could impact my work directly. I have interacted personally with every admin on Wikipedia that I know of who has ever done copyright work and with most of the regular non-admin editors. (Can't help it; I'm friendly. Our work is tedious, and an occasional "howdy" helps.) If one of the WP:SCV editors tags an article as a copyvio and the article's creator disputes it, would I be too involved to act? Occasionally I like another admin to offer a second opinion on a copyright matter, but we're a pretty small group. How would that factor in? (Yes, we can always go to ANI, but I worry about process for process sake...not to mention the heat/light ratio at ANI. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You note the deafening silence in response to your question. Always the mark of a good question. ;) -- JN 466  20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to note that Science Apologist's proposal from a month or two ago (one admin could only block a particular editor once) was almost entirely orthogonal to this. I don't think the proposed wording reflects community consensus, which is to see if any sort of a connection can be made between an administrator who's taken an administrative action and the user subject to that action, and, if so, to call for the administrator's head on ANI. :-S Jclemens (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I can't think of any way of elaborating a formal definition of "involved" that doesn't cause more problems than it solves, in terms of WP:GAMEing and wikilawyering. To my knowledge there is not even an essay elaborating in more detail the informal understanding of what "involved" means in practice; this would be a far better place to start clarifying this issue. "Involved" is such a fundamental aspect of how adminship works, I can't see a simple definition of a nuanced concept and complex practice helping anyone. It requires day-to-day common sense to manage the nuances involved in "involved", fundamental to which is transparency and admin peer review. Any formal definition is highly likely to be inimical to transparency, encouraging admins to stay within the rules as a matter of procedure rather than of substance, sometimes with the best of intentions and sometimes nefariously. At the end of the day, we elect admins to use their heads to reasonably act in the interests of Wikipedia; "involved" is not an either-or concept precluding action or opinion, it is a danger sign painted in different shades of red depending on the context. Rd232 talk 14:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal seems motivated by Arbcom issues that could involve a much more specific and easier solution: provide a means by which the "uninvolvedness" of an admin be challenged when continuing to act within a contentious area (eg arbcom enforcement of topic X sanctions) where their "uninvolvedness" is in question (that is, where their "involvement" is of such an extent as to be said to cause concerns). That could be by some swift mechanism involving an expedited Arbcom decision on the issue, or else just a well-defined way to raise the issue at AN. A community review of uninvolvedness in a specific context as needed is far better than a horribly blunt rule. Rd232 talk 14:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This thread, along with pages and pages and pages of wrangling and the ceaseless bickering and sniping, underscore the fact that the current m.o. is broken and we need a police force. Scroll down to Dr. Frankenstein, I presume? —Precedingunsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk •contribs) Good grief! Give Yopienso a traffic ticket for failing to sign! :-) --Yopienso (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With 1700+ designated administrators, why should it take an act of Wikipedia congress to motivate an appropriate level of "uninvolved" administrator oversight to known "contentious" articles and their talk pages? Is there anything more Wiki-basic than recognizing and correcting obvious WP:NPA infractions...where much of the "civility" problems have their genesis?  JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are less than 800 active admins, and that for a fairly weak criterion of activity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Dragon flight's edit to Administrators linked to above is the best solution, as long as everyone remembers that it is intended as a help to people who want to act in good faith to actually act in good faith. If an Admin needs to defend her/himself from accusations of being involved or biassed thru hair-splitting or selective use of evidence, then the Admin should re-examine the situation. (Or, if the situation truly demands it, honestly invoke WP:IAR & explain why she/he is putting their reputation on the line.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the answer to solving this is a yet another hard and fast rule. Part of being an admin is an expectation that the person has a modicum of common sense. If they don't and they routinely block people they have engaged in editorial disputes with they should not be an admin. If an admin sees someone edit warring, making repeated nasty personal attacks, or committing another "bright line" offense they shouldn't have to go ask another admin, which could take hours in some cases, to handle it unless they are directly involved in a dispute with that editor that is germane to the reason they could be blocked and the dispute is active at that very moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm uncomfortable specifying this rule so much. There are downsides for either side (admins trying to get out of the spirit of the rule and non-admins trying to expand the letter).  Involvement is nebulous, perhaps unavoidably so.  Our current situation generates problems, but those are dwarfed by the larger incentive problems surrounding deep content disputes. Protonk (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this: An administrator is involved if he or she cares about the content in dispute, but uninvolved if motivated solely by personal favoritism or animosity.98.203.142.210 (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's no change from current practice ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This policy section is analogous to the Arbitration policy's section on recusal. However that section is worded very differently. The Arb policy simply says that they should recuse if they believe there's a conflict of interest. It specifically says that merely reverting a user, which could involve a content dispute, is not enough for a recusal. Whether we make the Arbitration policy closer to the Administrator policy, or vice versa, I suggest that they should be more similar than different.  Will Beback   talk    22:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All Arbitrators will hear all cases, barring any personal leaves or recusals. If an Arbitrator believes they have a conflict of interest in a case, they shall recuse themselves immediately from participation in the case. Users who believe an Arbitrator has a conflict of interest should post an appropriate statement during the Arbitration process. The Arbitrator in question will seriously consider it and make a response. Arbitrators will not be required to recuse themselves for trivial reasons – merely reverting an edit of a user involved in a case undergoing Arbitration, for example, will likely not be seen as a serious enough conflict of interest to require recusal.


