Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 6

WP:DEAL
Bringing this back up, Jimbo has made a comment to reflect that it's becoming a big deal. ":It's a bigger deal than it used to be. That has some good points and some bad points." He made his quote when there was a few thousand users and a few thousand articles. We've got users and  articles now. I believe it's time the quote be removed. LaraLove| Talk  18:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that in this instance, the thing that has has changed about the project is that Jimbo has moved to be out of step with the beating heart of the community that is building the encyclopedia, and that the community has equally moved away from him, consciously and unconsciously. The project is simply too big and too diverse anymore for Jimbo to be the most powerful force in defining the character of any particular aspect of it, including adminship. In other words, just because Jimbo has an opinion on something, doesn't make it so. I would personally argue that 1500+ admins means that passing RFA is less of a big deal than on a little or mid-size wiki, where one rogue admin or crat can more seriously cause harm and abuse power. Also important to note is that whether or not adminship factually is a big deal right now, it remains true that it shouldn't be so. It's still a healthy ideal. Van Tucky 21:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Limits to length of administrators' "terms"?
I note that there have been proposals in the past that, for instance, inactive admins could lose their administrator status. Given that wikipedia is a comparatively new institution, we haven't yet had much cause to deal with matter of term lengths, but it might not be a bad idea to establish something along those lines. Maybe something like a reconfirmation vote after four years of being an admin might be advisable. In this instance, I choose four years as being the length of the term of the US President, although two years, six years, and in fact any other period would probably be just as acceptable. At the reconfirmation vote, they might be required to get a significantly smaller percentage of the vote, but requiring such would make it less likely for admins to begin to act badly, knowing that they would inevitably face reconfirmation, and also help to remove inactive admins in a comparatively noncontroversial way. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial proposal, and I'm not sure that it will achieve consensus this time around either. I do want to note, though, that four years is quite a long time on the internet. How many people who became an administrator in July 2004 are still active?--Danaman5 (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is already a mechanism for desysopping which works well, without a horse race. In fact, many admins who have acted rightly--not badly--will face substantial opposition for re-confirmation,because they did the hard but necessary jobs that people disagree with. Also, there is no problem with inactive admins. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC on adminbots
A RFC on adminbots has been opened, here. -- Chetblong Talk / ARK 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy rewording
I have made a modification in policy under administrator conduct. We should not "expect" good conduct but we must "require" it. This will put Wikipedia in the highest moral esteem. In practice, it will make no big difference. It will just make WP seem to hold the highest ideals not just encourage them. Wikipedia is now so big that we must need to act right as compared with facebook or myspace. Chergles (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In that vein, . —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I find Raul654's behaviour objectionable
It seems to me that individuals like Raul654 should not use their position or status within the Wikipedia bureaucracy to override Wikipedia community policy on original research, or community rejection of certain procedures. I would appreciate if someone reminded user Raul654 of this--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 05:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? As far as I can tell, Raul merely participated in a discussion, and "voted" in a straw poll. He did not even move the article or initiate the straw poll--not that doing either would warrant some sort of formal complaint here. Any editor is free to draw upon his tacit knowledge when discussing an article--he may be wrong, but such an argument is not original research--; and while it may be wise to ignore or abrogate straw polls at every opportunity, anyone is free to comment in them. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The above was posted here and here. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow up can be found: here. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you here
I need a task for wikipedia work that requires no typing, no searching, and many many hours of thought. MsTopeka (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins and policy disputes
I am copying this from User_talk:Chillum. It's an interesting philosophical discussion we were having regarding admins and policy disputes--specifically, when an administrator is acting in an administrative capacity versus when they are acting as a simple editor, hot to appropriately (and inappropriately) use the tools regarding enforcement of image policy interpretation, and other similar issues. S. Dean Jameson 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Normal policy disputes aren't the same as the (very) hotly contested NFCC policy. Blocking a user when they simply revert one of your editorial and interpretational (of that disputed policy) actions is a clear violation of WP:BLOCK, and there's about a 110% chance that an admin blocking in that circumstance would end up at ANI, and it wouldn't go well. As I said, I much prefer free images myself, but this hardline interpretation of NFCC is not productive at all. S. Dean Jameson 02:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When an admin sees a policy violation they are allowed to correct it based on their interpretation, they are also allowed to enforce that. If you disagree just take to to a wider consensus. Take it to DRV if you think the image was deleted incorrectly. I disagree with your 110% estimate. It is not a "clear violation" of anything. Seek a wider audience, but don't claim the admin is wrong to enforce his interpretation of policy. Chillum  02:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you're in favor of the strict NFCC interpretation. I just wouldn't recommend your blocking based on that widely-disputed interpretation, that's all I'm saying. Remove the images. Nominate them for deletion. Just don't block people who happen to disagree with your interpretation of a hotly-contested policy. Tools aren't weapons to use in such disputes. S. Dean Jameson 02:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not an interpretation, it is policy. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, this is not controversial, it is policy. It has long been accepted policy. This is not a "strict interpretation", it is the literal wording of the policy. When an admin tells you that this policy needs to be followed, then that is not controversial it is just an admin enforcing policy. You can go to our non-free content criteria talk page and try to convince them that the criteria should change and that is all fine and well, but saying it is contested in no way invalidates standing policy or a block for not following said policy. Chillum  02:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You may not think it's an interpretation, but the fact remains, there are a ton of people who disagree with you on that. That makes it hotly-disputed, and makes using your tools to enforce your views on the matter inappropriate. You certainly don't have to agree with me here, but it would certainly be brought before ANI if you did so. S. Dean Jameson 03:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's ironic that both of us vastly prefer free content, yet disagree so strenuously on the matter of how NFCC should be interpreted. S. Dean Jameson 03:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" does not leave much room for interpretation. If people's disagreement of this idea has been unable to influence policy, then that is what policy is. This idea has stood since I started here in 2006, and while some people don't like it there has yet to be a consensus to change it. Pretty much every policy is disputed to some degree that does not mean we hang up our tools. You show me where in policy it says we only enforce policy that is not disputed. Chillum  03:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The disagreement--as I'm sure you know--comes in the intepretation as to what might possibly "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." What you believe does not fulfill this, another user believes does. It leaves a ton of wiggle room, and is open for a lot of debate. Until the scope of NFCC is clarified, blocking based upon your actions based upon your interpetation of that nebulous policy is questionable to say the least. S. Dean Jameson 03:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about the same picture? Can you explain to me how that image significantly increasing the understanding of anything? I have told you before that there are existing forums for arguing the validity of a fair use claim. If there is a consensus contrary to an admins interpretation then that consensus is followed. But until there is such a consensus then it is up to interpretation. Blocking is done to prevent people from continuing to violate policy. Chillum  03:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm not discussing any particular image, but the philosophy behind an administrator using their tools to block based on an intepretation of an NFCC policy that has a large variety of possible intepretations. I am not an administrator, but I know a bit about the blocking policy, and that would seem to be more than a trifle questionable. S. Dean Jameson 03:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Admins are supposed to use their discretion to interpret policy and then use their tools. If you disagree with that interpretation then seek a wider consensus, we have appropriate forums. If you disagree with the policy itself then the policy talk page is the appropriate forum to seek change. But it is just incorrect to say there is anything wrong with an admin using their tools based off their interpretation of policy. Chillum  03:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the policy, on principle. However, there is strong disagreement as to how that policy should be interpreted. Admins are not supposed to use their tools to enforce their disputed view of a policy like NFCC. The talkpage there shows no consensus for the agressive intepretation that both you and Fut Per advocate. Therefore, I would recommend discussing images, nominating those you believe to be non-compliant for deletion, and attempting to clarify how NFCC is to be interpreted, but I would not recommend threatening blocks against those who disagree, or blocking those you feel are wrong. S. Dean Jameson 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you feel like we're talking past each other a bit? It's almost like we're having conversations about two different things. Perhaps an "agree to disagree" is in order? S. Dean Jameson 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey I am fine to agree to disagree. My only point is that Future Perfect at Sunrise‎ was well within his remit. Chillum  03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And my point--in that case, specifically--was threatening a block for undoing an editorial action taken by the administrator (and removing the image was an "editorial action") was not appropriate. On that issue specifically, and the larger issue of NFCC intepretation in general, I guess we agree to disagree. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 04:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not an editorial action, it was an administrative action. That really is the key difference. If he was removing it because he felt it did not go with the flow, or if he though another image would be better that would be editorial. But he removed it because it was not in line with policy, not editorial, administrative. Chillum  04:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See, that's the thing: administrative actions are those actions taken by an administrator not available to regular editors. You know what these include. Because I (a regular editor) could just as well have removed (or readded) that image, it was--by definition--an editorial action. Now deleting that image, that would be an administrative action. But simply removing it from the article is nothing more than an editorial action. I (or any other regular editor) could have done the same. S. Dean Jameson 04:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Any user can enforce policy and warn of impending blocks to people who violate policy. Admins don't have special authority they just have the tools. Just because a regular image can insist that policy is followed does not mean insisting a person to follow is not acting in an administrative capacity. Chillum  04:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. An administrator "acts in an administrative capacity" only when s/he uses the tools. Otherwise, they're an editor, no different than me. And threatening to use those tools to enforce an editorial decision (which removing an image is) would seem a clear violation of the blocking policy. (And here we are again! :) Good night to you, sir (or ma'am), I'm going to bed...) S. Dean Jameson 04:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you got the idea that administrative capacity is limited to administrative abilities. Just because other users can enforce policy through editing and communication does not mean that an admin doing the same thing is not acting as an admin. You say "An administrator acts in an administrative capacity only when s/he uses the tools", I say there is no such rule. Administrative capacity is not limited to a set of buttons, and if you disagree show me the policy that states this is so.


