Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 21

CU on RFA !voters
Given the frequency with which socks seem to turn up at RFA, and given that we've had at least one situation where a CU used their tool to unmask a sock in a place where they were INVOLVED, I'm wondering if we need to have the CUs run checks on all (or most) RFA !voters by default. RFA is nasty enough without socks running amok. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be a violation of policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a bit bureaucratic, surely; policy should reflect what the community thinks is right. This may be a reason not to start doing this immediately, but what I'm asking is whether other folks see the need for it. If they do, a change to the policy might be in order. If this is just me, we don't have to do anything. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The community can't change global policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, it would be a violation of the English Wikipedia CheckUser policy, the global CheckUser policy, and the Privacy Policy. As Bbb23 noted, these policies aren't going to be changed because of a few sockpuppets. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you suspect that an RFA voter is a sockpuppet then submit your evidence at WP:SPI for investigation. A checkuser will then be run if there is a need and the policy allows it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect,, that's just boilerplate. I know that, and you know I do. My point is that we've had many many instances of socks attempting to sink RFAs, many of whom are only caught after the fact, often because they aren't otherwise enganging in suspicious activity. If the foundation's privacy policy won't let us do anything about it, fine (I'm not a CU, and haven't bothered familiarizing myself with the foundation's policy on running CUs recently). But the problem isn't going to be solved by run-of-the-mill SPIs. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with 's reponse to below. However, in most cases of possible socks voting at RfAs, editors will not be able to identify the master, and one-user SPIs are generally rejected. But that doesn't mean that possible socks cannot be uncovered. First, I know that CheckUsers run checks against possible RfA socks on their own. Second, if an editor believes that a user at RfA is a sock, they can contact a CheckUser privately and explain why. The CU can then determine whether a check is justified.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know a lot of the CUs (especially you) do sterling work behind the scenes, and I appreciate it, truly. I was unaware of the global policy issue; as I said before, I had no reason to be intimately familiar with global CU policy. So in a sense, my question is moot. I think you'll agree that the problem exists, though; my own RFA had nine !votes later identified to be socks (six in opposition), only two of which were caught during the RFA itself. Given the global policy, perhaps all we can do is be more vigilant. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

In the most recent, now notorious instance, there was every opportunity to have detected the sock before the damage was done. They were instead granted IP block exemption. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see how running a CU on RfA voters directly violates either a global or a local policy. I have searched for but not found any specific wording anywhere. A big RfC with a consensus can change anything. This year has also seen not only significant expression of distrust in the WMF, but there have been calls for significant autonomy, which means that a local Wiki can overturn global policy by consensus. At least that's the way I understand it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A local wiki cannot overturn a global policy. A local policy can be the same as or more restrictive than a global policy but can never be less restrictive than it. This goes double for policies with legal or terms of use implications. The relevant policies require that for an account to be checked regarding sockpuppetry there must be a credible suspicion that either (a) that account is a sockpuppet or (b) that account is a sockmaster. Simply voting in an RFA is not credible suspicion of either. Every instance of a checkuser checking a registered account necessarily involves the checkuser gaining access to some private data (IP address, browser user agent string, etc) and so must be in accordance with the Foundation's privacy policy. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the specific wording. Check Users are chosen for their integrity and discretion, so we should trust them to keep secret things secret. The WMF is not more competent than the community - they have proven that many times, and we were not given the opportunity to vote on staff hirings. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all Arbcom election votes CU'd ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I get the concerns, but I'm not particularly comfortable with this being an expectation or policy. I agree with Kudpung that this isn't explicitly forbidden, and I would say if CUs want to use their tools to "investigate, prevent, or respond to: ...Sock puppetry; Disruption...; [or] Legitimate concerns about bad-faith editing" at RfA then they already have the ability to do so. However this should be done on a case by case basis, not as a blanket rule or expectation. My worry is that such a blanket policy could create a chilling effect on good faith users who don't fully understand the privacy or check user policies, resulting in the tool indirectly being used to "exert political or social control". Wug·a·po·des​ 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe the mere threat of it might be just what is wanted to keep trolls, socks, and other miscreants away from RfA. We just had a classic example of one indef blocked user - who already had a topic ban from RfA - socking bad faith votes on a recent RfA. Some people defend his action and persistent incivility because he is/was one of the 'untouchable' FA contributors, but it's the person who is banned no matter what IP addresses or socks they edit under. By the time it was discovered the damage was done, and sideswipes, PA, and incivility were launched at the admins who dared to mention it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, the threat part is what I'm concerned is on the wrong side of the CU policy; not everyone concerned about their privacy is a "miscreant" and using ignorance and threats to dissuade good faith contributors from project governance is in my mind the definition of using CU to exert social and political control. One instance of socking doesn't mean everyone's a suspect, and CheckUser is not for fishing. At least one sock was granted IP block exemption to get around a range block which would have been a much better time to check for sock puppetry. The solution here isn't a dragnet, it's for CheckUsers to follow the existing policy: if they suspect something is wrong they can make a check, if they have no reason to believe an account is behaving maliciously they may not. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFISHING, honored rather more in the breach than in the observance, I suspect. 06:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)