 * We have 7000 active administrators. There is no reason for an admin continuing on a case if there is any possible good faith. there are a much more limited number of arbitrators. My experience that once I have even reverted, I have a COI in having my view of the matter prevail. We should probably simply find a simpler way of asking for confirmation than the full-scale AN/I request, to avoid unnecessary drama. Something that Speedy--I place the tag, and some other admin confirms I was right to do so--and then if anyone questions it, nobody can say it is my own prejudice or idiosyncrasy.   DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are more like 1000-1500 "active" admins. And I will suggest that you hold a somewhat heterodox view of admin involvement.  The whole reason we have problems with admin involvement but haven't solved them by defining involvement as you have and enforcing it is that things go undone every day for want of an admin to do them (or a serious editor).  Decisions get left on the table, requests go unmet, etc.  And many of the areas that have the most need also (or "because") tend to repel uninvolved editors generally. Protonk (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As of October 11th, there are 796 active administrators, at least per List of administrators. 7000 would be fabulous! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't one of those perpetual WT:RFA, but the number of truly active admins is much less than 796, I'd guess. The threshold for that list is just "30 edits in the last 2 months", which is barely active at all. Compared to the number of administrative actions to be performed daily, I don't think anyone can really argue that there is such a huge surplus that admins should be recusing themselves for the slightest reasons.   Will Beback    talk    01:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Flight's proposal
Should we implement Dragon Flight's proposal? It's descriptive, rather than prescriptive, and a number of people above said they liked it. -- JN 466  15:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good too but can you give it twenty-four hours or so more please to get more input? I, for one, would like to mull it over a bit longer and perhaps suggest a few tweaks. A far-reaching change of this nature can only benefit from greater scrutiny and comment.  Roger Davies talk 15:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer the addition of "recently or significantly" to points 1 and 2, as I noted above and as some others seem also to support. I also like your note preferring "related articles within the broader topic". Point 3 leaves me uncomfortable for the reason I pointed out above; I have a history of personal interactions with almost every contributor (maybe not even "almost") on Wikipedia who does copyright. :) We still need to be able to collaborate. :/ I imagine there are admins who work 3RR or PP who may be similarly hampered. If an individual requesting an article protection at PP or a username block has personally interacted with the admin reviewing, must he not act? Is there no way to clarify that prior personal interactions may not factor if the admin actions are clear? (I'm a bit frazzled this morning--been working on an off-wiki project and waiting for a phone call to get back to it. Sorry if I'm not very coherent!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just thinking out loud here: What Dragon Flight's proposal says is, "Administrators should avoid taking admin actions in cases where they are likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome" (my emphasis), and "Examples of behaviors that often lead to the appearance of bias include ... The admin has a history of personal interactions with one or more of the editors involved."
 * If the only outcome that you could likely be considered "biased" towards is keeping WP free of copyright violations, then that is not a bias that can reasonably be impugned. :) If the admin action is just a maintenance job, and no one gains an upper hand over a perceived opponent, accusations of personal favouritism seem unlikely. Personal favouritism becomes an issue in things like blocking, sanctions against one party in a dispute, etc. -- JN 466  15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, this reading is better served by Dragon's Flight's version (nutshell section). Because here it explicitly (for the first time) offers an unequivocal broad statement of involvement: Administrators should avoid taking admin actions in cases where they are likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome. That makes it much clearer that MRG's personal interactions, providing they don't speak to bias, are fine. After all, someone would hard pressed to show that someone who uniformly sociable is demonstrating bias in a particular instance by being sociable.   Roger Davies  talk07:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If we are going to change the wording around Involved, I would certainly like to see some clarification of the Policy involvement vs User/Content involvement as discussed in this RFC included. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) I've made a few minor copy-edits and add the new verion here for ease of reference. Roger Davies talk15:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to):
 * 1) The admin has participated in an editorial dispute with one of the editors involved;
 * 2) The admin has participated in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the same or similar topics;
 * 3) The admin has a history of personal interactions with one or more of the editors involved.

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement has been minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is generally not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute in either an administrative or editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevantnoticeboards.

There is no consensus in the thread above for any such addition. I suggest starting an essay. Rd232 talk 15:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not yet there isn't but who knows what will happen in the next day or two.  Roger Davies  talk 15:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on draft 2 (bulleted section)
How about changing the bulleted section, which currently reads:
 * Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to):
 * The admin has participated in an editorial dispute with one of the editors involved;
 * The admin has participated in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the same or similar topics;
 * The admin has a history of personal interactions with one or more of the editors involved.

to:
 * Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of administrator bias include (but are not limited to) significant or recent:
 * participation in an editorial dispute with one of the editors;
 * participation in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the same topic or similar topics or the broader topic;
 * personal interaction with one or more of the editors.

Is this an improvement? Roger Davies talk 15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still fundamentally unconvinced that there is a problem with the current wording of the policy manifesting itself in admin action which will be solved through a rewording of the policy. I don't think marginal cases cause trouble because the wording is vague but because marginal cases represent a set of situations and admins which lend themselves to multiple allegences, power struggles and vested interests.  Political economy is causing the trouble. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I echo what Protonk said. I re-echo it, and I'd re-re-echo it (if possible). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. There were two fundamental problems with "uninvolved" in the Cl Ch case (this is where all this is coming from, yes?). (1) The formal defn of uninvolved that the probation that preceeded the case was set up with was ludicrous. I think everyone agrees with that; it caused trouble during the probation because people, not unnaturally, tried to use it. But it won't be an ongoing problem, because it won't be used again. (2) The main problem was that Certain Admins were (or were perceived to be by a number of participants) strongly involved, yet refused to accept that. Re-writing the defn, per any of the version above, would not have helped that at all. One possible solution would be to say that if you continue to insist you can act in an unbiased fashion, and that you refuse to back away from an area after multiple conflicted actions, then you must indeed be "involved", in the sense that you've got too emotionally tangled up in the area to back away. Naturally, this has the disadvantage that merely shouting at admins loud enough is enough to make them back away.
 * Dancing the words around will not cure this fundamental problem William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's partly coming from here but I'm also thinking of the lower profile instances where: Admin A fraternises with Users B & C. Users B & C get into a dispute with User X. Admin A blocks User X as an uninvolved admin. In other words, users turn to their friendly neighbourhood admin for action.
 * The second scenario you raise is already an issue. A bunch of people gang up on an admin and insist he/she is involved. I've no idea at the moment how to deal with it; other than try to deal with each instance on its merits (or de-merits).  Roger Davies  talk 20:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see the fraternization problem, but if this language is meant to 'solve' that problem, how is it not hilariously overbroad? I have had what could be qualified as "personal" interactions with dozens of editors.  For more active or gregarious admins that number could be closer to 100.  How am I to know ex ante that I am in a situation where the policy would describe me as involved and how can we justify a prohibition on admin action across that many interactions?  And how much of this conflicts with the idea that we make editors admins when we see they have the sort of judgment that would allow them to navigate difficult cases?  Even more worrisome, language like this exacerbates the general problem we have with frivolous accusations.  For an admin with years of experience and tens of thousands of contributions, I could make the case that they have a 'personal relationship' with an indefinite number of editors. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The very broad language is already there and already a bone of contention: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor ... purely in an administrative role ... is not involved". Therefore, an administrator who has interacted with an editor in other than administrative roles is involved. This comes up time and time again, examples given being handing out barnstars or supporting an RfA two years ago.  Roger Davies  talk 22:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The caveat specifies one thing that an editor should not claim abuse over; it doesn't necessary mean that everything else the editor claims abuse over is going to be OK. Similarly, the caveat specifies that an administrator can interact in this way without fear of repercussions; it doesn't necessary mean that interacting in any other way will be considered as NOT OK. The broad language exists so that things can be assessed on a case by case basis based on the specific circumstances of a particular case.Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hard cases make bad law". Are we seeking to change this policy solely because of the Climate Change case?   Will Beback    talk    20:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no change to policy in the drafts above. Simply a restatement in clearer terms of existing policy.  Roger Davies  talk 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that adding "significant or recent" is an improvement. I've started a thread about perhaps using this same language to cover the ArbCom. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Draft   Will Beback    talk    21:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The "significant or recent" bit is already present in policy, as it's often stated as the common sense basis for determining involvement.  Roger Davies talk 22:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see "recent" in the policy. Just the opposite. This line seems to say that involvement lasts forever, "regardless of the age of the dispute":
 * Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
 * I think adding "recent" in its place would be a good change.   Will Beback    talk    22:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as it is the bit of the written policy that is least enforced in the practical application of it. Written policy is, as you know, descriptive not prescriptive, and is meant to reflect current community norms. Nobody that I know of has been declared involved because of ancient or trivial interactions.  Roger Davies  talk 22:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An aside on discussing policies: it'd be helpful to discriminate between the de facto policy and the written policy in comments. I understood your comment The "significant or recent" bit is already present in policy to mean that the quoted words were in the written policy. Apparently you meant they are in the unwritten policy, which makes it a bit odd to put them in quotation marks.   Will Beback    talk    23:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, Will. Not intentional,  Roger Davies  talk 23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Any assertions about what the unwritten policy says probably need at least several diffs for examples.
 * Is it your proposal to delete the sentence I quoted above, since it contradicts the proposal?   Will Beback    talk    00:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We may be talking at cross purposes here :) "Significant" is already explicitly in policy as an administrator ... whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved. So that leaves "recent": which you and others seem to think is a good change.
 * Whether it is helpful to tweak the existing Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute is really down to consensus here though the regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute is probably too insufficiently qualified to be helpful and in direct contradiction to other existing bits of the same policy.  Roger Davies  talk 06:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When the opposition to your proposal is due to the adverse effects if will have on the day to day operation of Wikipedia for the Community, it's hardly a restatement; it's very much a change. If what happens in practice was what was being reflected in the draft, there would not be a reason to oppose (unless the practice itself needs to change which is what seems to be the cause of this proposal... if it actually isn't the single 'exceptional' climate change case . Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Per Will Beback, I think the proposed wording would be ok, if the stipulations were qualified as recent.PhilKnight (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The "significant" is important too. The community would not seriously suggest regard an adminstrator is involved because their only edit to an article was to fix a typo. Sure, "significant" is open to discussion, and there will of course, be grey areas, but that's not to say it's a valueless statement or that it will make matters worse.  Roger Davies  talk 23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Draft 2 seems an improvement to me over the current wording in terms of clarity, and where it differs in meaning it reflects practice better than the current wording does. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the proposal is an improvement too, but we'd need to remove the conflicting language from the policy.   Will Beback    talk    04:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We do. Indeed, we do. The main contradictions are in the sentence you highlighted above, which was added out of new cloth, without prior discussion or consensus here, in June. 12:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think draft 2 is good, except Bullet 1 should match the plurality of Bullet 2: "The admin has participated in an editorial dispute with one or more of the editors involved". Just to clear an obvious wikilawyering loophole. Tony   (talk)  09:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll tweak the text.  Roger Davies  talk 11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All of it is vulnerable to wikilawyering. It will either be ignored or cause problems. Rd232 talk 09:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't said why the proposal is more vulnerable to wikilawyering that the current policy text.  Roger Davies  talk 11:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * More detail gives more room for wikilawyering. General statements of principle can be interpreted as appropriate in context.Rd232 talk 12:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps, but unclear and/or contradictory text gives plenty of scope for wikilawyering too. I thought we'd got round your specific objection by making it descriptive though, rather than prescriptive, and by talking in generalities.  Roger Davies  talk 12:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Uninvolved" Draft 3
In general, editors administrators should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved participated as editors. This is because involved administrators they may have, or may be perceived as having, a conflict of interest or as holding strong feelings on a matter. in disputes which they have been a party to or may have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior actions are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'. [Duplicated in error]

Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant orrecent' :

i. The admin has participated Participation in an editorial dispute with one or more of the editors involved parties

ii. The admin has participated Participation in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the same topic or similar topics;

iii. The admin has a history of personal interactions personal interaction with one or more of the editors involved parties

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior editorial actions involvement are have been minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role. or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles One of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion done the same. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

In general, administrators should not act in cases in which they have participated as editors because they may have, or may be perceived as having, a conflict of interest or as holding strong feelings on a matter. Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant or recent:
 * 1) Participation in an editorial dispute with one or more of the parties;
 * 2) Participation in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the same topic or similar topics;
 * 3) Personal interaction with one or more of the parties.

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior editorial actions have been minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute in an administrative role. One of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevantnoticeboards.

Comments on Draft 3
What's changed? There was a whole paragraph was duplicated in Draft 2 so that's gone. The following text: has also gone pending further discussion as it introduced a sweeping new definition of involved (back in June), without discussion or consensus. Where "involved" has been used twice in the same sentence with different meanings, these sentences have been tweaked as have sentences where the definition is circular. Finally, there's been a copy edit to reduce longwindednesses. Is this getting close to go? Roger Davies talk13:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that Draft 3 is good, as it tends to more clearly address situations in which an administrator has a history of personal antagonism toward an editor. However, I think that the removed text needs to be retained to further address this issue. As somebody pointed out above, the issue is not really "involvement" but "the potential for bias." The text in green deals with that quite well. In the recent CC arbitration case (from which I and other editors have migrated) the arbitrators modeled proper behavior regarding bias very scrupulously, recusing themselves above and beyond the letter of policy. One arb recused because he was miffed by comments on his talk page from the editor involved that he felt, apparently, would affect his impartiality. I actually felt he went too far with that one, but I think that administrators need to pull out of situations when they feel they may be perceived as biased, and let another administrator step in. I tend to think that in such situations, the outcome for the editor involved, potentially subjected to sanctions, is not going to be lessened by such a removal. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First, glad you like it. There is consensus that the "green text" directly contradicts other stuff on a number of levels: (i) it contradicts "trivial" or minor interactions, which have been in policy for ever; (ii) it contradicts (by saying "of whatever nature") non-controversial admin actions and (iii) it opens up (by saying "of whatever age") the possibility of raising interactions from years ago, which every one has forgotten about, as grounds for recusal. This last one is particularly problematic as some editors have edited thousands of articles and it's impossible to check through the history of every article for the past, say, six years to see whether editor X has also edited it before sanctioning them. In the light of that, which bits of the green text could be rescued, do you think?  Roger Davies talk 13:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand the concerns that some admins may have about some trivial spat being used as a pretext for claiming "involvement." Perhaps it can be rephrased as "significant current or past conflicts" etc. The parallel concern, which I've seen expressed at times concerning some administrators, is that some administrators do indeed bear a grudge. I think that this concern can be valid and that it needs to be recognized, while at the same time recognizing that such a section is subject to gaming.ScottyBerg (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. But are these concerns not adequately covered by the numbered examples?  Roger Davies  talk14:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the "personal interaction" language. However, I think that the boundaries of involvement need to be broadened, not narrowed, so that is why I don't favor taking out the language that is currently there. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've no doubt some admins do bear grudges; equally, many others don't. Longstanding policy also requires an assumption of good faith and the blanket presumption that an admin may be harbouring a grudge seems to me to run in the face of that. The core problem (if you'll excuse the expression) is that we can't deal at policy level with the bad apples without crippling the good guys in the good faith performance of administrative work. That sifting really have to done on a case by case basis as and when it arises. Dragon's Flight's numbered points do cover exactly the same ground as the green text but provide, in my view, common sense qualifiers.  Roger Davies talk 15:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at them. I understand the problem here. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Elsewhere, I changed the "done the same bit" partly because of the logical assymetry between action and conclusion: the first is an act; the second a thought. The essential point here is the vandalism (or whatever) was so blatant that any administrator would have acted in the same way. So, again, not really a substantive difference. Your objections to significant can be and are equally applied to minor or obvious. I know you believe it's a recipe for wikilawyering and this may prove irreconcilable. What hasn't been explained, is how the existing policy text with its oblique statements, various contradictions, and general lack of enforceability, is any better. Roger Davies talk21:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's not ready or close to go. For one thing, the last two paragraphs have been modified without much thought. It is only one of the roles of administrators to deal with such matters - it is not the role; there was a deliberate reason why the previous wording was used. On the other point, it's not the narrow "they would have done the same, period", it was they "probably would have come to the same conclusion"; again, big difference where such a proposed change to policy is inappropriate. Also I'm not happy with the whole "significant". It's one thing when we clearly stipulate that minor or obvious do not speak to bias; all that means is that minor or obvious will not = involved, and anything else will need to be determined in the circumstances (not that everything else automatically can be counted as a factor of involved). Significant according to whom based on what? It was not that long ago someone was trying to propose that significant is based on the number of edits made (which is rubbish when the edits are not actually looked into individually). It's the first feature I noted in the original proposal and my first thoughts apply: a recipe for wikilawyering.Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In this context, I can't honestly see any substantive difference between "one of the roles of administrators" and "the role of administrators". However, I'll be guided by consensus.
 * Logical? I don't see it. Administrators don't come to the exact same conclusion about a lot of things (and with good reason) so it would be preferrable to keep the existing part of policy which states something to the effect of 'what you can expect to happen' rather than something which misleadingly suggests that 'this won't happen unless it's the exact same'. I think the original had a bit more thought put into it so as to avoid certain situations. That's why I think (1) change 'the role' back to the original 'one of the roles'; (2) change 'done the same' back to the original 'probably would have come to the same conclusion'. The Community has already come across many allegations of involved under the existing policy and handles it pretty well (including the attempts to wikilawyer); this year, the only issues with administrators that had to go as far as the last resort are those disputes which Protonk described in his first response to your proposal; that problem isn't going to go away by your proposed change to the policy - it's going to become worse, and it makes it more difficult for less complex (or vested) issues. Your response also doesn't answer the question about 'significant interaction' or 'significant participation' which I asked above, and it doesn't respond to the concern about how some users have tried to unfairly measure significant (albeit, much to the Community's dissatisfaction). Ncmvocalist(talk) 05:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My take is that the community does have difficulty with the policy and this sometimes leads to deadlock. I know that the involvement issue often comes up in arbitrations and I'm not just talking about the CC case. Just changing the wording isn't going to stop folks trying it on but it is going to help stop admins wrong-footing themselves and it is going to help resolve stuff more quickly. Significant is easy to recognise but more tricky to define succinctly. If MRG is friendly to everyone then being routinely friendly to one editor isn't significant because it doesn't speak to bias. If an editor routines hands out barnstars for a wikiproject, then handing one to someone he later sanctions isn't significant because it doesn't speak to bias. If an admin makes minor copy-edits to hundreds of articles, then a comparable minor copy-edit to one particular article isn't significant because it doesn't speak to bias. Does that help?  Roger Davies  talk 15:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Easiest probably is to break this down to its components. For the point about "done the same thing". I see entirely what you're saying. Here's the original current text again for ease of reference:
 * In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.
 * This is problematic because it's not very clear that it's talking about editorial actions made by an admin. Something along the following lines would help:
 * Certain straightforward editorial actions - which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, like page blanking and adding offensive language - do not make an administrator involved.
 * It that any better?  Roger Davies  talk 11:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Superseded, see next section.   Roger Davies  talk 21:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On reflection, no problems with "one of the roles", and I've tweaked the drafts accordingly. Roger Davies  talk11:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Uninvolved" Draft 4

