This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
Dear Administrator and Attn: @ Edwardx,
I would like to cite @ Edwardx page on Altice (company) in a brief I am filing with the Supreme Court of the United States. As a user, I have a few concerns about Wikipedia more generally, which I will discuss at a later date, but as a reliable source for academic and legal purposes, it is difficult to use because it is not considered "officially-accepted" by any industry as credible. Its lack of credibility is due to the fact that it is unclear who wrote it and the rules of citations require the author's last name and (at least) his/her first and middle initial in order for the source to be reputable. Also there is no screening process to determine and validate a user's credentials as an expert, an enthusiast, or bias party as to the subject matter.
Of primary concern, I am only focused on obtaining Edwardx's full name so that he does not miss out on the opportunity to be credited for his work in such a high-level legal filing. Because of Wikipedia's present rules, I am not (would not and cannot) demand or require Edwardx to provide his name. It is only a gentle request which I believe to be in his best interest. If he is interested in being cited or if an administrator is interested in connecting me with the proper persons to disucuss how I can help make Wikipedia a more credible online source with industry experts, please contact me at electattorneys@gmail.com.
For your information, as to the specific user Edwardx, his name will appear in the brief which will initially be filed under seal, but could become public information at a later date. ~~ ChristaJwl ( talk) 17:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Inactive administrators § Criteria, the second criterion is inconsistent with the second criterion at Wikipedia:Administrators § Procedural removal for inactive administrators. I'm guessing this is a remnant from copying and pasting, but thought I would confirm that I didn't miss something from the corresponding request for comments? isaacl ( talk) 16:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
less than 100 edits (deleted or otherwise) or log actions for 5 years
Has made fewer than 100 edits over a 60 month period
Off topic
|
---|
Hi. I would like to know how to register my writings on internet and have my copyright like wikipedia but only me and free. 170.84.135.65 ( talk) 18:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
|
Hello admins, I have concerns about the article that I have created today (October 27, 2022). Prior to the creation, there was an article of the same name (created by another author) that has been deleted last September 18, 2022, I am aware of that and since no article have been created after that I have decided to make new. Now, my concerns is that when I save the article, the note of the previous article remains and it says like this
"This article was nominated for deletion on September 18, 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy delete."
My question is, is the note have been added in the article would affect the newly created article? Thank you. Troy26Castillo ( talk) 11:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Additional, the note or the template was added by AnomieBOT, is it automated in relation to the old article that has been deleted since it has the same name? Troy26Castillo ( talk) 13:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Or just a reminder that previously there was an article of the same name that has been deleted? Troy26Castillo ( talk) 13:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Troy26Castillo ( talk) 14:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Just want to be on record stating that I think the INVOLVED standard is bad as written.
In particular, "objective decisions" and "strong feelings" and "disputes on topics" are, to my mind, coded language that privileges a false ideal of personal objectivity that doesn't exist and is generally used as a cudgel against people outside the dominant culture. (Basically, I think it's okay for people to have feelings.) I fully support the intent of the standard, and it is helpful for people to recuse themselves if there is a risk of violating Wheaton's law. -- The Cunctator ( talk) 14:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
[...] coded language that privileges a false ideal of personal objectivity that doesn't exist and is generally used as a cudgel against people outside the dominant culture." is incredibly well put — thank you. — TheresNoTime ( talk • they/them) 16:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
, to avoid the appearance of unfairness." isaacl ( talk) 16:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
, to avoid unfairness." is another possibility. I suggested "appearance" to sidestep discussions into whether or not an administrator's actions were actually unfair, and to assume in good faith that admins are able to make impersonal decisions. (I don't think a rationale for the first sentence is really needed, but made a suggestion to provide a brief aside on the visible consequences of someone making administrative decisions in disputes where they were a participant.) isaacl ( talk) 17:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Primefac ( talk) 10:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In
Wikipedia:Administrators § Restoration of adminship, should the policy regarding Over five years since administrative tools were last used...
for restoration of adminship be interpreted as:
20:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
A 2018 RFC proposed by
Beeblebrox set out to determine if any admin who has not used their tools in five years and is subsequently desysopped for total inactivity would no longer be able to simply ask for them back
, to which there was general support.
WP:ADMIN was
subsequently updated to add this language. However, it was later
inadvertently changed, with the "and is subsequently desysopped" clause removed from the statement (making it essentially "Option 2" above). Meanwhile,
WP:RESYSOP (point 6) currently states what can be interpreted as "Option 1" above (a period of five years or longer at the time of their last administrative rights removal
), leading to a discrepancy in our policies and guidelines. This RFC is being asked to bring both ADMIN and RESYSOP into sync with each other and also to determine (slash reconfirm) the community consensus on the matter.