Please unblock me from Hindi Wikipedia
Please unblock me from hindi wikipedia My intention was not for spam i was just want to contribute my hindi knowledge to wikipedia. Thanks Ramparmar100 (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Administrators of the English Wikipedia cannot unblock you on the Hindi Wikipedia. You will need to make your request on there, not on the English Wikipedia. — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Ombox at the top of the page
I noticed that the links within the first alert box at the top of the the administrators page are duplicates of the links in the second line since I checked the links on the first line and they both take the user to the same place as the second line. This is what the current ombox looks like:

In this case, would it be OK if I removed the links from the first line of the ombox while leaving both lines of the ombox, as well as the second line's links open?

This would be the output of the ombox if the proposal gained consensus to change:

Hx7 02:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Becoming an adminstrator section
It says that there are no official requirements to become an administrator in the article but I read on the RFA page that you have to have an account and be extended confirmed to file you own nomination. LightPirate (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to have an account. If you don't have extended confirmed status, then you have to get someone else to file the nomination for you (often serious candidates find nominators anyway rather than self-nominate). The only likely scenario (other than a failed fresh start account, I suppose) for gaining support without having extended confirmed status is candidates with extensive contributions on other Wikimedia projects who are well-known to the English Wikipedia community (and even then, I'm not sure the community will be willing to trust they are sufficiently familiar with English Wikipedia processes and norms), but I'm not sure if there is actually anyone who fits this description. isaacl (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators&curid=49480&diff=939797569&oldid=938416340&diffmode=source this edit]: although it may not hurt to specify that registered users are the ones who can become administrators, it's pretty much implicit. It doesn't make any sense for user rights to be available to non-registered users. By definition, there's no way to authenticate a non-registered user, and no place to associate user rights with a non-registered user. text added after reply from Hut 8.5 isaacl (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe there was somebody a while ago who became an admin with a very low edit count on the grounds that they held advanced user rights on other wikis, I can't remember who it was though. But yes it's entirely possible for someone who isn't extended confirmed to become an admin as long as they can find a nominator who is extended confirmed, that restriction is there to prevent people who are wildly unqualified from standing and then going down in flames very quickly. The absence of formal requirements doesn't mean there aren't informal ones though.  Hut 8.5  19:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure this wouldn't get passed today, though. isaacl (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. There might be similar situations in which someone with a very low edit count might be taken seriously now, maybe a Commons admin who wants to do image work, but yes standards are higher now.  Hut 8.5  20:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think evidence of familiarity with English Wikipedia processes and norms would be pretty important now, and that's hard to demonstrate without actually participating, unless the account could be linked to another one with the requisite experience. isaacl (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

ADMINACCT rewrite with more force and simplicity
Administrators, aka WP:ADMINACCT, has featured in three recent ArbCom desysops. Arguably, I would argue, issues with ADMINACCT, and in particular the woven-in concept of decorum, was a decisive feature of all three cases. That is, if the standards espoused by ADMINACCT were abided, the problems would not have festered until escalated.