 * I don't want to dissuade any of you, but if we're anyway attempting to go ahead with this, then I've made a few changes below. Also, it'll be good if you involve the Policy Pump (that is, if you've not already done).  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  12:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In general, administrators should not act in cases in which they have in the recent past(definition of recent past as a footnote) participated as editors because they may have, or may be perceived as having, a conflict of interest or as holding strong feelings on a matter. Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant and recent:
 * 1) Participation in an editorial dispute with one or more of the involved parties;
 * 2) Participation in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the same topic or similar topics;
 * 3) Personal interaction with one or more of the parties (edited to add @ 12:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)) or previously expressed opinions about a subject such that an administrator is likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome. (end new content)

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior editorial actions have been minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute in an administrative role. One of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards. Certain uncontroversial editorial actions, like reverting page blanking and removing offensive language, do not subsequently make the administrator involved with the articles affected. Similarly, blocks of editors blatantly vandalising pages which the blocking administrator has previously edited have historically been endorsed by the community.

I've been bold and added the draft about exceptions from above. A BLP exception in some form is also probably needed. Roger Davies talk 13:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger, I looked over Dragon Flight's points as you asked previously, but what I especially liked was a response by JN which summarized it as follows: "Administrators should avoid taking admin actions in cases where they are likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome." I think that it would be useful to have this explicit, common sense language in the policy. That really says it all in a nutshell. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The rewrite kind of makes me chuckle:


 * Blanking pages and adding offensive language do not make us involved? :D Might want to amend that to read something like "addressing content which any well-intentioned user would immediately....") But I actually prefer the prior language:


 * I'm not sure why we conclude that this is meant to be restricted to editorial actions. Why should it not be presumed to refer to an admin blocking a clear and obvious vandal even in an article in which he is involved? I don't think I need to list the person who keeps inserting "F*K WIKIPEDIA!!!!" into Jimmy Norman at AIV just because I wrote the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! There's a reverting missing there somewhere.
 * Now I think of it, there are two different types of common situation. The first is where an editorial action to an article which normally disqualify one as an admin doesn't count; the second is where an admin who would normally be disqualified because they are already an established editor of an article is enable to act to deal with vandalism. Are you sure the convoluted wording covers these?  Roger Davies  talk 15:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a crack at new text clarifying the boundaries: Certain uncontroversial editorial actions, like reverting page blanking and removing offensive language, do not subsequently make the administrator involved with the articles affected. Similarly, blocks of editors blatantly vandalising pages which the blocking administrator has previously edited have historically been endorsed by the community. Thoughts?  Roger Davies  talk 18:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Near as I can figure - WP has only about 300 "really active" admins, and if "involved" means "having had any contact with either party in a dispute in the past" one will end up with zero admins actually being "uninvolved." Any rule which makes this the result is likely not wisely chosen. Collect (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're misreading it: that's what current policy says. Any dispute of whatever nature at any time.  Roger Davies  talk 15:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas -- I am interpreting it exactly as written. The likelihood of an active admin being "uninvolved" rapidly approaches zero as the definition of "involved" expands beyond the older arbcom statements.   I would suggest that instead of expanding the use of a term to the point it becomes meaningless, one ought instead look at restricting the term to the point where it retains some meaning in disputes.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can achieve that by reading the recent and significant qualifiers. These fix the "hilariously broad" "involvement is forever" tripwire. I'd like to see more admins active too, especially in various types of enforcement. This can only realistically be achieved by making the policy for this difficult area as simple and clear as possible.  Roger Davies  talk 18:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether the problem is that the focus is on involvement and not on what seems to be the real issue, which is bias and the appearance thereof. Shouldn't that be the determining factor? There can conceivably be a situation when an admin does a few neutral edits to an article, bothering nobody, and he suddenly becomes "involved." Yet an administrator can do no edits, but express strong opinions such as to indicate a strong bias, or by making comments showing partisanship and bias concerning either the subject matter or the editors involved. Such a situation is not covered by either the current or proposed criteria. I'd like to harken back to the comment somebody made earlier, which is "Administrators should avoid taking admin actions in cases where they are likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome." ScottyBerg (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger. Your change handily addresses my concerns. :) I, too, wonder if there's any way that we can further define point 3. What we've got proposed right now reads "Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant and recent...Personal interaction with one or more of the parties." I must say, I like the language Scotty brings up. What about something more like "Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant and recent...Personal interaction with one or more of the parties such that an administrator is likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome." I completely understand the need to make sure that admins don't form "buddy packs" (and we'd be kidding ourselves if we didn't think it could happen), but we are a relatively small community, and many of us do interact in a way that at least seems personal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tricky one this, isn't it? Some inspired word-smithing is needed here from something, I think.  Roger Davies  talk 21:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The situation is tricky because it has the potential of advising our most experienced admins to stay out of complex disputes where their experience is valuable. Also, you have no control over who talks to you. We don't want this to stop admins from being helpful to editors in a topic area in order to not be seen as involved, later. Despite the potential problems with adopting a too rigid hard and fast rule, I think we need to advise admins about the ways that potential bias (real or perceived) could effect their admin actions so they can be better informed when they consider whether or not to take actions as an uninvolved admin.


