Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 9

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

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


 * "Bureaucrat removal" sounds like the bureaucrat is being removed! What about "Removal by bureaucrat"? I still don't really like the term "remove" or "removal" though. Aiken   &#9835;  12:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the proposed addition, although I don't see why users can only request removal of their bits via a post at BN. It seems just as reasonable to personally ask an individual bureaucrat. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Julian that it shouldn't specify the method of requesting desysop, it should just say "An administrator or bureaucrat makes a request to have their own right(s) removed." Other than that, it looks fine to me. Gigs (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


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

Is there an actual need for this? How does this improve Wikipedia? Why can't the Stewards continue in their traditional role? KnightLago (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is covered in the background reading material. The main impetus (I believe) is to bring the removal of sysop rights into the en.wiki logs. –xenotalk 14:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a chance to read all of the background material. So when I read this, the above were the questions that immediately came to mind. Can you clue me in? Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the primary motivation. Can you tell me who desysopped Harej (and why) between these two resysops? The fragmentation of rights logs between enwiki and meta makes a complete mess of transparency.   Happy ‑ melon  15:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's in the log where nearly every de-adminning is, right here. Are you suggesting you're incapable of using a separate form (where, by the way, all nearly all de-adminnings are located, globally)? How's that for consistency? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And you found harej's previous username how? What would you have done if User:MessedRocker hadn't still been a redirect? You shouldn't have to be digging through the user rename log to find the right page to go to on meta. If the logs had been here, they would have stayed with the user when he was renamed. As it is, the log you'd actually have checked is not at all helpful. Happy ‑ melon  15:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The logs are messy. You're suggesting making them even messier by splitting de-adminnings between a global log and a local log. I don't see the improvement. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the improvement is that instead of always having to check meta, we only sometimes have to check it. –xenotalk 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So to clarify, you don't think that only being able to find log history when a userpage still redirects to another userpage is at all problematic?
 * Going forward, virtually all deadmins, and probably all decrattings without exception, will be in the local rights log. So for all those cases, the problem is no longer a problem. When a desysop does occur at meta, it is still a problem. So in 95% of cases, the situation gets better, and in the remainder, it remains exactly the same. If you see two +sysops in a row, you know you need to get your tarot cards out to find the intervening log; but in most cases you don't need to do that. Where, exactly, is the lack of improvement? Happy ‑ melon  16:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I an interested where this wonderful figure of 95% comes from? Ruslik_ Zero 19:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 900 entries for enwiki in the metawiki rights log, of which the vast majority are for removal of rights involving admin and bureaucrat. Looking at Former administrators, I counted every removal since 2005 which could conceivably not be covered by this policy: the ten involuntary desysops not under ArbCom authority, and the four deflagged admin bots.  The actual figure is probably between 98 and 99%; I chose a lower value for maximum conservativeness, and also to avoid the appearance of hyperbole.   Happy ‑ melon  20:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think at the very least we should add an easily clickable link from the userrights log here to the rights on meta. Is that possible? If so why don't we have it already? =) –xenotalk 15:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Removal of administrator rights, and changes to CheckUser, Oversight, Stewardship, and other WMF rights – see global rights log (Enter usernames like this: User:Doe@enwiki)." From Special:Log/rights. It has links and everything. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but then you have to manually enter the name. Isn't it possible to provide a direct link to the meta rights log - with the target user provided already? –xenotalk 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even better would be some ability to show the global userright changes right on the same page. –xenotalk 16:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would still only work for log entries that are still attached to the same username as the affected user. Happy ‑ melon  17:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but better than nothing. Is it possible? –xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 17:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Course it's possible. Wouldn't be beyond the ken of man to find a way to handle username changes either. Someone could file a bug - especially if this proposal doesn't pass, but even if it does. Rd232 talk 21:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Has the amount of drama this would cause been examined? I can see us posting to BN for a desysop and calls for the Crats to ignore it. Or for a long drama generating discussion there. This is avoided at Meta. I can also see requests to Crats for emergency desysops that are unapproved by Arbcom. Are Crats going go to be able to resist that call, or is IAR going to be invoked? Further, what about the logistics? How quickly are Crats going to respond to desysop requests? Posts to Meta are dealt with literally in a few minutes or less. KnightLago (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The ability to remove sysop and bureaucrat flags is merely an inverted version of the ability to add them. Is IAR going to be invoked? As often as it is with granting the right I'd imagine. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good way of putting it, Julian, I think it's unfair to assume the crats would exercise this new role any differently to how they exercise the inverse function. There's no reason why meta should be devoid of such drama (indeed it does occasionally happen, vide ). There is only opportunity for drama if the bureaucrats allow themselves to be drawn into it, and given a clear policy for them to stick to, I don't see why they should be any less objective than the stewards would have been.  Happy ‑ melon  16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually read somewhere it was an historical accident that bcrats cannot desysop. I really cannot see any drama that would be caused by this. It's merely moving the ability from stewards to bureaucrats. Aiken   &#9835;  17:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another possibility is having a page created specifically for requesting removal of the bit (like we have for renaming), and having notes at the top indicating that no drama would be tolerated (wording could be worked on, of course). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Add third case, "undeniable clearcut emergency". We have had cases where admins have had their passwords guessed by vandals, and gone on to delete very important pages. We don't want to wait for arbcom or a steward at the cost of another few minutes of the Main Page being gone... --GRuban (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But the Main Page can only be deleted by developers now, I believe (due to having so many edits). I seem to remember a big hullabaloo about that a while back when some admin decided to show rather than tell and got in a bit of hot water over it. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember that an admin tried to check how many revisions the main page had by deleting it, and it worked!. Ruslik_ Zero 19:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Firmly oppose. There remains no clear super/consensus for this to be implemented and there seems to be no pressing need for it either. Spartaz Humbug! 15:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with Spartaz directly above me - the last "policy proposal" was a categorical no consensus at best, if not consensus not to go ahead with it. Firmly oppose, and I still don't get where Happy-melon is getting his idea that it is consensus from. Please, please, please don't use Trusilver's apparent close as consensus for this - don't forget, he's now desysopped for showing poor judgment.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact he is now desysoped is not relevant. That was an unrelated incident. Aiken   &#9835;  17:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly puts things into context and questions his judgment on some of the recent decisions he's made. That said, my major argument is that there was no consensus and continues to be no consensus on the community discussions, not trusilver's sysop status.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely you of all people, Ryan, aren't claiming that a discussion involving fifteen editors represents any form of consensus? :P I am indeed working on the basis that consensus exists, that basis being a poll of a hundred editors of whom 70% were in favour of its implementation.  You seem to believe that the bar for making a change such as this should be 90%.  You're perfectly entitled to hold that view, but I don't think it's one that many people share; in particular both the sysadmins and enwiki community have demonstrated a willingness to implement genuinely consequential changes, such as Rollback and FlaggedRevs, on a mid-sixties percentage.  The discussion was closed by an uninvolved administrator in good standing, and who is still in good standing; I don't know how you read the discussion, but it was closed by SilkTork, who hasn't been anywhere near ArbCom.  Trusilver didn't even participate in either discussion. I think you may have a few facts in a twist.  Happy ‑ melon  18:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rollback was in reality a genuinely inconsequential change. As to FLR, it is still not implemented and therefore a bad example. Ruslik_ Zero 19:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right. Are you saying that bringing in a tool which is used by three thousand users 2,500 times a day, is more inconsequential than this proposed change?  FlaggedRevs has been successfully deployed on 25 wikis by the sysadmins, using the 66% benchmark.  So I don't think it's at all a bad example of what represents a 'good' threshold for making configuration changes.  Happy ‑ melon  21:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rollback is arguably just as consequential as desysopping, as it is given to a lot more users under a lot less scrutiny. If a crat were to abuse desysopping, I'm certain they'd be decratted pretty quickly. For FLR, the only reason it's not implemented is because it's not technically stable enough for enwiki. It was approved for enwiki, and will be installed on enwiki as soon as it's ready. Thus, it is not a bad example. ( X! ·  talk )  · @955  · 21:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Spartaz. This discussion is slowly roaming from one page to another. It is time to close it once and for all. Ruslik_ Zero 19:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support addition. Consensus is clear enough for this inconsequential change. Icewedge (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I am surprised that this is even being discussed.  My reading of the prior pages is that there is a clear and sustained consensus for this change.  Eluchil404 (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - How many more places are we going to have this poll? Consensus was never found in any of the previous discussions, and to constantly move the discussion to new places to try and manufacture a different consensus is ridiculous. Stewards are able to handle this just fine, we don't need to fix the problem if it's not broken. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 09:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't know where else this discussion is happening, but I don't like the idea of splitting the logs even more than they are currently. Desysoppings (with the exception of a few isolated cases) have always been on Meta. That is where the derighting (for admin and beyond) log has always been centralised (XX@enwiki). Whether or not buraucrat desysopping was intended to be implemented at the beginning is quite irrelevant now; hundreds of users have been desysopped since then, and I fear this will create added confusion as to where their log entry actually is. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 09:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's always clear when there should be a 'derighting' (great word!) log entry; the sysadmins are the only ones who have occasional unlogged rights changes. So if you look in someone's rights log and they have two +sysops in a row, or aren't an admin but have no desysop logged, you know you have to go hunting for the intervening removal.  But you only find that out by looking at the enwiki rights log; so if you were able to look there and find in the vast majority of cases the complete log, you would normally need to look no further; and in the few remaining cases, the situation would be the same as it is now.  You can't search the rights log by action anyway, so having all our log entries for one action in one place is not particularly helpful; much more useful is having all log entries for any given user in one place.  And as I said above, this would probably bring 99% of desysops and decrats back to enwiki.  Happy ‑ melon  10:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully support this trivial change. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly support anything that makes it even slightly easier to desysop people. Hopefully this is the first step in a much longer journey.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  12:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do find it interesting that it's admins only who are showing up to oppose this :) Just sayin'. Aiken   &#9835;  13:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, this particular proposal has nothing to do with community de-adminship; that's an entirely different proposal. If this passes, the rules surrounding sysop removal won't be changed. The way it's done will just be slightly different. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 15:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: we shouldn't forget that this is not a rerun of Requests_for_adminship/Bureaucrat_Unchecking/Poll, which closed with 70% support for the principle. The issue is implementation of the agreed principle. Rd232 talk 21:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With that in mind, I support the current implementation of the proposed policy. I see no major qualms with this version, like the previous versions had. (e.g. referring to a future CDA) ( X! ·  talk )  · @039  · 23:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, anything to do with bureaucrats required much higher support than 70%... Until RFBs pass at levels lower than 85% then I think a 70% consensus is moot. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 01:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't an RFB, and there is no reason why the community's normal standards for consensus should not apply.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  12:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Both the previous alterations to the bureaucrat in-tray (as compared to the admin janitors' cart :D) were introduced without such a prohibitive level of unanimity: renameuser was implemented with no discussion whatsoever; and granting bot status on the basis of "requests from bureaucrats and stewards". Of course, these changes are old; but the crat bundle hasn't changed much over the past few years.  More recently, rollback introduced changes to the admin bundle on 67% support, which would not be sufficient to pass an RfA; the <tt>'accountcreator'</tt> usergroup, which admins also add and remove, was implemented based purely on this discussion.  The activation of RevDelete functionality for admins, which is held up on a nasty technical problem, is pending based on this discussion.  The claim that making changes to the crat/admin bundles requires greater unanimity than promoting crats/admins, is simply incorrect.  Happy ‑ melon  13:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay, the good ol' other stuff exists argument... Until consensus is determined to be found at 70% on current RFBs, any argument that attempts to make 70% look like consensus in other crat related areas is simply skewing consensus per personal opinion. There are no real advantages to this, unless you're like S Marshall and believe that this will help the CDA proposal... which might I add is extremely controversial and will never gain consensus. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 22:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You should actually try the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS link sometime; it no longer points (and hasn't for a year) to the now-extremely-bloated-and-qualified section at Arguments to Avoid, but at a rather better-written essay which describes the not-at-all clear-cut elements of the rule in rather better balance, and explains better than I can why arbitrarily throwing the acronym into a discussion wherever it may seem applicable, is far from the best or even a valid way to further an argument.
 * Essentially you are saying that we should ignore absolutely all precedent on this (and presumably other) matters, and instead adopt an approach based on... precedent... at RfB? Instead of setting our baseline on identical processes introducing equivalent changes, we should base our threshold on a tangentially-connected process?  There's a lack of consistency there: if we are discarding precedent, why are we not falling back to the two-thirds threshold that is the unwritten numerical value of Consensus??  Why are we falling back to another precedent-based process?  Is it just because that process has a higher threshold?  Happy ‑ melon  11:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't realize that I didn't actually use the link... What happens at RFB and what was discussed during the polls about RFB, showed that what the community considered to be consensus on crats, was at a much higher level than what the norms are at other areas around the site. You really should try and look at the discussions that have surrounded this area sometime, before you stick your head further than you understand into this discussion. There wasn't consensus for this, and there still isn't. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 04:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Using the soundbite quote without the background explanation is not an improvement. Since you are now employing the exact same argument, you'll forgive me if I don't pay any further attention to your denigration of it. But perhaps you could show us some examples and evidence to support your assertion, rather than expecting us to just blindly believe that the polls you claim exist, actually do.  So you're looking for discussions about changing the bureaucrat package, which gained over 70% support and yet still failed to attain consensus.  I look forward to seeing your examples.  Happy ‑ melon  10:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