The current text at ADMINACCT reads correctly, but I think it now reads too soft. One might say that ArbCom is modifying practice, and thus policy, getting ahead of written policy, but I think not. I think that ArbCom have read the signs, via WP:FRAM and the implication that WMF thinks en.wikipedia is weak on civility, and has caught up with wider community expectations. Wider being wider that that might be guessed by listening mostly just to the most vociferous.

I think the policy section should be rewritten in more forceful simple terms. I also think that it should name the concept of “decorum”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean like in WP:ADMINCOND? --Izno (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Same for that. Too much of “are expected to” and “should”. I would weave the essential parts of Conduct into Accountability, as conduct when having accountability tested matters.  Admins are accountable for their conduct, starting 2020.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be supportive of changes along the lines of what proposes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd put "decorum" into ADMINCOND rather than ADMINACCT but that's just a question of which section to use. I think adding an expectation that administrators partake in ArbCom proceedings about their actions is reasonable - ArbCom does usually give allowances for real life-forced inactivity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if we could require everyone to stick to the same standards for behaviour, but this would be a start. It would probably trickle down anyway. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 13:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made some edits to the page given the comments here and at AN. . — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally supportive. One question: is "should" really stronger than "expected to"? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but pragmatically, I think so. The more straightforward wording feels more forceful; not simply an expectation of administrators but a responsibility arising out of community ethical principles. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of using RFC 2119 terms wherever possible in policies, especially when clarity is necessary. I feel that it helps prevent misunderstandings about what is optional and when a reccomendation could be ignored. --00:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiCompositeNumber (talk • contribs)

Ok I just wanna know not asking for it
How do you become a administrator just curious if you know please tell me Maokn (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See here for details. Basically, you request it and if the community trusts that you have the required experience and temperament, you become an admin. (Note that candidates are usually required to have years of service and thousands of edits with experience in various tasks.) Pichpich (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Bureaucrat activity
I have opened an RfC at: Village_pump_(policy). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
Hi,

I am new to wikipedia and mistakenly published a COI page. I understand now this is not allowed but would like to retrieve the contents written on the page for further studies and the I have been treated with a love bitterness by a member of your administrator users called Deb. I am appalled by the lack of empathy from this person. She clearly knows I do not intend to republish the page and I have made myself clear I only wish to have the content retrieved but she has not been helpful so far. What sort of community are we trying to build here? Please can I have my page back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo3055 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you have put in an undeletion request. Please be patient while that gets worked on. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Move a page to any desired title" line
This line, from the "Administrator abilities" section, seems a little misleading, since most autoconfirmed editors can move most pages. Can we tweak it to specify a little better what special move rights administrators actually have? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 May 2020
Please change to {{rcatshell|