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


 * Address a dispute, problematic conduct, outside advice/opinion, enforcing policy and the like. It spells out that these things do not make you involved. The wording goes directly against the idea that admin capacity is limited to admin tools. Good night. Chillum  05:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And acting on a policy where interpretation of that policy is not obvious and clear (as it isn't for NFCC), and then using the extra buttons to block someone who happens to disagree (but doesn't have the extra buttons to enforce their view of it) is clearly a problem. It's akin to an admin protecting a page they've edited directly after they make an edit they feel makes the page more compliant with NPOV. It's simply not acceptable, even if they're right. They need to find an admin that hasn't been involved in editing the page and have them take a look.
 * Also, as an administrator, the only difference between you and me is a few extra buttons. When you act on an article-- whether to remove text, images, or when adding the same--you're acting in an editorial capacity, as you're doing nothing more than any editor could do. It's only when you step up to using your page protection, blocking, or deletion buttons that you are then acting as an administrator. This should be patently obvious, but I guess it's not. This interesting philosophical discussion/disagreement might be better placed on WT:ADMIN, WT:BLOCK, or one of the similar pages, do you agree? S. Dean Jameson 13:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, that whole thing got copied ehh? I will have to move my most recent response here. Lets have this talk in just one place, here is best. Chillum  14:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, short version: We are repeating ourselves. I quoted part of the blocking policy that makes it clear that acting in an admin capacity is not limited to "only button pushing". Admin actions such as "Address a dispute, problematic conduct, outside advice/opinion, enforcing policy and the like" do not make you involved. The admin policy says in plain English that these actions don't make you involved and are considered to be acting in an admin capacity. Yet you still stand here saying that acting in an admin capacity is limited to button pushing.