Primefac (
talk)
21:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I feel we're pretty firmly in the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable.
which per
WP:RFCEND suggests no formal closing needed. As such updating the relevent bullet point with this RfC in a footnote feels like the next step. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
23:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Here's my proposed implementation which changes the footnote while leaving the body text unchanged:
References
Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thanks in advance RL Asaf ( talk) 08:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom gave an announcement today which updates/clarifies some previous announcements linked to in the special situations section of this policy. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Given the recent close of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Updating_BLOCKEVIDENCE combined with the announcement above, I would suggest that the special situations should be updated. Normally I'd draft something as a starting point but would guess that some editors would be uncomfortable with that owing to my being a sitting Arb who helped pass the announcement in question. But I think the consensus has changed and this policy needs updating. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
As I sat down to actually figure out how to update the "Appealable only to Arbcom" bullet point given the RfC above, it became clear that while the ArbCom statement and the RfC are clearly related to the wording here (which is all about pedophelia blocks before OS blocks and the Foundation taking over that realm of enforcement happened and without saying that) the RfC outcome doesn't actually support changing the wording here. So I think to make a change it'll require an RfC. Here is my draft of an RfC to do so:
Should the Administrator and Blocking policies be harmonized by removing the bulletpoint that begins "Blocks made with the summary "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee" " from the Administrator policy?
There is longstanding wording in the Administrator's policy that allows Admins to make blocks "appealable only to the Arbitration Committee". There is no such authorization in the Blocking policy. The language in the Admin policy originated in a 2012 Arbitration Committee statement and references the need at the time to block editors engaging in pedophilic and other oversightable activities. This statement came before the existance of Oversight Blocks and before the Wikimedia Foundation assumed responsibility for pedophilia enforcement. A 2022 review by ArbCom of the use of blocks labeled "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee" over the preceding 6 years revealed 11 blocks labeled like that not levied by the Arbitration Committee or by a Checkuser. Of those 11, 5 blocks were reported and 6 were not reported to the Arbitration Committee. Nearly all the blocks were for paid editing reasons. Following this audit the Arbitration Committee updated its guidance and the community subsequently affirmed that admins should not be blocking based on off-wiki evidence in an RfC.
Thoughts? Comments? Improvements? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
...administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause..., but then has a section of when that doesn't apply (but it does apply - there would still need to be 'good cause', it is really just further restricting what the good cause may be). So then we get in to blocks that are only appealable to arbcom, ok that means you need more than the normal "good cause" -- OK. So that's probably all that needs to be here, in the admin policy, about arbcom related blocks. So it seems like a bunch of this can just be trimmed and replaced with a single line that blocks designated as appealable only to arbcom can only be removed with approval of arbcom. Perhaps a note that admins that are misusing this label in placing blocks may have such labeling considerd a misuse of tools itself. — xaosflux Talk 00:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Administrators should not reverse blocks placed by the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should also not reverse blocks placed by Checkusers or Oversighters without prior consent of the Arbitration Committee if they do not hold the appropriate permission.That would dramatically reduce the section and say the same thing. I expect I'd support something like that. But it does feel like a larger change and my priority is to get rid of situations where individual admins feel authorized to make a block appealable only to ArbCom. My strong opinion - and this is backed up by the blocking policy - is that only ArbCom as a committee (in other words not even individual arbs) can do such a block. Getting rid of that is my priority here so I'm open to whether my original idea, ask to remove it or the revised idea (merge bullet points 1 and 2) is better tactically and that RfC could serve as a good discussion place to seeing whether there might be community consensus behind an even larger streamlining of the policy. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Private evidence involving undisclosed paid editing may be sent to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org.part in it.
Any resulting blocks will be labeled as paid editing or spam blocks and give the VRTS ticket number.and I take the RfC linked above as community saying they're uninterested in an alternative method. That said I feel like we're getting farther afield from this policy? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I have launched the RfC using the child protection wording suggested by Tony. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Given the vast powers of Admins, including blocking users and IP addresses and ranges from editing, and restricting others from editing or article visibility, I am concerned that holding them "accountable" is limited to situations where "Administrators...seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community..." Even in that situation, the threat of accountability is that such administrators "may be sanctioned..."
As a prosecutor in a professional licensing organization, this high standard for imposing sanctions on abusive sysops seems almost useless in light of, and in contrast,to the ease with which sysops deal out sanctions imposed editors.
Maybe the WikipediA Foundation ought revamp what is meant by "accountability," or institute actual accountability - i.e. have a systematic way of enforcing standards so that Jimmy Wales' vision is better realized:
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
Otherwise, the self-insulating and mutual protection clicks that tend to materialize in organizations and operate to push bias will continue to evolve.