{{r to project page}} Thanks. --Stay safe, ◊ PRAHLAD balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Primefac (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence
I've suggested an administerial presumption of innocence. I believe it's a valuable principle and guideline for any community where participants may be sanctionable. Any cons? François Robere (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this isn’t a criminal proceeding, the standard here isn’t whether you’re innocent or guilty it’s whether leaving an account unblocked is likely to cause disruption to the project. Namely: it’s an entirely different framework, so the legal concepts don’t really come into play. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a disciplinary procedure, and it certainly follows some conventions common to such procedures. The question is whether this particular one is applicable, and I argue that it is. Admins often approach situations where the truth of an event is unknown; adopting a presumption of innocence means they shouldn't assume an editor responsibility, but conclude it if evidence has been presented. This is a step before deciding whether "leaving an account unblocked is likely to cause disruption to the project". François Robere (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But we're not dealing in guilt or innocence terms. The closest thing would be WP:AGF, which is already a guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But aren't they there nonetheless? When you decide whether to block a user, you're doing so because you're convinced they behaved in a certain way. You've become convinced because evidence has been presented to that effect. The question is whether you approach this evidence "assuming good faith" (ie. innocence). WP:AGF Makes no mention of disciplinary procedures, and isn't usually perceived as applying there. When an admin approached me saying "justify this or I'll block you" (ie a presumption of guilt), WP:AGF didn't seem like much of a shield. However, it could be if add a statement like "this applies to disciplinary procedures and administerial conduct as well as to editing" there. Would you support it? François Robere (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Toswo
Hello dear. Can you help remove the "Delete Tag" toswo ? Mrloopitus (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The short answer is no. The page is being discussed at Articles for deletion/Toswo; if think the page should not be deleted, you should make your case there. See WP:AFD for more information. Primefac (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Nudity
hello i am ravinesh rds at gmt 1:32 pm i want to say you that nude images in several pages of wikipedia such as nudity, bikini waxing and all that have so much bad thing for teenagers and children. I used to us wikipedia in a very good faith for knowledge but when i saw such pages, I decided to edit them but after a while my edits were removed and again the nude images of people are there. I mean you used to write you are not censored but this is not a reason you won't improve yourself. Parents also have a trust in wikipedia so that it is safe for there children for Knowledge .So please, I request you to do something for it. thank you for your time Ravinesh rds (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * pls review Advice for parents.-- Moxy 🍁 14:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * As Moxy has suggested, Wikipedia has to have some images to describe certain topics, and learning about sexuality is an important part of growing up, provided it is not gratuitous. Our advice for parents is to seek out filters that will allow this information to not be displayed to children. However, at a tangent, there is content in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and Buchenwald that I believe would upset children, but I firmly believe such content is vitally important in a neutral encyclopedia. On a procedural note, this thread is probably better placed in WP:ANI. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps Village pump (miscellaneous) is better; there's no incident or pattern of personal conduct being examined. isaacl (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The usual rule is the principle of least astonishment. If you go to look up the article on nudity, for example, you shouldn't be too surprised to see pictures of nude people. If you look up bikini waxes then you shouldn't be too surprised to see pictures of people who've had bikini waxes. It would be difficult to write a decent article about those topics without including images. Same goes for many other topics. But it likely wouldn't be appropriate to include those sorts of images in an article about a more innocuous topic, e.g. an article about cycling probably shouldn't have a picture of a naked cyclist. If you want to stop your children seeing this stuff then I suggest you focus on education and/or parental filters. Certainly a teenager who wants to see pictures of naked people has many sources other than Wikipedia.  Hut 8.5  20:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Filedelinkerbot needs to be blocked
Filedelinkerbot is removing images of Senate nominees including Theresa Greenfield (Iowa), Ricky Harrington Jr. (Arkansas), Sara Gideon (Maine), and Dan Ahlers (South Dakota) Please block this user as soon as possible. I need to bring these images back. Jason Goldstein Jason S. Goldstein (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Filedelinkerbot isn't the problem here, it's doing what its told to do, which is remove images that were deleted from Commons. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * yeah, you see, they were all deleted on Commons as being copyright violations (although that's a pretty elastic term, over yonder), so that's where you should complain to. Having said that, if (IF) they're all serving US politicians, wouldn't there be an official portrait of them available?  ——  Serial  13:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If any of them actually get elected, sure. Since they've only been nominated, no. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to do here. I can confirm the images were copyright violations. The image for Greenfield was taken from here, where it is marked as a photo from her campaign with no indication it is licensed CCBYSA 4.0 as was indicated on the upload. The original uncropped image for Harrington is still up for the moment here, but will soon be deleted too as there is no permission other than claim it may be used for Wikipedia, which does not constitute an acceptable free license. The photo for Gideon was taken from here, and Maine does not,as far as I am aware, release state works into the public domain as some other states do.
 * In other words, the bot is working exactly as intended.  G M G  talk  14:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)