 * I have said a few times that if you don't agree with an admins interpretation of policy that you can seek a wider consensus. The administrators decision is not binding if you can find a larger consensus that goes against it. Admins cannot override consensus, but they can use their interpretation in the lack of a consensus. You have really put a lot of effort into arguing that Sunrise should not be able to enforce policy like he has, but I don't think you have sought a wider consensus. Chillum  14:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "You have really put a lot of effort into arguing that Sunrise should not be able to enforce policy like he has..." But you see, I never said that. He can enforce any policy he wants using his tools, as long as he's not been directly involved in the underlying editorial situation. My point is that after he's acted in his capacity as an editor (removing an image from an article multiple times), he no longer has the right to use his block button to enforce the action he took as an editor. Mainly though, that situation led me to do some thinking about the role of administrator versus the role of editor, and when one who has both cloaks is allowed to use the former to enforce his actions as the latter. I say never, or close to it, save the instances of blocking a blatant vandal who is vandalizing an article on which that administrator is working. You clearly disagree. I copied here so that we could see what those who might frequent this page think about the issue, regardless of the underlying facts of the FPaS situation of threatening a block in an edit summary. It seems that's now a bit beside the main point, I think. S. Dean Jameson 15:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not that I disagree with you, it is that our long standing policy that has been here since I started in 2006 disagrees with you. Removing the image was enforcing policy and thus an administrative act. Administrators are not precluded from acting just because they have acted in an administrative capacity in an area before. You say "never, or close to it, save the instances of blocking a blatant vandal who is vandalizing an article on which that administrator is working", but this just not our policy buddy, that is just what you think it should be. I have quoted the relevant policy, I have explained it, it is like you are not wanting to hear this. You keep saying editorial action, but it was enforcement of policy. I think I will just wait and let someone else explain it to you because you are not listening to me. Chillum  15:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're wrong in your view of what constitutes an administrative act. An "administrative act" is one that can be performed only by administrators (blocking, protecting, deleting, et al). An "editorial act" is one that can be performed by all editors (removing/adding text, removing/adding images, and page moves (in most cases)). The latter should not be enforced by the former, as it sets up "classes" of editors: those who can block/protect/delete to enforce their view of the situation, and those who can not. Uninvolved administrators should be the ones who act with their tools in such instances. Again, I'm listening to you, I just disagree strongly with your take on what constitutes an administrative action. S. Dean Jameson 15:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Policy says different. I quoted it, I explained it. You seem to be ignoring that fact. What an administrative act is is spelled out and it includes all sorts of things that are not special tools. Admins are never supposed to use their tools for a content dispute, but they most certainly are supposed to use their tools based on their interpretation of policy, that is what we have them for. You are basically arguing against the reality of the policy.


 * I suggest instead of arguing that policy is different than how it really is that you come up with an alternate wording and propose a change. Based on how you think it should be however, I will likely oppose such a change. Chillum  15:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be disregarding the fact that your (and FPaS's) interpretation of the words of the NFCC policy (which interpretation I mostly, but not wholly, agree with) is hotly-contested. There's "more than one way to skin that cat" as they say around where I live. Therefore, enforcing such a controversial policy interpretation (which isn't widely accepted) by using the tools in a dispute in which the admin has already editorially removed an image from an article is probably not the best course of action. Nor is threatening to do in an edit summary for an editorial action either. S. Dean Jameson 15:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think a policy is contested then go change it at the policy talk page, but don't say it cannot be enforced. The fact is that while people do object to this policy there has yet to be a consensus to remove it, it has stuck. It is policy, and admins can and should enforce it(even if you disagree). The words "editorial action" have become hollow coming from you, you don't seem to get our policy. You can say editorial action till you are blue in the face and that does not make it true. Chillum  15:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to offer an opinion here, if I could figure out what the two of you were talking about. It might be best if each of you offered your statement of what happened (and/or what should be done), and then sit back and let other people comment.  Just going back and forth between the two of you probably isn't going to do much more good at this point. --Elonka 15:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He is saying the because an admin enforced his interpretation of a NFCC policy on an article in the past that this makes him "involved" and thus should not taking admin actions in that area in the future. I am trying to explain that enforcing policy does not make an admin involved for the purposes of taking further admin actions. Chillum  15:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Further context at: User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise, the origin of the discussion. Chillum  15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, it can be summed up as follows: User:Angr, who has a userbox on his userpage that makes clear he has no use for fair images at all (a position completely unsupported by policy) removed it twice, without any consensus to do so. I restored it a few days later. FPaS made an editorial decision to remove it. I readded it, with a summary explaining that this issue had been debated ad nauseum, and there was no consensus that it didn't belong here. He restored it here, with an edit summary threatening to block anyone who dared restore the image against FPaS's interpretation of policy. It's my view that an admin should not use the tools to enforce editorial actions in such a way, nor that they should even threaten to use them in such a way, as this sets up a de facto protection of the article, and two classes of editors: those who can enforce their views with tools, and those who can not. S. Dean Jameson 16:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, everybody here agrees admins should not use their tools to support editorial content decisions. However, as has been stated ad nauseum, enforcing policy is considered an administrative act, not an editorial decision. He didn't choose for policy to prohibit that type of image, it is policy. Will you please address that fact? Chillum  16:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Many contend (myself included) that NFCC policy should not be interpreted in the way he chooses to do so. The policy's wording is not as clear as you make it seem. It's hotly debated on that talk page, and enforcement of an administrator's view of that policy using the buttons in less than clear-cut cases (which the one in question definitely isn't clear-cut) is not recommended. The decision whether to add or remove an image is an editorial decision, unless the removal involves deletion. It really is as simple as that. S. Dean Jameson 16:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You say "The decision whether to add or remove an image is an editorial decision, unless the removal involves deletion", well that is just wrong. I have already quoted to relevant part of the admin policy so I won't do it again. This idea of yours that admin acts are only pushing admin buttons is directly contradicted by policy which says the enforcing policy, regardless of how, is also acting in an admin capacity. As long as you ignore this fact then you will gain nothing from this discussion.