IAmBecomeDeath ( talk) 02:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a rare belief that WP:INVOLVED only applies to admins using the tools, and not all editors acting as administrators, such as by closing formal discussions. Should we clarify that INVOLVED applies to all editors, perhaps by adding a note stating this? Or is this interpretation rare enough that clarification is not necessary?
Alternatively, if my interpretation and assessment of the rarity of this belief is incorrect, then should we clarify that it only applies to administrators by changing "editors" to "administrators" and "act as administrators" to "use the tools"? BilledMammal ( talk) 09:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Primefac ( talk) 09:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
hello, i'm new content writer in wikipedia, Please help guide me to write in this site. Can u help me to check this /info/en/?search=User_talk:Jodysetiawan23 ?
is any suggestion or this content contain violation ? Jodysetiawan23 ( talk) 10:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Please see Village pump (policy) regarding removal the admin user-right from blocked administrators. WormTT( talk) 14:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to ask you for help with Iron Maiden band WIKI page to be protected from frequent acts of vandalism. Some unregistered persons (so called IPers) use to delete data or write the nonsenses just for fun. There's a necessity to apply some semi - protection proper tool (Semi - Protected Silverlock) to avoid the highly uncomfortable situations like that. Thx a lot! ~~ RALFFPL ( talk) 18:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect User:Admin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 12 § User:Admin until a consensus is reached. Vitaium ( talk) 08:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The redirect User talk:Admin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 12 § User talk:Admin until a consensus is reached. Vitaium ( talk) 08:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to ask for assistance about the page I have created 2 years ago named Gelo Rivera, last year it has been redirected to the group's main page BGYO, and then as of today August 9, 2023 I have decided to removed the page to REDIRECT and then I added parts for 2023. My question is "Did I violate any rules for that?" and "Is it allowed to remove the redirect after the additional information?" because someone brought back the REDIRECT with an explanation that it is almost the same as the original. The format = YES but the content it has additional details in it. Please guide me through this but if this concern is not allowed or not supposed to be here please move my inquiries to the assigned authorities. Thank you admins. Troy26Castillo ( talk) 14:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Administrators has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ls ${{ github.workspace }}
- run: echo "🍏 This job's status is ${{ job.status }}."
$ bfg --strip-blobs-bigger-than 1M --replace-text banned.txt repo.git
2A02:8109:85C0:1620:E1E5:5C5B:7625:4E0A ( talk) 23:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
A recent RfA included significant discussion about admin involvement. I thought it might be a good idea to update our description of it to reflect the discussion that happened there, if that's what we've basically agreed is the current interpretation.
I had added The concept of involvement has evolved over time to include topic areas in which the admin is a frequent content editor; caution should be used especially in contentious topic areas where the admin is a frequent content editor. at edit warring, was waiting for any response, and Firefangledfeathers asked to have a discussion here. Valereee ( talk) 20:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Does editing Trump- and Biden-related articles and talkpages make one involved re. Preston Daniels?I don't think there's much need for a policy change here: the usual advice we give admins when it comes to INVOLVED (use common sense, step back if there could be reasonable doubts about your impartiality, and bring any grey-area questions to WP:AN) should cover it. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone see a reason for having two sections, #Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") but also #Disputes or complaints? They seem to cover the same ground to me. Can we merge them? – Joe ( talk) 13:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Why is Wikipedia involved in gaslighting and reporting unfavorable and misleading information about Political Candidates in effort to mislead the public. This is more than just business as usually this is evil collision. I’m scared to trust anything on Wikipedia even again. 2603:6081:F840:A3:A184:50DA:FCC4:3D6C ( talk) 01:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
And this is not a content noticeboard either, it is a talk page for discussing the administrator user right, if you are trying to contact an admin WP:AN is the place, but it seems more like you want WP:RSN for a discussion of a subject like this. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
At Help talk:Notifications#Admin notifications Schwede66 asked essentially this question, which is not addressed by this policy. The spirit of not requiring admins to have email enabled and places like ANI requiring a talk page notification rather than a ping suggests that there is currently no expectation that admins are required to have them enabled, indeed I believe that at least one administrator ( Liz) does not and I am not aware of the community having an issue with this.
If this is correct we should consider adding something similar to the language regarding emails to this policy, maybe saying having them enabled is "suggested" or "recommended" but explicitly not required, and that even if they do have them enabled they are not required to respond to them (for the same reasons admins are not required to reply to emails). Thryduulf ( talk) 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
While best practices are for administrators to have email enabled, they are not required to enable or reply to email.[1] It does not mention notifications but does require communication and response to questions about their actions. [2] So with that I think it would be best practice to have notifications on, I know Liz can be pretty hard to get a hold of because of that, but it does not seem to be required. PackMecEng ( talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
While best practices are for administrators to have email and notifications enabled, they are not required to do so, nor are they required to read and/or respond if they are enabled. Administrators who do not have notifications enabled are strongly encouraged to note this on their user page.. I'll leave a note regarding the last clause for inclusion in the next WP:ADMINNEWS. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: Like this. Personally, I think it was a good change. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved in the discussion itself or related disputes.