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


 * How many more different venues is this going to go through in an attempt to get a different answer? Oppose as a solution for a non-existent problem. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I remain neutral on the grounds that bureaucrats should not be seen as attempting to aggrandize power to themselves, even if it is only technical or procedural in nature.  MBisanz  talk 14:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The idea that this will somehow fix the logs is absolutely incorrect. Further, none of the bureaucrats have been vetted for this proposed role. They are not, by default, equipped with dispute resolution skills. If you want to make this happen, dump the entire bureaucrat corps and make them go through RfB again with this added responsibility that is dramatically different than their current responsibilities. Also, rename this proposal; it's highly misleading. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain, please, why "The idea that this will somehow fix the logs is absolutely incorrect"? Happy ‑ melon  11:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you suppose happens when a Steward respond to an emergency request to desysop someone? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the log remains on meta, naturally. How does that nullify the fact that for at least 98% of desysoppings the logs are no longer fragmented and so qualify as "fixed" by your definition?  I think it's your assertion that "98% fixed" != "entirely fixed" therefore == "not at all fixed" that is "absolutely incorrect".  Happy ‑ melon  16:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One, I dispute your 98% figure. Two, we have different definitions. This is being touted as a solution to fragmented logs. It isn't. If you want to fix fragmented logs, then talk to the developers about unified logs. We have SUL. We can have unified logs too. That is the solution, not this. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disputed on what basis? We certainly do have different definitions: you take "fixed" to require unfragmented logs in all circumstances, while I am content with them being unfragmented in the vast majority of cases and no worse than they are now in the remainder.  As a developer, I would say that unified logging (, one of our oldest) would be difficult to implement successfully, probably requiring a schema change to either the user or logging tables. Not, of course, impossible, but a significant amount of work.  Happy ‑ melon  12:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's always the EmergencyDeSysop possibility... Tisane (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The extension needs a MASSIVE rewrite, but if we got consensus, it would be trivial to rewrite. ( X! ·  talk )  · @937  · 21:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Juliancolton, Tisane and others above. This seems like an easy call to me. Jusdafax  00:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as a trivial change. It's who pushes the button, not who orders the button to be pushed.  I'd prefer we have the desysop power be internal to en... Hobit (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rule that both articles should be full of criticism, then we must make the matter in the criticism fork available in the main article for Christianiy, Islam and Hinduism also. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Dr.Vittal (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong place for this request; please use Talk:Homeopathy to discuss the matter. Fletsi (aklt) 09:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


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

Kozlov
Hey, I need help with a move. At WT:PW, there was a consensus achieved to move the article. However, Wikipedia does not allow me to move over an existing page. I was told I needed to contact an admin for assistance. Thanks in advance, Feed  back  ☎ 04:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You need WP:RM Spartaz Humbug! 04:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I posted on WP:RM, but have not gotten a response. I need an admin to make the move. Feed  back  ☎ 00:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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

Selection and opinions of administrators and candidates
I assume this has been brought up before (I haven't looked in the archives) -- Was every admin who passed through a successful RfA selected because they are the wisest users? For example, should almost every bot owner become an administrator because they are trusted for their responsibility of operating bots? I have some feeling that users who I've consulted with had high chances of become admins. Did these people somehow become popular here, showing their following of the site's policies? Schfifty 3  02:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a better question to ask at WT:RFA but "wisest" could correspond to WP:CLUE in which case yes (ideally), but you seem to be trying to define it in terms of overall skillset. That's usually only considered in the positive sense ("Editor A has skills X, Y, and Z") and not in the negative ("Oppose - Can't write a bot/manage the edit filter/understand rangeblocks").  A recentish example is that of Requests for adminship/Cobi 4.  User:Cobi runs Cluebot, and yet his first three RfAs did not pass. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 02:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Past reasons for desysopping
There is a basis for desysopping that's come up in the past and isn't in that list:
 * Exceptionally, unilateral decisions of an egregious nature, which they surely knew would be highly disruptive, or outside community norms, in a serious matter (eg overturning a block or BLP deletion in a high-drama-potential case that was clearly against consensus and norms).