 * Once again I am repeating myself. If you disagree with an admin's interpretation of policy then seek a wider consensus. Admins must obey a consensus, but they can act with their discretion in the lack of consensus. I told you how to seek a wider consensus to challenge the admin's view way back when this debate was on Sunrise's page. Chillum  16:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the admin seek consensus for their interpretation of policy before blocking people based upon it? That would seem to make more sense, as blocks are the A-bomb (or should be viewed as such by administrators) and should be used as a last resort, not as a weapon in a policy dispute. And there's no consensus for intepreting the NFCC in the way that you and FPaS choose to do, so why block (or threaten a block) based on that interpretation? It seems to simply be incendiary more than collaborative.
 * As for admin actions, I'd say WP:COMMONSENSE would tell us that "enforcing policy" when it is written on a page regarding administrative actions refers to "enforcing policy by using the tools" not making an editorial decision to remove an image based upon a controversial interpretation of policy. But I could be wrong here. Perhaps we should wait for others to weigh in on this issue. S. Dean Jameson 16:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

 * Some edit conflicts happened along the way Well, I think I've followed most of the crumbs to get an understanding of the debate, but it's possible I missed something. While I certainly don't think threatening to block people in edit summaries is ideal, from an image perspective, there's absolutely no way you can justify the image with the version of the text that was there with it.   The movie isn't mentioned at all.  There's no identifying information.  I don't see how any image wonk would support a fair use claim on an image that's not mentioned in the text.  That said, if there was some context along the lines of "One of the most famous examples is that Indiana Jones is revealed to be a scout ..." a fair use rationale that could withstand NFCC very well might exist.  But there simply can't be fair use without a mention of the work the image is from in the text.
 * The larger admin questions are probably slightly murkier. I do think enforcing image policy is within the realm of admin things rather than bias issues, but I don't think threatening to block people in edit summaries is very appropriate.  I think a better move would have been to explain on the talk page why the image was a violation of NFCC and explaining how repeated attempts to include it in breach of WP policy could cause someone to end up with a block.  Ideally, if someone did keep violating NFCC by repeatedly inserting the image, you'd find another admin to do the actual blocking just because it's better to have another pair of eyes.
 * On the whole, I'd just say that image use can be complicated, and people can genuinely think they're adding things under fair use and do so in good faith, even if people more familiar with NFCC debates would agree "no text mention = no image". Since image issues aren't easy to understand, the correct way to go about it would be an explanation on the talk page.  So, I guess my humble non-admin opinion is: threatening to block people in edit summaries = bad; explaining on talk pages why things are in violation of policy and that they can lead to blocks = better; with a side note that it's crystal clear the Indiana Jones image doesn't pass NFCC without a text mention. Vickser (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, seeing as you've invited me here – SDJ, please STOP THIS NOW!!!!! We've already had this conversation; you not agreeing with WP:NFCC does not give you (or anyone) the right to ignore it. – iride  scent  20:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who's ignoring it? And I've made it clear that it's not NFCC I disagree with, it's certain overly-aggressive interpretations of it that bother me. Additionally, the NFCC issue has become tangential (at least to me) to the larger question of when an admin should use his/her tools. There's really no need for capitalizing with multiple exclamation marks. Disagreeing about things is perfectly acceptable. S. Dean Jameson 21:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In all this back and forth you have barely mentioned the interpretation. You have stuck to the issue of prior involvement, and administrative vs editorial action. Reading this conversation you could not even tell what the issue is about. If you really wanted to challenge the interpretation you would have sought a wider consensus like I suggested long ago. You are beating a dead horse here. Chillum  21:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What I've said all along regarding interpretation of the NFCC policy is that it is disputed. The policy leaves more gray areas than black-and-white. Therefore, my conclusion was that blocking based upon a disputed interpretation of a policy is probably not a good idea. S. Dean Jameson 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And ability to interpret policy is what admins are chosen for. That is what they do. If someone chooses to ignore an admins interpretation of policy, which was by the way a correct interpretation, and they warn you about a block and you don't stop you get blocked. You always have the option to seek a wider consensus, an option you seem to be putting aside. Instead you are insisting on a set of rules that does not exist here. Chillum  21:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dean, you're right that there are a lot of gray areas under fair use, where reasonable cases to keep and delete can both be made under NFCC. But, with all due respect, the idea that you could have a fair use image from a movie when the movie is not even mentioned in the text isn't one of them.  From an image perspective, it's honestly so clear cut that I think it's at the level of just "enforcing policy" rather than "enforcing a particular interpretation of policy."  And I do agree that threatening blocks in edit summaries isn't particularly nice and that it could've been handled more democratically, but on the image front it's so clear that you can't claim it's a "disputed interpretation." Vickser (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking back at it, I agree Vick. Which is why I reworked that section a bit to solve that problem before readding it. My main problem, though, was with the edit summary threat. S. Dean Jameson 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The new version looks much better. I support the FUR for this: it adds to reader understanding significantly by showing the emotions associated with scouting in pop culture in a way words cannot, as well as providing a visual interpretation of what the hollywood vision of a scout is.  (How it meets the rest of NFCC is pretty clear.)  Looks settled to me now. Vickser (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FPaS still wants the image deleted, though, as he's made clear at its IfD. That's what I'm talking about when I say "disputed interpretation." S. Dean Jameson 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions. Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion. Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents. Wheel warring has been used as grounds for immediate revocation of adminship with Arbitration following in a number of cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.52.66.10 (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of adminship
A large section was recently added to the page, from WP:RECALLME (where I was the one that suggested the addition). I tried copyediting the section yesterday for clarity, but today someone reverted my entire change. I don't feel that I was making any major modifications to the meaning of the text, I was just copyediting and reorganizing. I would appreciate if someone else would review my changes and see if it's worth re-adding, since I think the current section is a bit confusing and could be improved. --Elonka 15:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, could you possibly leave this until after your present request for arbitration has closed? Whatever the merits of your change, it will just get bogged down in accusations of conflicts of interest. That may be horribly unfair but the fact is that it's a really bad time for you to propose changes of this nature. It won't hurt anyone if you leave it alone for a while. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, this request might be considered to be fairly close to an open call for meatpuppetry. Better to wait awhile.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I did not add the section, User:Hiding did, based on discussions that we had been having at User talk:Hiding/Recall. I personally think the change was a good one, it just needed a bit of copyediting to fix typos and make it flow a bit better.  I wasn't making any substantive changes. However, if folks want to hold off on this discussion, that's fine, let's just revert back to the pre-Hiding version, and wait until the RfAr gets archived (which should happen soon anyway). --Elonka 01:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the section pending discussion. This sort of change shouldn't be added without some sort of broad community consensus.  (I'm not saying I object, but it's a pretty substantial change to this policy.)  While RfC may be a good place for stakeholders to get a sense of where everyone in a dispute stands, I'm hesitant to agree that it is a good place to develop consensus for punishments and paroles.  (Like any set of subpages, RfCs tend to receive attention only from individuals who are directly involved in a dispute, plus the small handful of folks who lurk RfC habitually.)  For reference, I've included the text below. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the removal, obviously. Your move.  Hiding T 21:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I re-added it since you haven't responded, and I feel the fact that the section had been edited by a number of people indicates a consensus of sorts, whereas removal is harder to judge. I'd like to ask how we could better word the section to address any issues you have with the text, or why you feel it does not describe current practise? Hiding T 12:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ===Dispute resolution process===
 * For administrators who haven't placed themselves "open to recall", the following method is suggested.
 * For administrators who haven't placed themselves "open to recall", the following method is suggested.