Was the above language always here? Was there an RfC I missed? I didn't check. But it contradicts
WP:RFC, which says if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an involved editor may summarize the discussion
(and similar elsewhere).
I also object to the link to WP:NAC which is an essay that has repeatedly been denied promotion to a guideline.
Generally, I don't think the Admin policy should cover non-admin actions, and I don't think WP:INVOLVED applies to closing RFCs, nor do I think closing an RfC is an Admin action, and so closing RFCs should not be mention in Admin policy.
I'd support removing that paragraph. Levivich ( talk) 16:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Three responses:
I agree that the scope of this page is policy for Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia
. Since evaluating the outcome of a discussion is not usually a role dependent on having administrative privileges (*), general guidance for evaluators is more suitable for a page specifically regarding this task, such as
Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Closure procedure.
(*) Processes where the evaluator is expected to implement the result and where this may require administrative privileges are an exception. I think the best way to avoid duplication of guidance is to cover this within guidance for evaluating discussion outcomes, and point to this from the administrator policy. isaacl ( talk) 17:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I am trying to retrieve an article about John Koetsier, who is a BLPs. The article had citations from Adweek, Forbes, and MarTech, Inc. I'd like to know why the article was deleted. I spent a lot of time collecting and formatting what I believed to be an authentic representation of this journalist and his work. JoeK2033 ( talk) 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I created this page (Afarin Kids TV) some time ago, which is dedicated to a famous television channel in Iraqi Kurdistan, and I think I had put the necessary sources to keep the article and worth staying, but unfortunately someone deleted the article and put protection from recreate it.
So I ask you to remove it from the blacklist and allow me to recreate it, because I think if you make a little follow-up will prove that it is not worth to deleting and worth to recreate it. Shahrwzi ( talk) 07:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I've searched through a lot of pages to figure out where to post this, which exemplifies the basic problem. I've never found a way to contact an administrator. It's been almost as hard to find a place to raise the issue; all the other admin pages are specific. This seems to be the place to start.
There are times when the best way to handle something is to ask an administrator for advice, especially if the formal process might get someone needlessly in trouble.
There are obviously technical problems with how to set up contacting administrators because no one administrator should be burdened by the job, several admins and the question goes to all of them, and a "Contact Administrator" link is going to be abused.
The last could be simplified by narrowing those who can ask down to people with a fair amount of experience with the assumption they aren't asking something trivial. But that leads to an implementation problem: how do you tell you. I don't know how to sort who has to deal with requests for information. Even if there's a group that specializes you still have the problem of the question going to multiple people.
Obviously I've run into something specific but I've skimmed enough talk pages to know that sometimes editors feel backed into a corner and now and then could use some help. From discussing how to handle to reassurance they're doing the right thing, even a bit of wordsmithing, a handful of admins could make editors jobs much easier. Kovar ( talk) 03:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
Admin help}}
to
your talk page, which will get the attention of an administrator who watches for those requests.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
04:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
How to become an administrator? Mood segregate ( talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
caveat: Bishonen is shown as an example but this post isn't about him/her
I've had a few encounters with admins over the past 6 weeks and though the end result was managed well, I found the initial notice to be unclear. The use of vague language and casual tone make it ambiguous as to how the accused is meant to respond. This goes against the Care & Judgement guidance for admins
Tonymetz 💬 18:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
For cultural reasons we choose not to make who admins are super obvious.
If you are using the alternate account as an account that you will use to edit on public computers, please indicate so. If it is a doppelganger, no edits should be made from that accountand only added the template to your user page. As your usernames were Tonymet and Tonymetz at that time, it could cause a lot of confusion. I thought it was probably a WP:DOPPELGANGER, but you kept editing from both accounts. Now, arguably the block wasn't needed, so this is bad on my part, but it did help alleviate the confusion one may have from those usernames by unblocking after you have renamed your account to TonymetzAlt. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 00:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
For your information, there are many WP:RFA2024 RFCs that recently closed that affect administrators. You may wish to examine these in more detail at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review#Phase I. A quick summary:
Today I edited this policy page to reflect proposals 14 and 25 since those look straightforward. Will hold off on editing in the other proposals for various reasons (only approved for trial, needs a follow-up RFC to flesh out details, etc.) – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 |
Dear Administrator and Attn: @ Edwardx,
I would like to cite @ Edwardx page on Altice (company) in a brief I am filing with the Supreme Court of the United States. As a user, I have a few concerns about Wikipedia more generally, which I will discuss at a later date, but as a reliable source for academic and legal purposes, it is difficult to use because it is not considered "officially-accepted" by any industry as credible. Its lack of credibility is due to the fact that it is unclear who wrote it and the rules of citations require the author's last name and (at least) his/her first and middle initial in order for the source to be reputable. Also there is no screening process to determine and validate a user's credentials as an expert, an enthusiast, or bias party as to the subject matter.