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


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

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

Logo
I've created a vector version of the logo (using a SVG mop from Commons, and the revised logo), and was wondering if it could replace the low-res PNG that is currently in use. Thanks, Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


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

Culture Unplugged
can someone help me to create the page

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Jagam (talk • contribs) 07:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)



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

Generally this sounds okay, but I'd suggest a change, to address situations where an uninvolved admin chooses to not use the tools with respect to edits that represent a POV with which the admin is sympathetic. So, I suggest: "They are never required to use their tools except to be evenhanded, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved.". Any thoughts?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Admins are never required to use their tools, full stop. If they DO choose to use them, they are expected to do so in an evenhanded manner. Implying that admins are ever required to do anything at all is neither a good idea nor a reflection of reality. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's go straight to a hypothetical. David is an uninvolved admin who blocks users about once a week for various types of misdeeds at the marijuana article.  But whenever someone who is anti-legalization makes an edit at that article violating Wikipedia policy, David looks the other way, and leaves it for other admins to deal with if they learn about it and want to act.  David figures that admins never have to use their tools.  Is there some way to tweak the lede in this policy so that David will clearly understand what he's supposed to do?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * David is never obligated to do anything at all. He is absolutely permitted to do so, but there's simply no way to enforce thoughtcrime against admins for their failure to take action against transgressions they observe which might happen to go along with their personal biases. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * David is an honest person who tries to follow all applicable rules even when he knows that no one is watching and/or he cannot get caught. The only reason that he's engaging in this behavior is because he believes the lede of this policy explicitly allows it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear what other folks think about the situation you've posed. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * David the pothead admin does not exist. Situations like this don't occur or at least don't occur in such clear-cut terms. It goes without saying that admins should do their best to be fair to all, but the proposed change (not to mention its wording) is a solution in search of a problem. Pichpich (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * David is anti-legalization per this hypothetical, not a pothead. And if situations like this occur in less clear-cut terms, then I don't see the harm in fixing the lede of this policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that the change is supposed to fix a basically non-existent problem but has the downside of creating all sorts of misinterpretation. It doesn't make sense to require that admins use their tools for purpose x, y or z. Sure, David might have some slight bias towards a certain POV but one of two things happens. Requiring action in the interest of evenhandedness creates two new problems. First, it forces admins into an arbiter role which they are expressly supposed to avoid. Secondly, it opens the door to new dubious claims of admin bias and we can do without new sources of drama. Pichpich (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * a) He's consciously using his admin tools to push that POV. In that case, he's violating the current policy as well as basic ethics of editing and it won't take long before someone calls him on it.
 * b) He's just doing his honest best. In that case, he would not feel that the proposed wording is of any relevance to his actions.
 * That's quite a decisive opinion for a wikignome, Pichpich. Anyway, if requiring admins to be evenhanded would force them into an arbiter role, then so does requiring them to use their tools "fairly" (which has not inspired an avalanche of dubious claims).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your first sentence is supposed to insinuate... Pichpich (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never had the pleasure of conversing with a self-described wikignome before. Nice to meet you.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One more objection, saying what everyone else is. We're all volunteers here, even the admins, we don't have to do anything. All the rules can require of us is not to do certain things. Look at the page itself, it says "The English Wikipedia has 1,731 administrators as of June 26, 2010." Most are active. If you see a specific action that David is unwilling to do, find one of the remaining 1,730, I'm sure there will be plenty able and willing. If you think he is biased in applying his tools in this area, you can ask him to refrain from applying them; but he is in no way obligated to apply them more.--GRuban (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Off-topic but the sad fact is that only 48% of admins are fully active. (Of course, that still means ~830 people can be called to the task) Pichpich (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Seems like a good idea. Admin action should never 'favor' one side in a dispute. LK (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that this solves an actual problem and I still feel that the addition is a recipe for more drama. Admins, like anyone, should not push their POV, whether it's with or without the buttons but that's already covered elsewhere. This page is about the specific handling of the admin buttons. Pichpich (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Suppose an admin happens across a dispute on a page that he/she has strong feelings about, but has never visited before (and so is seen as 'uninvolved'). Would it be proper for him/her to warn and threaten blocks for disputants only on one side of the dispute (even if both sides have edit warred), and then revert and lock-down the page on a version preferred by the side that he/she favors? This situation is not a hypothetical, there are cases where this has happened. LK (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From my personal experience INVOLVED is already a recipe for ABF. I don't think the project would be served by adding any more pretexts to accuse administrators of bias. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My personal experience is that there's a real problem at controversial Wikipedia articles. I didn't come here for fun, but rather based on my 15,000 article edits.  At the same time, I have no doubt whatsoever that you're accurately summarizing your experiences too Jclemens.  Please consider that there may be a way to not only satisfy my concerns about uninvolved admins, but also your ABF concerns about involved admins.  The solution would be to include an AGF in the same sentence:
 * "They are never required to use their tools, must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved, must never use them selectively to give an advantage even when they are uninvolved, and anyone seeking to establish that an administrator has misused the tools will have to overcome a presumption of good faith."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Admins are not required to use their tools. If there is a concern about one specific administrator's use of tools, one addresses that specific problem, one does not rewrite a longstanding policy. What one user views as 'selective' use of tools may well be that the admin is following longstanding consensus not to block hours after an event has occurred and been remedied; or that there is no actual violation of policy, except as perceived by the other party. The hypothetical here is already covered in the policy, and is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem. Risker (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's already covered by the policy, then of course I'll retract the suggestion. But is it?  What part of the policy forbids the hypothetical admin (David) at the hypothetical article (marijuana) from selectively using the tools only against editors who exhibit no anti-legalization bias?  People indicated above that nothing forbids it, so editors would have to go canvassing for more neutral admins.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are situations where you might only block one of two equally blockable parties (for whatever reason) because you are unable to deal with the backlash of blocking both. Instead leaving the other to someone else. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  03:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That ought to be forbidden, unless the person you're afraid to block is God herself. In that case, I could support an exception.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in that situation no one gets blocked who should get blocked. Which I think you'd agree is undesirable. :) Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  04:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be better to leave two parties feuding than to only penalize the little guy who you're not afraid of. The situation would best be addressed by bringing both parties to ANI, rather than repeatedly blocking only one of them, thereby allowing the other to completely control the articleAnythingyouwant (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to find it is usually two 'big' guys. One thing at a time. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  04:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Anythingyouwant, let's get down to brass tacks here. Who are you targeting here? Why do you believe this is a problem that needs to be addressed? If you have a complaint about a specific admin, say so. Otherwise, you are proposing a solution for a non-existent problem. This is Wikipedia, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals. Risker (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you agree that it's not covered by current policy? Let's get that straight, please.
 * If it's not covered by policy, then it seems like a gaping hole that could be harmlessly and easily plugged (unlike the Gulf). As LawrenceKHoo said above in this talk page section, these incidents are not just hypothetical, and that has been my experience as well.  No one has been violating any rules, because the rules have been imperfect; therefore, I don't thnk it would be proper for me to name names, and in any event I have not been taking copious notes for the past six years.  Look at it this way: if the rules were to say explicitly that admins are free to discriminate based on POV, don't you think many admins would do so?  That's effectively what the rules say now, if you concede that nothing in the rules now prevents the hypo I described.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I concede nothing, Anythingyouwant. However, after many years of experience in watching people try to modify policy without broad community consensus, it is my observation that such modifications are a means to an end that usually has nothing to do with the good of the project, and everything to do with the advancement of a specific agenda. You have failed to illustrate a reason for changing the policy, and are proposing a change that goes far beyond the hypothetical situation you are using to suggest the change. You are proposing an amendment to this policy which will fundamentally change the way in which administrators are expected to act. The answer to that is no. If you have a problem about the actions of a particular administrator(s), say so and address that. Risker (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I identified what seems to me (and another editor above) to be a flaw in Wikipedia rules, and I suggested a correction for the good of the project, having nothing to do with any plans of me personally. Instead, you come to demonize me, accuse me of having some hidden agenda.  Risker, with all due respect, this discussion is over.  As a matter of fact, please full protect my user page and talk page.  I am tired of you people, and will be away indefinitely.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrators, I cannot find where the tag is to disuss the deletion of the Cookie Logic page.