 * Obviously, the longer that you are on site, the more people that you will work with. And bias may occur if an admin attends wikimeetups, or attended the same university or high school as other users. Each situation will need to be consider individually in order to know if the admin was crossing the line with their actions. But I think the advise as a reminder of the potential problems is good. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you see, my concern is with the phrase "personal interactions." One can express bias without personally interacting. If I say from time to time, "I personally love tulips but I think tulip-loving editors are pushing Wikipedia to the brink," I've displayed a bias and should avoid that topic area as an administrator. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You've kind of got a hobby horse here, I think. I don't think expressing a love of tulips or a hatred of them ought to disqualify one from acting in the tulip topic. Nor do I think expressing a view that there are factions present, or that a particular faction seems to be engaging in factional behavior ought to disqualify one. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That seems to be expanding the issues here a bit. What about "Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant and recent...Personal interaction with one or more involved parties or previously expressed opinions about a subject such that an administrator is likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome." I'm not entirely comfortable with "previously expressed opinions" since (a) that encourages us to keep mum about our opinions, and (b) it seems ripe for wikilawyering. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What about "previously expressed opinions such as to indicate bias concerning the subject matter or editors involved in the enforcement action." It's a mouthful, but would concern a very tiny subset of incidents. On second thought, your language is better. Sure, one can wikilawyer anything, but this really applies to only egregious circumstances, in which comments are made by an administrator outside of an enforcement context. I.e., nonadministrative interaction or comments.ScottyBerg (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that the wording focuses on pre-existing biases in terms of editorial participation or personal interaction. That is important of course, but it doesn't address the case of basic personal animosity. Let's face it, a lot of the conflict is due to X not liking or respecting Y, regardless of any underly content issue. Sometimes the content dispute is the outcome, not the cause. Who knows why X may dislike Y, stereotyping can be a factor, or maybe a colleague had a dispute and they have vicariously taken on board the dispute without actually participating. There is no accounting for the irrationality of one's biases. For example, if an admin states something like "I've observed so and so from afar, and I don't like what I see one little bit" to a third party outside of any administrative context, and then when that admin starts applying administrative action against the person(s) a year or two later, does that admin have a pre-existing bias? No editorial participation or personal interaction, but a clearly expressed bias. How is that to be addressed? --Martin (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that would necessarily speak to a bias such that an administrator should not act. If the dislike is personal, that's one thing and I agree that an issue exists, but sometimes what the admin doesn't like one little bit may be valid issues such that an administrator would be expected not to like it. Being familiar with the history of a user or an issue is not in itself a bad thing. I've just added the language above, since there seems to be no objections (so far); perhaps changing the word "subject" to "issue" (which broadens it from content so that it could be inclusive of user behavior) would help? If we do that, though, I think we need to clarify further by adding the word "personal": "previously expressed opinions about an issue such that an administrator is likely to be seen as having preexisting personal biases for or against one party or outcome." The word personal might be a good addition there in any event. We all have preexisting notions of policy and its application; we call that "experience" and it's not a bad thing. :) It's really only an issue where bias overrides community standards into a self-serving (even if unintentionally so) application of policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just throwing this into the ring for the moment but as this is all pretty much at the junction where emotion meets bias, how about Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant and recent... Interaction strongly indicative of affinity (fraternity?) with or animosity (hostility?) for one or more of the parties The other bits will finetuning to fix the grammar/syntax but that's easy if the principle is okay. Thoughts?  Roger Davies  talk 13:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that Martin is spot-on in his comment, and that the proposal above from Roger goes a long way to address the issue. My only tweak would be to say "Interaction and behavior", so as to incorporate conduct that may not necessarily including mixing it up with a person. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That works for me, except that I would like to see "such that an administrator is likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome" retained. For example, I've shown affinity for lots of people who stop by my talk page with copyright problems (or even at CP), but I don't think that makes me involved in addressing the problems they bring me. (I prefer affinity/animosity to fraternity/hostility.:)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree about retaining that text. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Three edits. I would like to see this wording included somewhere:
 * {| style="border:darkgrey solid 1px"


 * <font color="#005000">To prevent gaming, a user cannot cause an administrator to be "involved" purely through unilateral attacks or [poorly founded] accusations.
 * }

Another common issue is where an administrator has worked so much in an admin capacity that it may appear to be OWNership or suggest a personal stance on the topic. This is a regular cause of belief in admin bias. It's not a problem if the admin just comments, and lets others close discussions and apply sanctions but admins on long term duty on sanction-managed cases should not appear to single handedly own the management of blocks and sanctions over an extended period of time:
 * {| style="border:darkgrey solid 1px"


 * <font color="#005000">Administrators are permitted to deal with a topic area at length over many months, but should take breaks and request uninvolved admins to take over enforcement and discussion-closing duties on such disputes periodically, in order to avoid the appearance of ownership.
 * }

Finally three small edits to the 4th draft nutshell - should be "seen by uninvolved users" (more objective and testable by consensus, and involved warriors often seem to assume bad faith or see admins as biased who are probably not);  "outcome" should be "content-related outcome" (all admins have a clear bias to conduct related outcomes) and should include "side" for non-content issues; and should at least note the key exceptions:
 * {| style="border:darkgrey solid 1px"


 * <font color="#005000">Administrators should avoid taking admin actions in cases where they are likely to be seen by uninvolved users as having a clear bias for or against one party, side, or content-related outcome.

<font color="#005000">Involvement is not usually an issue in cases where "any admin may act" or in issues where most reasonable administrators would clearly have reached the same decision.
 * }

FT2 (Talk 13:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think these changes are all fine, but I don't think the second sentence proposed for the nutshell ("Involvement is not usually an issue...") is helpful. Any improperly involved administrator could say "well, any administrator would have done what I did." The point is that the very involvement of that administrator is disruptive. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The "any admin may act" means exactly that. (For example in protection policy once consensus is reached "any administrator" may make the edit.) The term is also used at times in ArbCom rulings.