Of primary concern, I am only focused on obtaining Edwardx's full name so that he does not miss out on the opportunity to be credited for his work in such a high-level legal filing. Because of Wikipedia's present rules, I am not (would not and cannot) demand or require Edwardx to provide his name. It is only a gentle request which I believe to be in his best interest. If he is interested in being cited or if an administrator is interested in connecting me with the proper persons to disucuss how I can help make Wikipedia a more credible online source with industry experts, please contact me at electattorneys@gmail.com.
For your information, as to the specific user Edwardx, his name will appear in the brief which will initially be filed under seal, but could become public information at a later date. ~~ ChristaJwl ( talk) 17:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Inactive administrators § Criteria, the second criterion is inconsistent with the second criterion at Wikipedia:Administrators § Procedural removal for inactive administrators. I'm guessing this is a remnant from copying and pasting, but thought I would confirm that I didn't miss something from the corresponding request for comments? isaacl ( talk) 16:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
less than 100 edits (deleted or otherwise) or log actions for 5 years
Has made fewer than 100 edits over a 60 month period
Off topic
|
---|
Hi. I would like to know how to register my writings on internet and have my copyright like wikipedia but only me and free. 170.84.135.65 ( talk) 18:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
|
Hello admins, I have concerns about the article that I have created today (October 27, 2022). Prior to the creation, there was an article of the same name (created by another author) that has been deleted last September 18, 2022, I am aware of that and since no article have been created after that I have decided to make new. Now, my concerns is that when I save the article, the note of the previous article remains and it says like this
"This article was nominated for deletion on September 18, 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy delete."
My question is, is the note have been added in the article would affect the newly created article? Thank you. Troy26Castillo ( talk) 11:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Additional, the note or the template was added by AnomieBOT, is it automated in relation to the old article that has been deleted since it has the same name? Troy26Castillo ( talk) 13:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Or just a reminder that previously there was an article of the same name that has been deleted? Troy26Castillo ( talk) 13:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Troy26Castillo ( talk) 14:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Just want to be on record stating that I think the INVOLVED standard is bad as written.
In particular, "objective decisions" and "strong feelings" and "disputes on topics" are, to my mind, coded language that privileges a false ideal of personal objectivity that doesn't exist and is generally used as a cudgel against people outside the dominant culture. (Basically, I think it's okay for people to have feelings.) I fully support the intent of the standard, and it is helpful for people to recuse themselves if there is a risk of violating Wheaton's law. -- The Cunctator ( talk) 14:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
[...] coded language that privileges a false ideal of personal objectivity that doesn't exist and is generally used as a cudgel against people outside the dominant culture." is incredibly well put — thank you. — TheresNoTime ( talk • they/them) 16:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
, to avoid the appearance of unfairness." isaacl ( talk) 16:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
, to avoid unfairness." is another possibility. I suggested "appearance" to sidestep discussions into whether or not an administrator's actions were actually unfair, and to assume in good faith that admins are able to make impersonal decisions. (I don't think a rationale for the first sentence is really needed, but made a suggestion to provide a brief aside on the visible consequences of someone making administrative decisions in disputes where they were a participant.) isaacl ( talk) 17:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Primefac ( talk) 10:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In
Wikipedia:Administrators § Restoration of adminship, should the policy regarding Over five years since administrative tools were last used...
for restoration of adminship be interpreted as:
20:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
A 2018 RFC proposed by
Beeblebrox set out to determine if any admin who has not used their tools in five years and is subsequently desysopped for total inactivity would no longer be able to simply ask for them back
, to which there was general support.
WP:ADMIN was
subsequently updated to add this language. However, it was later
inadvertently changed, with the "and is subsequently desysopped" clause removed from the statement (making it essentially "Option 2" above). Meanwhile,
WP:RESYSOP (point 6) currently states what can be interpreted as "Option 1" above (a period of five years or longer at the time of their last administrative rights removal
), leading to a discrepancy in our policies and guidelines. This RFC is being asked to bring both ADMIN and RESYSOP into sync with each other and also to determine (slash reconfirm) the community consensus on the matter.