I have a trademark on the name Cookie Logic and I believed I would provide information about what Cookie Logic is on Wikipedia. I understand this promotes the show and my blog, but the information about Cookie Logic is true. Should I remove time and air dates? What do you suggest?

Sincerely, Rhonda Davis Stoner "Cookie" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiesto (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If this ain't policy, nothing is ;-)
I just added the following line here (I'm sure you can find it elsewhere too, but it was pertinent in this location): "In fact, a wise administrator will always consult with at least one other administrator, before they take administrative action. "

This is pretty much old-school, and I'm pretty sure variants can be found as far back as. This fact also came up in my foundation-l analysis of Jimbo Wales' loss of founder rights. No-one can violate this rule indefinitely, and expect to got away with it. Not even Jimbo (as the poor man discovered, to his embarrassment :-

I wouldn't go as far as to say jt is mandatory to consult other admins and users (and listen to them!), because there is no one going around checking to make sure that you have done so. On the other hand, it is near certainty that you will get into potentially career-limiting trouble sooner or later if you do not consult with other admins or users. (I know I did :-P )

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I undid your edit because the statement is far too broad; e.g. - Should I consult with at least one other administrator before blocking an obvious vandal that was properly warned and subsequently reported to AIV after continuing their disruption? Or before deleting a clearly uncontroversial db-u1 request? etc. I think you were maybe going for something else. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do multiple administrative actions a day in copyright cleanup. I'm afraid if I always consulted with at least one other administrator, copyright cleanup on Wikipedia would slow to a standstill. Likewise, we process many, many articles in CSD (Special:Log/delete). While consulting with other administrators may be advisable if administrative action is likely to be controversial, it would be a massive time-waster as a matter of routine and not really "wise" for that reason. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @xeno In that case, if there's really really a big hurry, you could take it as read that you are following the advice of the reporter. There's been at least 2 sets of eyes on the issue.


 * There are many such mechanisms that provide at least 2 sets of eyes.


 * Of course, best of all here would be to go on AIV patrol with one other admin by your side (physically or virtually), so you can quickly double-check each other. Sometimes there's more behind a vandal report than meets the eye. Just like there is sometimes more to a "pornographic image" than meets the eye. (for instance, it might be a famous painting being described on the German wikipedia. The guilty know who they are ;-) )


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @xeno @moonriddengirl Hmm, perhaps a better phrasing might be "Except in the most obvious of casesa wise administrator will always consult with at least one other person, before they take administrative action." 
 * My own issue with that phrasing is that sometimes obvious cases are not obvious, and you end up doing damage. CSD is a good example of a policy that is actually negatively influencing wiki-growth.
 * Figuring methods/procedures to ensure "at least 4 eyes" that are still fast is a continuing challenge.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of admin tasks are entirely dull and non-controversial. Per MRG above, perhaps something with respect to seeking advice before taking controversial administrative actions might be in order (the inverse of your suggestion above), but as it stood your introduction was unworkable. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You generally only find out that an action is/will be controversial when:
 * You boldly take the action, and then find yourself on WP:RFC, or under steward scrutiny. (who, me?)
 * You ask someone else to review/take the action, and they give you "That Look" and tell you that you're nuts. (I'm perfectly sane, I swear)
 * Life sucks that way. At least in the latter case, the scope of your embarrassment is limited somewhat.
 * You're right that many admin actions are uncontroversial; mainly because they have been pre-checked in some way. The general rule still holds though; unchecked/un-consulted admin actions tend to lead to suffering.
 * Perhaps there's a better way to word it? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the premise (or I don't understand what 'pre-checked' means, but I certainly am not happy with the idea of pairing as an expected thing. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it is certainly wise to pair, I wouldn't quite go as far as to say it is expected.
 * Pairing allows you to work more consistently and you will be less likely to run into issues. You also tend to work faster when you're working together with another person, as you tend to support each other. :-)