 * The other exception is a norm that's worked well in the past and doesn't really get abused. An administrator who incorrectly claimed "anyone would do this" would get very sharply censured by other admins if it's not so. The most common example is that an administrator may block a blatant vandal on an article they content-edit. Other examples include 1/ reverting repeat POV warring posts by banned warriors on articles the admin may have previously edited or where they had previously discussed the user's edits as a content editor, and 2/ speedy deleting attack pages, copyvios or re-created improper content where they have previously edited on the topic.


 * This is classic Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The rationale is that while any admin could do these things, the reality is that these are all well-defined by consensus, not controversial, convenient to not demand process for process' sake – and if the action were improper other admins will very forcefully say so. It's rarely abused just because it would very obviously be rejected if untrue. FT2 (Talk 14:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point on "any admin may act," as that involves a specific set of circumstances, but I see too much wiggle room in the second one. Perhaps you can put in a paranthetical ("vandalism, for instance"), but I think a better course would be to omit entirely. This is a "nutshell" after all. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Length is becoming an issue
Taking the drafts above, this text is getting very long. At the moment it's become way too wordy to fit into admin policy. A "wall of text" is not sensible for a policy like this. It either needs
 * trimming down a lot (and accepting that the result won't cover everything), or
 * moving to a new page at Involvement and a summary in WP:ADMIN (basically the nutshell and a little more).

A separate page seems like massive overkill but would allow the issue to be presented in a readable form if people really want that level of detail to be included.

I've put the draft so far at User:FT2/Involved along with some formatting and a few (hopeful) improvements as below, so people can see the length so far, and discuss approaches or ways to condense it back down to a sensible length. FT2 (Talk 23:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The edits I've made are:
 * Nutshell - including a note that exceptions exist (as above), but taking ScottyBerg's comment into account and hopefully improving the 2nd sentence.
 * Adopting Roger's wording for interactional issues – "interaction strongly indicative of affinity (fraternity?) with or animosity (hostility?) for one or more of the parties" (13:18, 16 October 2010) for the 3rd bullet.
 * Adding anti-gaming wording as proposed (with a few improvements) - that users cannot make an admin "involved" by attacking them or making poorly founded ad hominem claims until the admin is obligated to refute them, then claiming there's "history" or personal dispute.
 * Adding anti-ownership wording as proposed - dealing with the common complaint that an admin is handling all disputes and sanctions to the point that a concern exists whether they are WP:OWNing the dispute.
 * Explanation of exceptions (examples left intact) also covers very old edits and explains the spirit of involvement better - "The general norm of the community is that involvement relates to an administrator's likely impartiality to the issue. Certain limited actions that are minor or do not imply partiality, have historically been endorsed by the community, for example because they are routine or very old. (then continues with the limited examples much as before)  The original wording "it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards" has moved a few lines down, after the examples.
 * Complaints - states if a user feels an admin is involved, they should take it to ANI for review rather than argue endlessly with the same few people. (Solves the problem rather than dragging it out).
 * Section headings and layout.
 * FT2 (Talk 00:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's really good. I guess my only quibble would be in the "past interactions" area," where examples are given of conduct that are acceptable past interactions but not examples of unacceptable past interactions. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Add a short section at the end with some bullet points - examples of involvement? FT2 (Talk 22:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that works. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sysop, but admin
A Wikipedia administrator is not a system operator. Apparently the term sysop indeed is (wrongly) used for Wikimedia administrators (That's a bad sign for an encyclopaedia, even behind the curtains.). I would like to encourage to use "admin" instead of "sysop" (when not really meaning "system operator", of course). -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's any consolation the term syop is rarely used these days. The only time I use it is talking about removal of privileges, because 'desyop' is straightforward to understand, while 'de-admin' and especially 'deadmin' looks wrong. In the way that someone saying 'I want you deadmined' could be misinterpreted. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reversing another admin's action
I've changed the text at the end of this section,
 * "and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion"

to
 * "and (if the reversal is likely to be objected to) a discussion with the administrator who took the action. If administrators can't come to an agreement with each other, they should ask for the opinion of other editors in the appropriate community forum."

The change to the text in parentheses is stylistic. The substantial change, removing "usually some kind of courtesy ..." and replacing it with more concrete advice, reflects - I believe - frequently followed practice and conduct policy. "Usually" is inappropriate because there is no reason why a potentially controversial reversal should not in each and every case be preceded by a discussion. "Some kind of courtesy" makes light of the purpose of discussion, which is not a mere matter of form or courtesy, but a necessary mechanism to avoid divisive conflicts between admins (which can be among the most disruptive on Wikipedia) by requiring that in the event of any disagreement between admins, a consensual, discussion-based solution should always be attempted first.  Sandstein  22:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that you want your blocks to be irreversible without community discussion (seeing it's well known that you hardly ever allow others to unblock without discussing with you) does not mean that others agree with the view of a small handful of users. That several administrators find a need to reverse them (and that they have been willing to take on the controversy to protect the project from those sorts of harmful blocks) is enough of an indication that this does not reflect the views of the Community. The change has been reverted accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not about any one specific type of admin action, such as blocks, whose reversal is governed by the blocking policy. It's about the overarching expectation of the community that administrators behave responsibly, which includes talking to each other before undoing each other. Do you have any substantial objection against that principle?  Sandstein   10:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Reversing another admin's action
Should the policy covering reversals of administrative actions (deletions, certain moves, protections, blocks etc.) be amended to reflect the expectation that:
 * 1) administrators should discuss potentially controversial reversals of administrative actions with the other admin first, and
 * 2) if that discussion does not result in a mutually acceptable solution, the opinion of others should be sought in the appropriate community forum before any reversal is made?