Primefac (
talk)
21:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I feel we're pretty firmly in the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable.
which per
WP:RFCEND suggests no formal closing needed. As such updating the relevent bullet point with this RfC in a footnote feels like the next step. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
23:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Here's my proposed implementation which changes the footnote while leaving the body text unchanged:
References
Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thanks in advance RL Asaf ( talk) 08:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom gave an announcement today which updates/clarifies some previous announcements linked to in the special situations section of this policy. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Given the recent close of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Updating_BLOCKEVIDENCE combined with the announcement above, I would suggest that the special situations should be updated. Normally I'd draft something as a starting point but would guess that some editors would be uncomfortable with that owing to my being a sitting Arb who helped pass the announcement in question. But I think the consensus has changed and this policy needs updating. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
As I sat down to actually figure out how to update the "Appealable only to Arbcom" bullet point given the RfC above, it became clear that while the ArbCom statement and the RfC are clearly related to the wording here (which is all about pedophelia blocks before OS blocks and the Foundation taking over that realm of enforcement happened and without saying that) the RfC outcome doesn't actually support changing the wording here. So I think to make a change it'll require an RfC. Here is my draft of an RfC to do so:
Should the Administrator and Blocking policies be harmonized by removing the bulletpoint that begins "Blocks made with the summary "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee" " from the Administrator policy?
There is longstanding wording in the Administrator's policy that allows Admins to make blocks "appealable only to the Arbitration Committee". There is no such authorization in the Blocking policy. The language in the Admin policy originated in a 2012 Arbitration Committee statement and references the need at the time to block editors engaging in pedophilic and other oversightable activities. This statement came before the existance of Oversight Blocks and before the Wikimedia Foundation assumed responsibility for pedophilia enforcement. A 2022 review by ArbCom of the use of blocks labeled "Appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee" over the preceding 6 years revealed 11 blocks labeled like that not levied by the Arbitration Committee or by a Checkuser. Of those 11, 5 blocks were reported and 6 were not reported to the Arbitration Committee. Nearly all the blocks were for paid editing reasons. Following this audit the Arbitration Committee updated its guidance and the community subsequently affirmed that admins should not be blocking based on off-wiki evidence in an RfC.
Thoughts? Comments? Improvements? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
...administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause..., but then has a section of when that doesn't apply (but it does apply - there would still need to be 'good cause', it is really just further restricting what the good cause may be). So then we get in to blocks that are only appealable to arbcom, ok that means you need more than the normal "good cause" -- OK. So that's probably all that needs to be here, in the admin policy, about arbcom related blocks. So it seems like a bunch of this can just be trimmed and replaced with a single line that blocks designated as appealable only to arbcom can only be removed with approval of arbcom. Perhaps a note that admins that are misusing this label in placing blocks may have such labeling considerd a misuse of tools itself. — xaosflux Talk 00:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Administrators should not reverse blocks placed by the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should also not reverse blocks placed by Checkusers or Oversighters without prior consent of the Arbitration Committee if they do not hold the appropriate permission.That would dramatically reduce the section and say the same thing. I expect I'd support something like that. But it does feel like a larger change and my priority is to get rid of situations where individual admins feel authorized to make a block appealable only to ArbCom. My strong opinion - and this is backed up by the blocking policy - is that only ArbCom as a committee (in other words not even individual arbs) can do such a block. Getting rid of that is my priority here so I'm open to whether my original idea, ask to remove it or the revised idea (merge bullet points 1 and 2) is better tactically and that RfC could serve as a good discussion place to seeing whether there might be community consensus behind an even larger streamlining of the policy. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Private evidence involving undisclosed paid editing may be sent to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org.part in it.
Any resulting blocks will be labeled as paid editing or spam blocks and give the VRTS ticket number.and I take the RfC linked above as community saying they're uninterested in an alternative method. That said I feel like we're getting farther afield from this policy? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I have launched the RfC using the child protection wording suggested by Tony. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Given the vast powers of Admins, including blocking users and IP addresses and ranges from editing, and restricting others from editing or article visibility, I am concerned that holding them "accountable" is limited to situations where "Administrators...seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community..." Even in that situation, the threat of accountability is that such administrators "may be sanctioned..."
As a prosecutor in a professional licensing organization, this high standard for imposing sanctions on abusive sysops seems almost useless in light of, and in contrast,to the ease with which sysops deal out sanctions imposed editors.
Maybe the WikipediA Foundation ought revamp what is meant by "accountability," or institute actual accountability - i.e. have a systematic way of enforcing standards so that Jimmy Wales' vision is better realized:
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
Otherwise, the self-insulating and mutual protection clicks that tend to materialize in organizations and operate to push bias will continue to evolve.