 * Are there downsides to pairing, that you have experienced?
 * Or is it that you disagree that many eyes make a problem shallow?
 * (or something else?)
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how 'pairing' could lead to 'working faster'. It seems that it would lead to working much slower, as you need to explain to the other person about a particular proposed action, they need to review it, reply, perhaps there is some further back-and-forth. It seems like this would double or triple the already fully-loaded administrative plate. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 16:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ("fully loaded administrative plate" = we're running low on admins? )
 * Admittedly, there's some debate as to the efficiency of pairing, but when I check out the numbers for pairing in programming, it's in the 15% up-or-down range, not 100-200% like you hypothesize. My opinion is that you can go up to 15% faster with a bit of practice. Sometimes things might not work out, and you end up going up to 15% slower. (Which could be ameliorated by a little more practice)
 * But even if you're slightly slower, you still make less mistakes, which leads to less wikidrama and timewasting on AN ;-) :-P
 * If we're just going for 4-eyes-on-issue, rather than full pairing; that's an efficiently parallelizable process, at least.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? Programming is not Wikipedia administration. It just seems like you're trying to come up with a solution to a problem that occurs fairly rarely. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the underlying processes are pretty similar these days,  (History: Ward Cunningham didn't just invent the wiki, he was also involved in the development of new approaches to programming; there has been a lot of sharing of best practices and jargon between the (agile) programming community and the wiki community. eg. "refactoring", "diffs", "collaborative editing", etc... ) 
 * That said, I was looking for numbers on efficiency. I think the differences in efficiency between (agile) programming process and wiki-admin process wouldn't be all too different, due to their historical ties. Therefore Imho +/-15% is a good indication. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of the tens-of-thousands of administrative actions I've performed, you can probably count the "goofs" on two hands. Having to discuss those tens-of-thousands of actions ahead of time just to (potentially) prevent a handful of goofs is inefficient at best. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think the cost-to-benefit ratio of secondary review is attractive. Would it really benefit Wikipedia to suggest that two admins should review each listing at Requested moves or Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons or Requests for page protection or Templates for deletion (and etc.) before taking admin action? How many additional admins would we need to accomplish this work in a timely fashion (especially given that we can't seem to do so even now :/)? I have on occasion thought that a period of peer-mentorship after an admin first gets the tools could be beneficial to make sure that a new admin hasn't gotten the right about something, and frankly some kind of "continuing education" could be useful for experienced admins who lose touch with updated practices (have seen it happen myself :)), but I think discouraging admins from taking routine action on the grounds that is unwise isn't going to help us get the mess cleaned up better or faster. By the same "four eyes are better than two" standard, we could eliminate a good many errors and problems on Wikipedia if we required tag-team editing, but "revision review" notwithstanding it would certainly put a hamper on development. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my original reasoning on foundation-l: http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg10788.html ; (Now that it is mentioned, please take it as read into the on-wiki conversation.) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would fear that pairing would generate issues. I've seen this, I'm afraid, in copyright cleanup as we have few active admins in that area and necessarily tend to congregate in the same places. When another copyright admin weighs in to support me, I have gotten, "Of course he agreed with you; you two are friends." :/ Of course, that only happens anyway when actions are controversial and second opinion is required, but I fear that if admins pair routinely the notion that they must have each others' backs and can't possibly agree because they're right will be reinforced.


 * It will also require coordinating schedules. I don't know any other admins who put as many hours into copyright cleanup as I do. I'm afraid there aren't enough interested individuals for me to recruit more. :/ (Not that I don't try!)


 * I'm inclined to agree with others that the bulk of our janitorial work is uncontroversial, and while I agree certainly that seeking feedback for controversial matters is a good idea, I'd expect that to be the exception rather than the rule. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think it's up to us to use our own judgement here. Before I saw Moonriddengirl's comments I'd already concluded that we'd get people saying 'of course he agreed with you'. I don't think we'd get less bad blocks and I think we'd get fewer good ones. As Xeno says, it would increase an already heavy workload. I work sporadically and if I had to consult every time I'd just do less. I already ask for reviews if I have any doubt. Going slower may mean less Wiki-drama but it does not mean fewer mistakes if you count the blocks that should have been made but won't be made as mistakes. And I doubt it will make less Wiki-drama, those that want to create it will still create it. Pairing in programming is not really comparable with consulting on blocks. I don't use my tools, or even am active, in a way that would make real-time pairing possible. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's fascinating to find that things I've always taken for granted are now utterly unknown to current admins, or that they actually believe the opposite to be true.

It's a strange feeling. :-/

I'm going to think about this for a bit.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In your defense, it appears you have not administered here since 2005 ; a time when I'd guess administrative backlog was but a grey strand in Jimbo's beard. Perhaps you'd like to pick the tools back up and see how productive you are when bouncing every action you intend to make off another admin prior to making it? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 18:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course I still administer here, silly! Three guesses how I do it?


 * The fun thing is, for about 6 months after I asked User:Angela to remove my flag, no one even noticed anything had changed. And they didn't really comment on it much afterwards either. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC) It did help that I had a practiced doing Soft security a lot; so I didn't need the buttons as hard in the first place. ;-) 


 * Yes, what I wrote above should've been read as "you haven't taken any administrative action since 2005" - I know you are still an administrator who left their tools in the shop. So I suppose you are, in a way, proving that you have four eyes on all of your administrator actions since you never take the action. However, I don't think that applying this same concept across-the-board is going to work: it doesn't scale - jmho. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I have always concentrated heavily on controversial areas... --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe that's the difference. :) Typically, I don't. I think there are probably a lot of us who do fairly routine work. User:Anthony Appleyard, for instance, puts in a heroic effort at Cut and paste move repair holding pen (see, for instance, ). I think it may be a good idea to seek review for controversial stuff and have routinely trotted long-term blocks I feel might warrant a second opinion to ANI; it's just implying that doing so is always good practice for admin actions that I have a problem with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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