 * The first step is to discuss the issue which has led up to the problem with the administrator in question in an attempt to resolve the situation in a mutually acceptable manner.
 * If no resolution is reached, file a Request for Comment, outlining your concerns with the administrators behaviour, providing evidence and linking to page differences to support your assertions. You will need to get a second user, who has also tried and failed to resolve the dispute to certify the Request for Comment. If you fail to do this, the Request for Comment will be deleted.
 * Within the Request for Comment, consider stating that you believe the administrative privileges should be revoked.
 * Once the Request for Comment is certified, community input will determine the outcome and where the consensus lies. Either the consensus will be to support the admin; there will be no consensus; or the consensus will be to remove powers from the administrator in question. At this stage the administrator in question may choose to voluntarily resign their adminship if they recognise a consensus exists for that outcome. If this does not happen, the next step should be considered.
 * The final stage is taking the case to the Arbitration Committee. Where consensus exists to recommend that the Arbitration Committee desysop the administrator, the user bringing the Request for Comment should bring that fact to the attention of the Arbitration Committee since by policy the Committee will hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus.

Issue with policy
There has been a recent thread on the RfA talk page, with several users expressing concern over a recent question being asked on RfAs: "Are you over 18?" This is the problematic text on the policy: "Adminship is oriented to communal trust and confidence, rather than checklists and edit counts; each user will have their own way to assess their confidence in a candidates' readiness for the role." Many users have expressed agreement that intruding into candidate's privacy is not an appropriate way to go about assessing whether someone is ready to be an admin. Additionally, User:Coren has stated that asking such questions could very well be illegal, though I don't know how true that is. I'd like to be able to update this policy to prevent such questions being asked on RfAs. If I were asked such a question, I'd feel extremely uncomfortable answering it, and not answering it. There's no way out of it. I think users who use age as a factor should get some other criteria to judge people by (such as their edits). how do you turn this on 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, no proposal to change (or prescribe) the criteria for adminship has ever gained consensus. I have started asking the age question (which of course nobody is compelled to answer) at some RfAs because for me, personally, adulthood is one factor among many that influence my decision whether or not I trust a user to have the tools. And that trust is what RfA is all about.  Sandstein   16:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be growing consensus on RfA talk. I've pointed people to come here. how do you turn this on  16:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I Strongly Support adding a section in the policy that prohibits users from asking those age-related questions, as they're disruptive and sometimes uncomfortable to the candidate to answer. Many blogs have published entries about this issue and they will keep doing it until we get a solution. This age-related discussion is turning Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that only adults can edit and turning RFAs as the primary target of discrimination. If we don't do nothing, in the future people may oppose for being a black-skin people, or even because the user is not from a determinate country. Macy 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What is a "determinate country"? And why should we care about what some blogs say? More to the point, since when is the main purpose of an RfA to be comfortable for the candidate? Isn't part of the point of an RfA to find out whether we trust the candidate? That should be a civil and professional procedure, of course, but not necessarily a comfortable one.  Sandstein   16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Two main points : The number 18 probably refers to the legal age in the United States. It differs across various cultures and societies, whereby the standards of morality and perception of maturity differ. I'll stretch the logic a bit further. If we were to use the 18 as the "Gold Standard", then the encyclopedia has a "US bias" that we are focusing and adopting US culture on a global project. On the other hand, if we were to adopt the local law's standards in legal age to determine adulthood and maturity in judgement, then by this logic women in Saudi Arabia are not eligible to be administrators because they "will not be capable of understanding what they observe".
 * Secondly, the easiest way for candidates to get around with this question is to lie. Nobody on the Internet is obliged to be truthful, but they do so because they have a sense of morality that they are dedicated to the cause of the project. I would prefer anyday a young candidate who is able to learn from their mistakes, dedicate themselves to the project with their heart, and develop their skills here than an adult who acts machiavellian and deception to obtain power, play politics on Wikipedia to gain power, and cause endless havoc on the project. I have seen that before, and I hope that there should not be any new barriers for editors who are true to the project. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is not about whether we should adopt a mandatory minimum age of 18 (which is also the age of majority in most of Europe, incidentally). It's about whether we may ask whether or not the candidate is an adult (no matter whatever age we may deem to be sufficient). Yes, candidates may lie, but I'm WP:AGF and assuming that they usually do not. It's really not necessary to imagine convoluted scenarios of this sort.  Sandstein   16:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And why is so important age in adminship? We have 30-years old admins who act immaturely and we have 13-years old admins who act with mature and without being disruptive. Macy 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why not WP:AGF on candidates who do not answer or "I don't want to say" that they are over 18, or forget all these - just judge by their edits? - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I assume that such replies are made in good faith, but that has nothing to do with whether or not I trust the candidate to act how I would like an admin to act. I may still feel that, for this purpose, I need to know whether or not they are an adult.  Sandstein   17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no, I mean, in the absence of a definitive yes, assume in good faith that they are an adult? After all, you assumed that they are telling the truth. - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith just means assuming that the other person is here with good intentions. That's not enough for me at RfA, though. I want to know whether I can trust them. Otherwise, if we were to accept your argument, we would have stop asking questions at RfA altogether.  Sandstein   17:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I would support a general policy against asking other editors how old they are (except where the Foundation requires it of course), apart from the issue discussed here and the RFA talk page, I just think it is generally a bad idea to be trying to find out how old editors are, especially for younger editors. If an editor has freely revealed their age without any prompting (on their user page for instance) then that is there own lookout but we should not be encouraging it for privacy/safety reasons. Davewild (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if there were a rule that admins should preferably be above 12, 15, 16, 18, 21 or whatever years of age, this would not turn Wikipedia into the encyclopedia that only adults can edit. It would turn it into the encyclopedia that only adults can "administer". There is a difference. IRL, no one has a problem if 12-year-olds are not allowed to direct military action, manage emergency rescue services, perform surgery, operate heavy construction equipment, or deal on the stock market. To liken such age limits to discrimination based on skin colour, gender, sexual preference etc. is just specious nonsense. So, speaking in general terms, I think the question should be admissible, with applicants free to answer or not.