IAmBecomeDeath ( talk) 02:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a rare belief that WP:INVOLVED only applies to admins using the tools, and not all editors acting as administrators, such as by closing formal discussions. Should we clarify that INVOLVED applies to all editors, perhaps by adding a note stating this? Or is this interpretation rare enough that clarification is not necessary?
Alternatively, if my interpretation and assessment of the rarity of this belief is incorrect, then should we clarify that it only applies to administrators by changing "editors" to "administrators" and "act as administrators" to "use the tools"? BilledMammal ( talk) 09:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Primefac ( talk) 09:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
hello, i'm new content writer in wikipedia, Please help guide me to write in this site. Can u help me to check this /info/en/?search=User_talk:Jodysetiawan23 ?
is any suggestion or this content contain violation ? Jodysetiawan23 ( talk) 10:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Please see Village pump (policy) regarding removal the admin user-right from blocked administrators. WormTT( talk) 14:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to ask you for help with Iron Maiden band WIKI page to be protected from frequent acts of vandalism. Some unregistered persons (so called IPers) use to delete data or write the nonsenses just for fun. There's a necessity to apply some semi - protection proper tool (Semi - Protected Silverlock) to avoid the highly uncomfortable situations like that. Thx a lot! ~~ RALFFPL ( talk) 18:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect User:Admin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 12 § User:Admin until a consensus is reached. Vitaium ( talk) 08:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The redirect User talk:Admin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 12 § User talk:Admin until a consensus is reached. Vitaium ( talk) 08:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to ask for assistance about the page I have created 2 years ago named Gelo Rivera, last year it has been redirected to the group's main page BGYO, and then as of today August 9, 2023 I have decided to removed the page to REDIRECT and then I added parts for 2023. My question is "Did I violate any rules for that?" and "Is it allowed to remove the redirect after the additional information?" because someone brought back the REDIRECT with an explanation that it is almost the same as the original. The format = YES but the content it has additional details in it. Please guide me through this but if this concern is not allowed or not supposed to be here please move my inquiries to the assigned authorities. Thank you admins. Troy26Castillo ( talk) 14:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Administrators has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
ls ${{ github.workspace }}
- run: echo "🍏 This job's status is ${{ job.status }}."
$ bfg --strip-blobs-bigger-than 1M --replace-text banned.txt repo.git
2A02:8109:85C0:1620:E1E5:5C5B:7625:4E0A ( talk) 23:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
A recent RfA included significant discussion about admin involvement. I thought it might be a good idea to update our description of it to reflect the discussion that happened there, if that's what we've basically agreed is the current interpretation.
I had added The concept of involvement has evolved over time to include topic areas in which the admin is a frequent content editor; caution should be used especially in contentious topic areas where the admin is a frequent content editor. at edit warring, was waiting for any response, and Firefangledfeathers asked to have a discussion here. Valereee ( talk) 20:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Does editing Trump- and Biden-related articles and talkpages make one involved re. Preston Daniels?I don't think there's much need for a policy change here: the usual advice we give admins when it comes to INVOLVED (use common sense, step back if there could be reasonable doubts about your impartiality, and bring any grey-area questions to WP:AN) should cover it. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone see a reason for having two sections, #Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") but also #Disputes or complaints? They seem to cover the same ground to me. Can we merge them? – Joe ( talk) 13:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Why is Wikipedia involved in gaslighting and reporting unfavorable and misleading information about Political Candidates in effort to mislead the public. This is more than just business as usually this is evil collision. I’m scared to trust anything on Wikipedia even again. 2603:6081:F840:A3:A184:50DA:FCC4:3D6C ( talk) 01:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
And this is not a content noticeboard either, it is a talk page for discussing the administrator user right, if you are trying to contact an admin WP:AN is the place, but it seems more like you want WP:RSN for a discussion of a subject like this. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
At Help talk:Notifications#Admin notifications Schwede66 asked essentially this question, which is not addressed by this policy. The spirit of not requiring admins to have email enabled and places like ANI requiring a talk page notification rather than a ping suggests that there is currently no expectation that admins are required to have them enabled, indeed I believe that at least one administrator ( Liz) does not and I am not aware of the community having an issue with this.
If this is correct we should consider adding something similar to the language regarding emails to this policy, maybe saying having them enabled is "suggested" or "recommended" but explicitly not required, and that even if they do have them enabled they are not required to respond to them (for the same reasons admins are not required to reply to emails). Thryduulf ( talk) 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
While best practices are for administrators to have email enabled, they are not required to enable or reply to email.[1] It does not mention notifications but does require communication and response to questions about their actions. [2] So with that I think it would be best practice to have notifications on, I know Liz can be pretty hard to get a hold of because of that, but it does not seem to be required. PackMecEng ( talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
While best practices are for administrators to have email and notifications enabled, they are not required to do so, nor are they required to read and/or respond if they are enabled. Administrators who do not have notifications enabled are strongly encouraged to note this on their user page.. I'll leave a note regarding the last clause for inclusion in the next WP:ADMINNEWS. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: Like this. Personally, I think it was a good change. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved in the discussion itself or related disputes.