Discussion

 * Yes (1 and 2), as proposer. Disputes about reverting admin actions are some of our most divisive and disruptive disputes, and we should take all reasonable steps to prevent them through discussion. Few, if any, admin actions are so urgently problematic that they must be undone immediately. Unilateral reversals without prior discussion tend to generate bad blood among admins and cause subsequent discussions to take place in an antagonistic atmosphere. A discussion, on the other hand, will often result in a consensual solution in a much less confrontational setting. Moreover, because the wheel-warring policy strictly forbids redoing an undone admin action, it stands to reason that a reversal with this kind of policy-backed veto power should not be made lightly, but only after consideration of all relevant arguments. This normally requires discussion.  I would like to underline that this proposal does not prohibit unilateral reversals, or even reversals against express consensus. (That would be another discussion altogether). The proposal only expects that such reversals are not made without serious prior discussion. (Evidently, such discussion would be redundant if it has already taken place in a community forum, and may be cut short if the other admin does not respond reasonably soon).    Sandstein   11:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Admins should discuss with the community before overturning—I don't especially see why the initial admin should "own" the block/protection/deletion/sanction/whatever. Let's be clear about this: if an issue is taken straight to the community, and the consensus is to overturn the admin action, then obviously it would be foolish to hold back from that because Admin #1 objected. Basically, I feel that the community consensus is the only thing that really matters here. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► high seas ─╢ 11:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be prudent, though, to run it by the blocking admin before taking it to the community, in case you've missed something; but, in the case of a block, a reasonable waiting period for a response from the blocking admin would be ten minutes. After that, unblock and take to ANI. It's unreasonable to leave an editor controversially blocked while waiting more than ten minutes for the blocking admin's response. or for the community to discusses the merits of the block. Leaving an unjust block in place for a couple of hours is more harmful to the project than undoing a just block for a couple of hours. Anthony (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, at least in this form. Overturning an admin action almost always has some element of controversy. Discussion should always be encouraged, but any amendment to policy that makes it more likely for unilateral and perhaps poor decisions to stick because consensus cannot be had to overturn it is bad, because it may discourage discussion before acting and create a sense of ownership of admin actions. Any attempt to strengthen the recommendation to administrators to discuss as appropriate before acting should not arbitrarily target the reversal of admin actions. Rd232 talk 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal does not require consensus to overturn an admin action. It just requires discussion. Yes, admin decisions are occasionally bad and should be overturned. But the admins who do the overturning are just as fallible. A bad undeletion is just as problematic as a bad deletion. We cannot prevent the bad admin action in the first place, but we can at least prevent it from being overturned in a hasty manner that creates yet more division and strife. If the admin action is really unjustifiable, discussion will quickly tell so and admins can more confidently overturn bad decisions of their colleagues (which is, I agree, an important part of our job).  Sandstein   12:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal creates an expectation of community discussion, and it is easy to predict that overturning the action when the discussion leads to no consensus will be controversial. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but any attempt to do this needs to be very careful not to create unexpected consequences. I also think the focus on discussing reversals in particular is a fundamental problem. Many actions require no discussion, but the sort of actions that tend to be undone with controversy often could have discussion beforehand. Rd232 talk 12:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this concern, and would also support some workable approach aimed at encouraging discussion before taking potentially controversial action in the first place. But admins are already constrained by policy to seek consensus for some admin actions (e.g., for most deletions), and they are elected in order to take certain other decisions on their own responsibility and within some range of discretion, which they need to be able to exercise, including without undue interference by their colleagues. If they keep making poor decisions, they should be desysopped rather swiftly (and for this reason I am supporting a certain RFAR).  Sandstein   13:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose (slightly). Personally, I think that current emphasis on an individual admin's "ownership" of their actions is not ideal (although the reasons for this emphasis are understandable. If an action was good, surely other admins would agree with it or with the justification for it; so why wait for one specific admin to respond to a query if there are others who can answer it? Similarly, if an action was bad, that is something which would be highlighted by others. Both the policies, and any evidence relating to a contested action, should almost always be visible to any admin rather than being specific to one admin. Suppose you think there's a mistake on your tax bill. You write back to the tax office contesting it, and - alas! - the tax official who drew up your tax bill is on holiday. How should the tax office respond?
 * A: "Sorry, Jenny sent that bill. Jenny is on holiday. Although we have records of your taxable activities and we all read the same tax rules that Jenny does, your query will sit in her inbox.".
 * B: "OK, I'll pass your query to Dave or Sipho; as Jenny's colleagues, they can also see records of your taxable activities and they too understands the tax rules. If Jenny had made a mistake, Dave or Sipho probably wouldn't repeat it.".
 * Wouldn't B be more sensible? :-) So, returning to the original point, I feel that contacting somebody who originally did something disputed is helpful as a courtesy - but I would not want this set in stone, as I would rather de-emphasise ownership of actions bobrayner (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose, at least in the form you propose. If there's an outright requirement that the blocking admin discuss the issue before any reversal is made, an admin can effectively ban anyone from the project just by refusing to discuss the matter. (Yes, you make provisions for other people to discuss the issue, but that takes time; meanwhile, the incorrectly blocked user is getting more and more frustrated and more and more likely to give up and leave in disgust.) – iridescent  15:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent and Rd232. Discussion is always best practice, but mandating it can have unintended consequences.  If there is a track record of unilateral controversial actions against consensus, then an RFC on admin conduct is probably in order, but I prefer clear expectation, IAR when justifiable, and reviewing exceptions within context. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just pointing out that your planned override of a block I placed would be against consensus, and I don't think that IAR would apply to it. The discussion in that forum has certainly not generated a consensus that the block was improper, and, in answer to your question, Epefleeche will probably never be unblocked if he clings to the notion that he wasn't canvassing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ... And that's essentially irrelevant, because I'm discussing it. Actually, it's is relevant... since I'm politely discussing it with you, the clarification wouldn't affect whether or not I was permitted to undo your block.  I'm not sure that's the outcome you're looking for here, but again: I discuss because it's more important to me to convince you of the correctness of my position than to execute the unblock myself. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. The wording is mainly stylistic clarification and logical expansion - apart from that the word "usually" has been dropped. "Usually" means "most of the time - under normal conditions". Its use does allow for those occasions where a discussion may not be useful or appropriate. I think that "usually" is best left in, but the rest is common sense. "some kind of courtesy discussion" is vague and woolly, while "a discussion with the administrator who took the action" is more precise. The additional sentence, "If administrators can't come to an agreement with each other, they should ask for the opinion of other editors in the appropriate community forum.", is a reminder of the appropriate course of action when two people cannot agree. While some may feel that it is stating the obvious, I think that there is no harm in reminding people of good practise - especially if people are getting heated. I would support the following complete sentence:
 * Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if the reversal is likely to be objected to) usually a discussion with the administrator who took the action. If administrators can't come to an agreement with each other, they should ask for the opinion of other editors in the appropriate community forum.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support general principle, not wedded to exact wording. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose The 2nd mover advantage is essential to protect good regualr editors from hard line admins. Bold unblocking of productive editors is to be encouraged. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least in this form. If we're taking the time to amend core policy, the result should address common issues.  Determinations about how to deal with a lack of response (which is often not nefarious, mind you) and how much waiting is acceptable (I saw a ten minute standard suggested above) are important, or we just invite the same conflicts with different reasons ("I spent 10 minutes cooking dinner and Admin2 undid my actions!").  Undecided about the first mover/second mover power balance; I suspect that the correct outcome is to discourage admins who are repeatedly subject to second mover overturning from performing the same sorts of actions that get them there, but that's a sea change unlikely to come about from this policycrafting. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support noting the appropriate use of the word should rather than must to cater for exceptional circumstances and IAR. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose If an admin sees an unjustified block (they happen), they should take it to the blocking admin but, if they can't agree swiftly, the former should unblock, and take the matter to ANI to check consensus. Simple. Arguing that the reversing admin should wait more than ten minutes for a response from the blocking admin, because otherwise it might upset the blocking admin, is misguided. And, as I said above, leaving an unfair block in place for hours, waiting for a response from the blocking admin or consensus to form, does more harm to the project than wrongly reversing a fair block (which will be reinstated by consensus). You are essentially saying it is more important that admin feelings don't get hurt than an editor is unfairly sanctioned for hours. Reprioritise. Anthony (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2010