 * On the other hand, Wikipedia is not like any of the abovementioned environments, and I would like to know if there is evidence that admins who are minors and have gone through a successful RfA really do on average perform less well as admins than adults. I am not at all sure that they do do a worse job, or are more likely to lose their admin rights, than the rest. Jayen 466 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I've not been asking candidates how old they are. I've been asking them whether or not they are an adult. This does not require any disclosure of one's age or other private information.  Sandstein   17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (To both) Why 18? Not 15? 16? 21? How would you define an adult across different cultures with differing ages of adulthood? - - Mailer Diablo 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Adulthood is not, of course, something that one suddenly acquires at a specific age. But because of practical considerations, societies have introduced a discrete cutoff point through law, and I can't immediately see a better solution for the purposes of RfA. Do you have one? – As to "why 18", well, that's because I'm the one asking the question, and 18 is the age of majority where I live.  Sandstein   17:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, they don't gain maturity overnight just like that. Say candidate is is 2 weeks shy of 18 and says no. Would you treat him as an adult? (if he declares 1. actual age, or 2. yes/no answer) Say he fails the RfA as a result of age and its correlation to maturity. He reapplies 3 weeks later. Asked the same question again. Would you consider still him as an adult? (More than likely, he'd be accused of lying) Another scenario. Say if I asked if he is age of 20. (say for example, I live in Japan) He answers no. (in reality, 19.5, does not declare actual) Would you consider him as an adult? - Mailer Diablo 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problems that you mention are inherent in every attempt to define adulthood by age. We have to live with these borderline cases, though. As I said, we haven't found a better approach yet, and if real life governments use it (to no great public outcry) to determine who may drink, vote etc., then we may just as well use the same approach here.  Sandstein   17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume you'd agree on the correlation of maturity with admin performance, right? What we need is an easier method to desysop problem admins, not to up the bar of adminship further with this kind of arbitrary number. If Anonymous Dissident ran for RfA today based on his edits at then point of RfA, if he gained consensus than we would have said that he succeeded despite his age. For the current corp of young admins who are dedicated to the project but were barred by this kind of absolute numbers if they were to run for RfA today, it would become high rate and a hidden form of attrition to the project (inability to clear admin backlogs or even leaving the project) leaving less helpful hands here. You'd be surprised how many editors/admins fall within this kind of borderline in age. - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with the correlation. But admin removal policies have never gained consensus; so for now I'm working with what we have, which is RfA. Also, some kinds of damage can't be easily undone – it's better to try and prevent them altogether. I also wouldn't overrate attrition; for most of the children we are talking about here it's just a matter of waiting a few years.  Sandstein   18:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with the policy allowing arbitrary criteria, as long as it is not misinterpreted to mean that you can then ask questions invading user privacy. If self-identified user characteristics are views as a problem by someone, so be it, but asking isn't kosher.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To Sandstein: it does require revealing private information. Whether someone is an adult or not is none of your business. I personally keep all my personal info off the internet, including whether I am above the magic 18 or not. how do you turn this on  17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't confirm or exclude the point raised above about it possibly being illegal, but I think that eliciting that sort of personal information in general is a bad precedent to set. If I recall correctly, there used to be a rule on Wikipedia against revealing the age of someone under a certain age (although I don't remember 100%). AGF all you like -- who is going to refuse to answer this question except people who are minors? Minors are a touchy subject, and with good reason. Do we really want a reputation as a community that seeks out minors? - Revolving Bugbear  17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If it has any effect at all, the age question contributes to us acquiring a reputation as a community that seeks to shut out minors (which is of course not my intention). Zillions of websites, including many mainstream ones, ask users to confirm that they are adults before they may access certain features. Where's the problem with that?  Sandstein   17:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have thought of WP:CHILD. It failed to achieve consensus.  Sandstein   17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to websites like MySpace, then it is to protect private information about the user, but this is a free encyclopedia, which means that  everyone  can edit, including adults, minors and young mans. I don't get why people just ask user's age. Macy 17:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, this is not about being allowed to edit the encyclopedia, it is about being allowed to administer the encyclopedia. Jayen 466 17:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * @Sand: It reveals quite a bit about the person if they are under 18, heck there's not a lot of room behind that age that you can be. And again if they don't answer they are pretty much under 18, which means there is no way out of answering it. Let me put it like this: if someone was to ask on RFA "Do you drink alcohol while you edit Wikipedia?", it's a very private question, if the person drinks but doesn't drink enough to where they hurt Wikipedia while they edit, and they don't want to answer it per repercussions then they are automatically seen as someone who drinks. They shouldn't be put into a situation where they have to give out private information. Private info means it's information that you don't know about them, and most likely information they don't want to give out, we shouldn't decide whether or not someone should have to reveal information they don't want other people to know about, whether we're talking about age, drinking, smoking and whatnot. --Coffee //  talk  //  ark  // 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How about: "I think your actions are sometimes immature. Can you say whether this is due to your age?" Hmm. That's a bit of a leading question. Ah, the old standby. "Do you think admins should have to say how old they are?" If they say yes, ask them. If they say no, don't ask them. Problem solved. Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers must be 18 or older, and "there is a firm recommendation of 16 as a minimum age for participation in the OTRS system". Wicked ageist prejudices have already been incorporated, and by the WMF no less, into the structure of Wikipedia. If the Foundation is not afraid to ask the age of those who wish to hold certain positions of trust, why should the community be prevented from doing likewise in cases where it has a say? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the age requirement for Checkusers not a legal issue? Is a "firm recommendation" of an age requirement not wise for people who receive and respond to potentially private and legal official messages from the public? Unlike Checkusers and OTRS members, administrators do not have access to any information that was not otherwise publicly submitted and are not required to reveal any personal information. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * These "thin end of the wedge" approaches involving wikipedia "ideology" across different areas are nearly always bogus. See also "apples and oranges".