Was the above language always here? Was there an RfC I missed? I didn't check. But it contradicts
WP:RFC, which says if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an involved editor may summarize the discussion
(and similar elsewhere).
I also object to the link to WP:NAC which is an essay that has repeatedly been denied promotion to a guideline.
Generally, I don't think the Admin policy should cover non-admin actions, and I don't think WP:INVOLVED applies to closing RFCs, nor do I think closing an RfC is an Admin action, and so closing RFCs should not be mention in Admin policy.
I'd support removing that paragraph. Levivich ( talk) 16:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Three responses:
I agree that the scope of this page is policy for Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia
. Since evaluating the outcome of a discussion is not usually a role dependent on having administrative privileges (*), general guidance for evaluators is more suitable for a page specifically regarding this task, such as
Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Closure procedure.
(*) Processes where the evaluator is expected to implement the result and where this may require administrative privileges are an exception. I think the best way to avoid duplication of guidance is to cover this within guidance for evaluating discussion outcomes, and point to this from the administrator policy. isaacl ( talk) 17:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I am trying to retrieve an article about John Koetsier, who is a BLPs. The article had citations from Adweek, Forbes, and MarTech, Inc. I'd like to know why the article was deleted. I spent a lot of time collecting and formatting what I believed to be an authentic representation of this journalist and his work. JoeK2033 ( talk) 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I created this page (Afarin Kids TV) some time ago, which is dedicated to a famous television channel in Iraqi Kurdistan, and I think I had put the necessary sources to keep the article and worth staying, but unfortunately someone deleted the article and put protection from recreate it.
So I ask you to remove it from the blacklist and allow me to recreate it, because I think if you make a little follow-up will prove that it is not worth to deleting and worth to recreate it. Shahrwzi ( talk) 07:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I've searched through a lot of pages to figure out where to post this, which exemplifies the basic problem. I've never found a way to contact an administrator. It's been almost as hard to find a place to raise the issue; all the other admin pages are specific. This seems to be the place to start.
There are times when the best way to handle something is to ask an administrator for advice, especially if the formal process might get someone needlessly in trouble.
There are obviously technical problems with how to set up contacting administrators because no one administrator should be burdened by the job, several admins and the question goes to all of them, and a "Contact Administrator" link is going to be abused.
The last could be simplified by narrowing those who can ask down to people with a fair amount of experience with the assumption they aren't asking something trivial. But that leads to an implementation problem: how do you tell you. I don't know how to sort who has to deal with requests for information. Even if there's a group that specializes you still have the problem of the question going to multiple people.
Obviously I've run into something specific but I've skimmed enough talk pages to know that sometimes editors feel backed into a corner and now and then could use some help. From discussing how to handle to reassurance they're doing the right thing, even a bit of wordsmithing, a handful of admins could make editors jobs much easier. Kovar ( talk) 03:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
Admin help}}
to
your talk page, which will get the attention of an administrator who watches for those requests.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
04:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
How to become an administrator? Mood segregate ( talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
caveat: Bishonen is shown as an example but this post isn't about him/her
I've had a few encounters with admins over the past 6 weeks and though the end result was managed well, I found the initial notice to be unclear. The use of vague language and casual tone make it ambiguous as to how the accused is meant to respond. This goes against the Care & Judgement guidance for admins
Tonymetz 💬 18:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
For cultural reasons we choose not to make who admins are super obvious.
If you are using the alternate account as an account that you will use to edit on public computers, please indicate so. If it is a doppelganger, no edits should be made from that accountand only added the template to your user page. As your usernames were Tonymet and Tonymetz at that time, it could cause a lot of confusion. I thought it was probably a WP:DOPPELGANGER, but you kept editing from both accounts. Now, arguably the block wasn't needed, so this is bad on my part, but it did help alleviate the confusion one may have from those usernames by unblocking after you have renamed your account to TonymetzAlt. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 00:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
For your information, there are many WP:RFA2024 RFCs that recently closed that affect administrators. You may wish to examine these in more detail at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review#Phase I. A quick summary:
Today I edited this policy page to reflect proposals 14 and 25 since those look straightforward. Will hold off on editing in the other proposals for various reasons (only approved for trial, needs a follow-up RFC to flesh out details, etc.) – Novem Linguae ( talk) 09:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)