 * Oppose Use common sense, always. That's my policy, and applying it to BRD and IAR usually works fine. I think it's obvious that discussion about controversial actions is strongly recommended, but any admin who undoes a controversial block or something is going to be doing it with the best interest of the project in mind. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It seems to create a generalized AE-type rule, which seems overkill for normal admin work. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Instruction creep and process for the sake of process, in many cases. This would also flood AN/I with much needless discussion. access_denied (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose If another admin reverses an action I've taken, I might appreciate a note telling me why, but they certainly shouldn't be required to notify me or anybody else before rectifying a mistake that I've made. We've been made admins because the community (at one time, at least) expressed their trust of us, and therefore I will trust my fellow admins to reverse me if I've erred. If it's later shown that I hadn't made a mistake after all, then hooray for me, but nobody should get their panties in a knot about a good-faith action that just happens to be a reversal of my own action. This proposal is well-intentioned, but counter-productive in the long run.  Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose although recognising it was well intentioned. It must be the case that any admin can have their action reverted without discussion or even notice - because admins are not better than any other contributor; this is the WP:BRD that sysops are supposed to encourage within content writing. If the original admin is convinced that they have a case for their action, then they can give it in a subsequent discussion at either the second sysops talkpage, the relevant page talkpage, or ANI. There is no immediate need to block the editor again, unless they do the same action that lead to the first block attempt in which case an uninvolved admin will - if it is the correct response - impose the sanction. Perhaps we should concentrate more in determining if there are sysops with a pattern of either making bad blocks or reverting good blocks (both generally or under specific circumstances) and taking necessary action? Stamping down on the inflammatory language in the subsequent discussions and dispassionately reviewing both sysops actions and concluding who was more complaint with policy, for future reference, would also be more beneficial. Finally, we all of us make mistakes so can we approach such matters with a view that this may simply be such a case - both for the blocker and the unblocker? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This proposal would give powertrippers, wikilawyers and cliques far too much power. Some admins already act like Judge Dredd: don't write this into policy. p.s. I wonder if this has anything to do with a unilateral unblock I did, which was wheel-warred over and on which there was a pointless ANI thread? Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pointless"? It would have been better to override you without discussion?&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose in this format. If unblocks are bad enough, like the one referred to in the posting above mine, then a community discussion will usually end up producing a consensus for them to be undone (like that one did).  However, any admin reversing another's action without communicating should then be required to advertise the fact (i.e. at ANI) if it is likely to be contentious. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that every unblock is contentious, and leads to accusations of "cowboy admin" in certain quarters. What's wrong is wrong, and if you make a bad block then it ought not to need your acquiescence, or indeed anyone else's, to reverse it. There is no discussion before a block, why should there be one before an unblock? Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it did. I said that an admin reversing another's action should then be required to advertise the fact that they've done it (though I admit that might not have been the clearest way of saying it, so I've tweaked it).  Also, every unblock is not necessarily contentious - for example an admin may block a user with the criteria that they may be unblocked if they agree to stop doing whatever it was that got them blocked.  In that case, any admin may unblock without discussion if that user agrees.  However, these cases are probably in the minority. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then how do you explain the "cowboy admin" accusations that have become so popular? Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a clear difference between granting an unblock request and overriding a block that the blocking admin still believes is valid. Exactly how to phrase that in a policy or guideline is what is unclear to me.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's the inevitable result of the fact that there are some admins performing more than the usual number of contentious blocks (or reversals) - whether that is because they are more involved at ANI, or whether other admins don't want to get involved with certain editors is another question. Perhaps there are some admins who are too quick to press the block button. Or perhaps it's because "cowboy admin" is an easy tag for editors to attach to admins performing an action they don't agree with? Still, it would be a good idea to codify how such actions shoudl be performed, even if this suggestion isn't the best way of doing it. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ×2 Too many John Wayne movies? (and others in the same vein;). Jack Merridew 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to run an unblock by the blocking admin, not as a courtesy to the admin, but to make sure you haven't missed anything. Then, if you can't get a quick and satisfactory response, do the right thing. Then it can go to ANI if necessary. Anthony (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We need to retain flexibility as circumstances will benefit from it. That said, there are too many bad unblocks about that regularly allow problematic editors to skate by blocks that would serve the project well. Jack Merridew 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Few, if any, admin actions are so urgently problematic that they must be undone immediately." Oh yeah? If someone is wrongly blocked, that's problematic to them. It's urgent to them. It may not be problematic or urgent to you. So it all depends on one's point of view, I guess. Mine is: a person wrongly blocked needs to be able to get relief, and pronto. Herostratus (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not necessary.  Administrators are trusted with the tools in the first place with the expectation that they will not blow up if their actions are undone, and they should know better than to start a wheel war.   Malinaccier  ( talk ) 03:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose quoting FeydHuxtable and Herostratus. --M4gnum0n (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per fetchcomm. Rulescreep. We have more than enough reams of instructions; at some point we need to stifle the urge to codify and specify every little detail. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: this is starting to enter snow close territory for formally limiting the ability to undo actions. Is there some productive direction to take the discussion? In particular, something about more strongly encouraging discussion (where possible) both before acting and before reversing actions? Rd232 talk 18:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What I proposed was not about limiting any ability. But yes, there does seem to be consensus that admins ought not to be required to attempt discussion before overturning another admin's decision. I do not think that this is wise at all, as it will continue to generate a lot of needless drama. But I'll keep it in mind. Merely "encouraging" discussion before any sort of admin action is not helpful. Those who always just do whatever they want to do – because they, naturally, are much less fallible than their colleagues – will continue to do so. And who do you discuss an action that you have not yet taken with? The vandalism-only account you are about to block? Or open a thread on ANI prior to every routine deletion or block? Have fun.   Sandstein   23:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Beg to differ, it did limit the ability to undo actions, both in terms of delay, and also in terms of substance, because the practical effect of a forum not achieving a consensus to reverse the action creates a first-mover advantage, where presently WP:WHEEL creates a second-mover advantage. It's better that way, because it forces a return to the status quo ante where there is disagreement, which has the effect of ensuring action generally doesn't happen without something reasonably construable as community support. As to "merely" encouraging being ignored by "Those who always just do whatever they want to do" - well you can't legislate for people breaking the law. What you can do is try and create a culture where law-breaking stands out more. A culture of discussing actions which can reasonably be anticipated as controversial before making them would be a good thing, and is exactly the sort of judgement issue admins are selected for (in terms of deciding whether prior discussion might reasonably be useful, even if they're personally sure they're right). And writing down "admins are encouraged to..." helps build that culture. Rd232 talk 00:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are many steps done to guarantee that admins won't abuse their buttons, but they are noy infallible: the chance that an admin makes an abusive use of his buttons does exist, and in such a case he should be reverted immediately. Which doesn't mean that the situation shouldn't be discussed, but the admin action should be undone while the discussion goes on. Consider, for example, if an admin makes a mass deletion of all articles at Category:Voice actors, saying that voice actors are not notable and don't belong in an encyclopedia. A wider discussion may follow, but it shouldn't be a discussion over a deed done. Besides, there's also the chance that an admin simply made a mistake, such as deleting a "copyright violation" when it was actually the external web site the one making a copyright violation of wikipedia content, or blocking by mistake a user with a similar name to the one that made a fault. MBelgrano (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)