 * If you have no concerns about an editor's maturity from his contributions, you shouldn't be asking. If you just can't be sure you should be voting neutral. If you have concerns about every editor's maturity regardless of contributions, you should weigh up the validity (and practical effectiveness) of your question against the problems you're causing by asking. Personally, I think it's a little selfish. 86.44.22.206 (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the question of age, for all the reasons given above. It's intellectually lazy, difficult to refuse to answer convincingly, and possibly a bit rude. It should certainly be discouraged. However, banning the question (or any question) altogether makes me uncomfortable.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me like this discussion is sort of missing the point: each of us can ask a candidate whatever we personally feel is relevant to adminship. It's solely up to the questioner if they want to ask silly questions publicly and open themselves up to criticism for it. Is there really any need to shield administrator candidates from such questions? Are they really incapable of handling awkward questions themselves? They would certainly be expected to handle far ruder and more difficult questions as administrators.

Obviously, questions worded as personal attacks or incivility can already be removed under their respective policies. But otherwise, any question a editor happens to find relevant should still be allowed to be asked. Banning questions makes me uncomfortable because it is basically preventing people from investigating what they feel are the important criteria. I'm wary of crying censorship, but it certainly hinders one's ability to !vote on the criteria one values when one can't investigate those criteria. -kotra (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This policy as written in no way prevents the RfA system from creating criteria on how RfA should take place. I don't see any reason this policy needs to be considered when adjusting RfA's expected level of decorum. Chillum  13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet, if preventing someone from asking a question in the proper forum results in them not being able to !vote on the criteria they find relevant, wouldn't you agree, that in practice, it is in opposition to that policy? Not that policy can't be changed (that seems to be what this discussion is about), but it seems obvious to me, even without policy, that we should be free to ask about whatever happens to be important to us, unless such a question is actually disruptive of course. -kotra (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong page for this discussion. Its been discussed ad nauseum many times on WT:RFA, and rejected each time. Avruch  T 14:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, the discussion seems to have always resulted in no consensus, not outright rejection. Maybe you're right that this should be hashed out at WT:RFA first, though. -kotra (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrator Activity
I have used Wikipedia for a few years now, and I have found it to be for the most part, a reliable source of information for many different applications. I have however developed concerns about activity coming from some of the administrators. I am interested in finding out what methods are in place for policing the activity of potentially questionable Wikipedia administrators. I have witnessed some incidences of misappropriation of authority, and I would like to find out how this kind of issue can be properly resolved. Also, I am concerned about suggestions such as contacting the violating administrator directly to resolve disputes. It would seem more appropriate in cases like this to just report a known violation to a higher authority. Are there administrators of higher authority to which incidences can be reported relating to other administrators? Any information on this matter would be appreciated.Allen32130 (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's an incident with an administrator, then the correct place to report it would be WP:ANI. There is no "higher authority" per se to report to; administrators, like all users, are subject to community consensus. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 07:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is also request for comment on use of administrator privileges, and the Arbitration Committee. Their respective roles are outlined in the dispute resolution policy. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason you should bring up concerns with the administrator in question first is so that they have an opportunity to explain themselves (or apologize). It's usually best to resolve these issues one-on-one by just raising the issue with them, calmly and respectfully. Of course, this doesn't always work though, since admins, like everyone else, have egos. If it can't be resolved directly with the admin, then it's appropriate to move on to one of the options Sephiroth and PhilKnight gave above. -kotra (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins cleaning up each other's dirty work
Hello, everyone.

I am a new Wikipedia contributor who recently has created, on en.wikipedia.org, a wikipage on a Canadian web design company from Montreal, namely Modulis.ca. All was fine and dandy until some administrator came by and automatically requested that the page be deleted (speedy delete) because it had been written in promotional language.

When I contacted the administrator asking for reasons for such a hasty deletion, he changed his point of view stating that the page was (no longer) written in promotional language but that the reason for which the page should be deleted is that it is about a company that is insignificant.

It took that administrator only 20 minutes to switch for a statement to another, leading me to believe that his opinions do not rely on a solid foundation and that he changes them on-the-fly.

Moreover, on a direct approach on the page-to-be-deleted's talk section, the administrator stated that the reason for deleting the page is that the company described on that page is not present in Google News search results.

What is this? Seriously, I am asking you: Why is there a need for such a childish behavior from Wikipedia administrators? Is Wikipedia an eclectic encyclopedia? Has Wikipedia become a Google-dependent community?

On a more direct approach, on the same talk page, I told the administrator that I was more than confident that the company he works for was already included in Wikipedia, and he confirmed it. He further said that the company he works for has X locations worldwide and Y employees, this being the reason for which the company has a Wikipedia page.

From that discussion, I figured out that the administrator works in the web development field; therefore, he is a competitor of the web development company I work for.

As a result, I left a message to the administrator, on the talk page, stating that I do not want him to review the speedy deletion case because he works in the web development field, and that I would need another administrator to review the case.

Shortly after that, some other administrator, undoubtedly the friend of the aforementioned administrator and a freethinker / corporation-kills-creativity adept, simply deleted the page, without any other complications.

Here is what administrator B wrote on the page I had created and which had been marked for speedy deletion by administrator A:

17:45, 23 September 2008 Orangemike (Talk | contribs) deleted "Modulis (web design company)" ‎ (A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc.)

I ask you, in conclusion: How does administrator B know that Modulis -- the web design company I had described on the new Wikipedia page -- is not important?

For his own information, Modulis is the largest web design company in Montreal.

It would be advisable for an impartial person to reply to this message and for an administrator to show the initial content on [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulis_(web_design_company) ].

Administrator B has deleted that content but it's impossible for him to have removed all his tracks.

Sovidiu (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The speedy deletion of that article is valid. For something to have an article on Wikipedia, it must assert its notability, which is demonstrated through significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the topic itself (i.e. a newspaper, online publication, and so on). One of the speedy deletion criterion (CSD A7) is for articles that show absolutely no notability whatsoever for their subjects, and thus, they are liable for deletion. In the case of the article you created, the subject of the article asserted no notability, and was thus liable for deletion under CSD A7. The use of Google News was to show that there were no publications within the search that have covered your company. This certainly does not mean that no publications exist, but rather that no such coverage was found via a Google search. The article was initially tagged under CSD G11, which deals with cases of blatant advertising, in which the subject of the article is written in a manner that constitutes nothing more than advertising for the company, person, or whatever subject the page happens to have. While this page was written in language that could be construed as advertising, deleting it under the A7 criterion would have been more appropriate.
 * As for the user you were conversing with, User:Paranormal Skeptic, he is not an administrator, and a different user, User:Orangemike, an administrator, was the one who deleted the article, and decided that A7 was a better reasoning for speedy deletion than G11. The size Paranormal Skeptic's company, however, is irrelevant to the discussion of notability in the case of your article, and I would not construe his tagging of the article for speedy deletion to be motivated by the size of his company. Rather, I would assume good faith, and believe that he is attempting to uphold Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly those in regards to the notability and inclusion of articles. As for your article, you are free to work on it in your userspace (make the article at User:Sovidiu/ARTICLENAME, with ARTICLENAME replaced by whatever you want to call your draft), and when you feel it satisfies the notability guideline, you are free to move it into the mainspace. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Regards, sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 19:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish to add that the page had an important use for a college class I was taking needed to write a paper on that company and the Wikipedia page had a lot of information, I wish that in the future, the admins of this website would stop deleting every single page that they think is not good enough for them. Their issue is that they have thier own agendas and do not care for intellectual persuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.213.97 (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to store information or a website for intellectual pursuit. I hope if you read our polcies and guidelines you may get a better understanding of why the article was deleted. Doug Weller (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Additions to conflict of interest section based on recent activity
Based on ANI posted here following are suggested as items for conflict of interest.

Admn should not act as both plaintiff and judge. Following are examples.
 * 1) Actively participating in community sanction discussions then giving concluding acceptance, serving a notice and related blocking
 * 2) Responding to an ANI request to block an editor by an editor with whom Admn had intimate friendly correspondence on same or different topic.

Naadapriya (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell?
It would be convenient to have a nice "in a nutshell" box at the top of the page, like a lot of other policy pages! --75.72.199.4 (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Permit me to ask
I would like to become the Wiki administrator of a certain Wikia Entertainment page, The Mummy Wikia to be exact. I have read the guidelines here on how to become an administrator, but the guidelines said nothing, as I recall, about being administrator for other non-"main" Wikipedia pages. That said, I would like to recommend myself to the position of administrator for The Mummy Wikia page. But how can I nominate myself for administrative status for that page?--KnowledgeLord (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, please note that the administration of any Wikia wiki is a matter for that wiki. Right here we only deal with the administration of the English Wikipedia; Wikia is under separate ownership. In this message, I will refer to some pages on the Mummy Wikia both by their interwiki link names and by their full URLs. The list of users (including indication of whether they are administrators) for such a wiki can be found at the appropriate Special:Listusers page. For the Mummy Wikia, that would be Wikia:Mummy:Special:ListUsers (http://mummy.wikia.com/wiki/Special:ListUsers) at which you can see that there are only 12 registered editors there. You will also see that only one of them, User:Kongisking, has "bureaucrat" or "sysop" next to their name. "Sysop" is a synonym for "administrator", and a "bureaucrat" is the person who can promote people to administrator. With only 41 articles and 12 editors, I'm not sure whether Kongisking will be looking to add more sysops, but apparently the place to ask for promotion to sysop on the Mummy Wikia is Wikia:Mummy:Rickipedia: The Mummy Wiki:Administrators (http://mummy.wikia.com/wiki/Rickipedia:_The_Mummy_Wiki:Administrators) at which User:Dr.Chamberlin sought to nominate himself for sysop, but has received no response yet. So I would recommend posting at Wikia:Mummy:Rickipedia: The Mummy Wiki:Administrators and/or Wikia:Mummy:User talk:Kongisking (http://mummy.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Kongisking) to inquire about becoming a Mummy Wikia administrator. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you block that vandal?
User:24.127.243.198 He's corrupting many pages on purpose. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandals should be reported to WP:AIV. Thanks, – How do you turn this on (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

links to both the listuser links and the list of admin pages
It's clear that List of administrators provides info that the listuser page cannot provide. In particular, it gives a bot updated list of active, semi-active and inactive admins, not to mention former admins. All of this is useful info and that link should stay. (By the way, many editors independently have reverted Arastunko) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps a bot, then? -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 05:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar
While this page is not an article, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt at least some semblance of readability, and follow grammatical sensibilities.

That said, if there are editors who disagree on what is appropriate grammar, then let's discuss it on the talk page. (Be prepared to diagram your sentences, and to explain sense, tone, balance, clarity, and cadence, among other things : ) - jc37 12:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your changes look fine to me. لenna  vecia  16:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It could do with an audit of the writing (without changing the intended meanings, of course). Tony   (talk)  09:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But more important is the poor drafting of some of the statements. Now that they are all extracted and organised here, I can see that there are instances that are (1) inconsistent, and (2) vaguer than was probably intended. Tony   (talk)  01:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, the whole page has grown like topsy and is written like a hybrid how-to-do-it and introduction to newbie admins. It fails to clearly define its audiences (which should be both admins and non-admins) in its tone, style and organisation. It needs to be recast for everyone's sake. This is apart from the generally poor expression on the clause level. Tony   (talk)  01:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. -- MISTER ALCOHOL  TC 05:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)